Chapter Eleven (continued)

In his next sermon, Earl brought up the topic of evolution, building upon the foundation he laid the previous week of countering the common mistrust of Biblical truth. “Darwin’s theory of evolution,” he told his audience, “has, perhaps, done more to cause an alienation of people from their God than any other notion of man. In the first place, it mocks the creation story in Genesis, supporting the attitude that the Bible represents something less than absolute truth. Secondly, it turns God from an intimacy of love that knows every hair on our heads into a remote and alien Diety who is indifferent to the daily affairs of mankind. That, too, mocks the Biblical message of God’s passion toward us. The figures of the Bible have little purpose in that context. Instead of portraying Jesus as was intended, they represent nothing more than a collection of stories. Evolution is a huge can of worms,” he said with feeling. “Secular science has so muddled the issue that it’ll take me at least two or three sermons – perhaps they should be called lectures on real science instead – to get the point across that evolution is totally false, itself actually no more than a myth.” He paused.

“No! Wait!” he gestured theatrically. “Evolution isn’t false at all! It actually works! To explain what I mean by that, I need to qualify the notion of evolution, separating it into two distinct branches. There’s micro-evolution, and then there’s macro-evolution. Micro refers to tiny changes, while macro refers to large changes, of the kind that can create new species, or even life from non-life. At the level of tiny, one can even say trivial, modifications, evolution actually works. Such microevolutionary changes are of the kind that permitted moths in England to change to a darker color during the smoke-filled years of the coal-fueled industrial revolution, and back to a lighter color when the air became cleaner again.   Such also has been shown to work, for example, in the constant battle between the malaria parasite and the human body’s response to it. Some Africans have the ability to resist malaria, but they gained that resistance at enormous cost, which is the propensity for acquiring the debilitating and deadly sickle-cell anemia. The modification of the blood cell into a sickle shape was tiny, involving just one, or at most two, chance changes at the molecular level. But while it worked against malaria, it generally degraded the body into something inferior than it was. Research has demonstrated time and again that micro-evolutionary modifications always result in a net loss of information regarding the body, and always end up deteriorating the systems of which the body is composed.” He paused again. So far, his audience remained interested.

“At the macro level, evolution doesn’t work. Nor can it. To understand why it can’t you’re going to need some background in molecular biology. Don’t get too worried about that. I’ll try to keep it as simple and painless as possible. And I promise not to give you a test at the end. But you will have to pay close attention. From now on, what I say about evolution refers to macro-evolution.

“As you yourselves know, most of us were thoroughly exposed in school to Darwinism as a valid theory, even a fact. And we have attempted to embrace it in parallel with our Christian beliefs. Despite its basic nature as antithetical to Christianity, our Christian leaders have remained apathetically on the sidelines as our children have been indoctrinated into the system of beliefs associated with evolution, offering little in the way of guidance toward an understanding of its moral pitfalls and essential Godlessness.

“Perhaps the source of this failure of our leaders to act in behalf of our youth is their own lack of understanding of evolution and how thoroughly modern science has undercut its presumptions. I intend to help correct that deficit right now. What you need to grasp immediately about evolution is its moral bankruptcy, which thoughtful and committed Christians have understood for years, and its intellectual bankruptcy, which modern science is now in the process of exposing. It turns out that evolution, as most of us understand it, is false. If this fact didn’t have moral implications as well, evolution still would be bad, because it’s basically nothing but an ill-conceived myth. As such, it represents a monumental waste of time and energy that could have been spent in far more useful pursuits. Some quasi-official publications, including articles in National Geographic Magazine, school textbooks, governmental placards located in National Parks and other popular tourist attractions, do indeed present evolution as fact. They do so in violation of that scientific standard. The Theory of Evolution, my friends, is precisely what this title suggests: evolution is a theory. It is not a natural law like gravity, but merely a proposition. It is merely a proposition because it is unproven and unverified in accordance with the standard that science itself has erected for differentiating a law from a mere theory. Every so-called ‘proof’ of evolution to date, including the numerous ‘missing links’, subsequently has been exposed either as an intentional fraud or a misapplication of scientific tools or knowledge.

“In 2 Thessalonians 2, Paul talks about the mystery of iniquity. In verses 8 through 12, he describes a grave indifference in the time just prior to Christ’s second coming to the truth represented by the Word of God. Paul then indicates that because of this indifference, God will allow those who are infected with this attitude to be deluded even more:

“And then shall that wicked one be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming. Even him whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish, because they received not the love of the truth, that they may be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie, that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”

We have been describing the theory of evolution as a falsehood that is generally accepted as truth in today’s sophisticated, technology-embracing world, one that is glaringly overt in nature. As I get out of Scripture, God has something to say about it too. God tells us in First Timothy Chapter 6:20 and 21 that such a condition will prevail in the last days. Moreover, the falsehood will be distinctly scientific in character, and it will even be accepted among some ill-informed Christians:

“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called. Which some, professing, have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.”

“Next week I’ll go into the theory of uniformity, a companion notion to evolution that’s just as false as its brother. Then I’ll offer some details of evolution’s intellectual barrenness that I’m hoping you’ll find interesting.”

“Well, that didn’t go over too well,” Earl said to Joyce as they walked back to Jimmy’s motor home.   Did you see the people who walked out as I was speaking?”

“There weren’t all that many who did,” Joyce replied. “Most everybody stayed put, and from the looks on their faces, they were very interested in what you had to say. You’re always going to have people who’ll disagree with you. I don’t have to tell you that. Look at Judas. God Himself spoke to him, and he still didn’t get it.”

“Then you don’t think I should change the subject?”

“Don’t you dare! They need to hear the truth about evolution to bolster their faith. That theory did as much to weaken faith in God than anything else Satan has come up with.”

“Okay. I hear you.” In fact, Earl didn’t have to wait a week to speak about it. That Sunday afternoon a contingent out of the congregation knocked on Jimmy’s door and asked him to turn his sermons into lectures, more like a Bible study, so they wouldn’t have to wait a week for each lecture. Earl compromised with them, agreeing to speak on Wednesdays as well as Sundays. “But,” he told them, “we still need Church on Sunday. It’s important that we not only hear the Word of God, but worship Him in prayer and song as well.”

As he had promised, Earl held Bible study that Wednesday evening. He had expected to see a portion of the Church attendees there, but was surprised that what looked to be the entire congregation had showed up, with the exception of those who had walked out on last Sunday’s service.

“Tonight we’ll go into the theory of uniformity, as I’d mentioned last Sunday. Evolution demands the theory of uniformity, because even its supporters know that evolution is an inherently weak process. The probabilities involved are so tiny that the operation of chance needs a big boost in the form of huge amounts of time – time of such enormous quantities as to obscure the gigantic odds against its workability to make it believable at all. So here’s the deal: science came up with the notion that every geological feature we observe today came about exclusively through processes that can be observed today, such as the action of water, wind, ice and rain working like tiny chisels to scrape away entire mountains and to build up others. Oh, there might be the occasional earthquake or volcano to speed up the process of change in certain places, but, to paraphrase Carl Sagan, that’s all there was or is or ever will be. So, without the slightest justification, science enshrined this notion as a rigid principle and applied it to evolution to answer the numerous initial critics of that theory.  Demanding its validity is equivalent to demanding that the earth be flat, or that something is true merely because we wish it to be so. It wasn’t until science finally accepted a catastrophic collision of an asteroid with the earth as the probable cause of the extinction of the dinosaurs that such infrequent but huge events were even possible. And even then they insisted upon a uniformity-based dating of that event. Worst of all, they were very reluctant to enlighten the public about it. They made no effort to convey this radical change in position to the schools or to the public at large, nor did they consider the implications of this change on evolutionary theory.

“Peter sheds further light on the nature of this falsehood. According to Second Peter 3:3 and 4, the lie will involve a deep sense of unpunctuated continuity of the earth and the life within it, such as is embodied in the principle of uniformity, the notion of the great age of the earth, wherein all geological changes are of extremely modest proportions that produce measurable results only over vast intervals of time:

“Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.”

“As I have said before but want to emphasize again, the principle of uniformity as attributed here by Peter to scoffers represents such a necessity to the viability of Darwin’s theory of evolution that uniformity and evolution may be considered to be two halves of a common philosophy.

“Scientists compounded their error by applying evolution and uniformity together to come up with what they call the ‘Standard Geologic Column’, which is an interpretation of the many different layers of soil, or strata, that make up the surface of the earth. In comparing the characteristics of different strata exposed in ravines and canyons throughout our planet, they assembled what they consider to be a theoretical template of all the layers accumulated from the beginning of the earth to now. They apply dates to the various layers based on the complexity of the fossils that they find within them. This amounts to guesswork and a basic presupposition that both evolution and uniformity are proven fact, which, of course, they aren’t. Then they apply the result of this effort to the assignment of dates to arbitrary fossil specimens. A neophyte of logic can see the circular reasoning in this process, but so-called scientific ‘experts’ are too myopic to do the same.

“Now, let’s for a moment suppose that these various layers were established by huge tsunamis, driven by some catastrophic collision upon earth of some wayward heavenly body, such as might have happened to cause Noah’s Great Flood. The raging water and enormous winds, along with super-volcanic action, would have ripped up soil, vegetation and animal life and re-deposited it, maybe time after time, in a variety of patterns. In the midst of that turmoil, the first lifeforms to be re-deposited would have been the most streamlined, thereby sinking the most rapidly. They wouldn’t necessarily be the oldest at all, or the least advanced. Such a scenario actually is far more likely than the uniformitarian one. And do you see how it throws a monkey-wrench into the application of evolutionary theory?

“With this little digression into uniformity, we’ll return next Sunday to the topic of evolution. See you then, and thanks for your interest.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: