Here I wish to conclude this series of Creation versus Evolution, which incidentally was the result of a comment posted for the first of the series of blogs, Our Eternal Home, published February 5th, 2012. In that article, I made a suggestion that the age of the Dinosaurs shared the same time frame as Adam's early descendants. This opinion brought a comment from a scientist who firmly believed in Evolution, making total nonsense of my ideas.
What have been the overall result in believing this theory? Here I wish to highlight the consequences in believing Darwin's survival of the fittest, and to show, if I can, that Darwinism had not brought in the Utopian society wished for by the likes of Richard Dawkins, who believe that religion had always been detrimental to society.
And sure enough. Dawkins does have a point. Religion has been the cause of the rivers of blood which had flowed throughout history, and it is still flowing now, particularly in the Middle East. And the Bible itself records a history of religious oppression. The stoning of Stephen recorded in Acts chapter 7 is one good example.
But Darwinism is not just about Natural Selection. The theory embraces the idea that we, mankind, are constantly working upward in achieving a higher status, with the end means of becoming gods. Therefore we can conclude that the true teaching of Evolution is that of a very slow progress from a single, amoeba-like cell floating in the primeval ocean right up to what we are today, then into the future as divine beings. Maybe one day, as in the motion picture, 2001 A Space Odyssey, we might evolve out of our bodies to exist as pure energy, with an omnipresent feel and with technology impossible to fathom at present!
However, there are some very serious problems with the evolutionary theory. First of all, there is not enough time in the entire age of the Universe for the cell to have evolved, as we have seen in the last two blogs. A single cell is a vastly complex unit. The sheer impossibility for it to evolve has even led to a fascinating idea of panspermia. This simply mean that living cells from space had hitched a ride on a meteorite and splashed into our primeval oceans from where Darwinian Evolution began to get underway. Of course many evolutionists have dismissed all this as pseudoscience, yet such a theory has not been written off as nonsense.
Most academics, like the one who commented earlier, ridicule the idea of a talking snake. Nobody had ever seen a snake talk, for that matter, any animal. Sure enough, parrots may talk, but only repeating what they had been taught without understanding what those sounds mean. But there is absolutely no record within zoology of any beast talking and knowing what these sounds mean. Little wonder the Bible is looked upon as a book of fantasy stories. After all, Grimm's Fairy Tales are full of talking animals, but every reader knows what they are - fiction. But if we, as Christians, take the Bible as the inerrant Word of God and therefore all the events written therein as historical, then the narrative of a talking snake must be also historical. Hence, Christians who accept the Bible as historical are now held as ridicule by not only the academics but by society in general.
The truth is that the snake is still talking to this day - and we are listening! Let us go the the narration and read what it says:
Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God has made. And he said to the woman, Yea, hath God said, you shall not eat of every tree in the garden?
And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden:
But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God had said, Ye shall not eat of it, nor touch it, lest ye die.
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
For God doeth know that in the day that ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Genesis 3:1-5 (AV).
After being warned by God not to eat of the fruit of a certain tree, the snake then asks Eve if it was true that God warned her about the fruit of this particular tree. Eve's answer is quite interesting. She admitted that this was true, but she also added the words, "neither shall ye touch it" in her response. God did not say that, it was added by Eve herself with the belief that there was something in the fruit itself. Then the serpent, or snake, denied the truth of what God has originally told them and accused the Almighty of being a jealous sycophant who wasn't keen to see the couple rise in status. This accusation is often known as the Edenic Lie.
Ye shall be as gods! And this has been the fierce battle between God and the snake within every human heart ever since. The lust for power, fame, prestige, riches and mastery over others, are all what are offered by the snake to this day. And on towards godhood. And we are listening. And furthermore, we by nature have put out our hands to grab what he offers.
Darwinism is one of the snake's lies on how we got here. It is a slow progress from a cell to becoming gods ourselves, and we are supposed to be getting there. There is a strong similarity between western thinking on organic evolution and eastern religions. In the Far East, Karma is taught, both in Hindu and in Buddhism. The two differ only in that in Buddhism, bad Karma is restricted to a human reincarnation of a person to a lower status in life. In Hinduism, bad Karma means being reincarnated as an animal. In both cases, good Karma is coming back as someone with a greater social status, in a long chain of reincarnations when someone eventually becomes a god. The sheer impossibility is that any sins committed in this life would lead to bad Karma in the next. Reaching godhood is impossible.
Darwinism involve Natural Selection, with weaker species becoming extinct to allow for the stronger to survive. Let us give an example. Let's imagine two groups of mice, intermingling with each other. One group consist of mice with dark fur, the other with white fur. They are prey to carnivorous birds such as the eagle or the owl. If the environment is dark and shady, it will most likely result in the birds spotting the light coloured mice more easily, with the result of the lighter group becoming extinct, while the darker group continuing to survive and multiply. It's the other way round if the two groups are in a bright environment, where the darker mice would then be easily spotted by the predators, allowing the white mice a greater chance to survive and multiply. This, as Darwin himself called this analogy Natural Selection, and this does not necessarily mean that the two groups of mice fought against each other in vying for space at the given environment. But a 19th Century philosopher, Herbert Spencer, who studied Darwin's work, in 1864 coined the phrase Survival of the Fittest which indicated that the two groups of mice fought each other for the space, pushing out the weaker group to full exposure to the predators.
It was Spencer's "Survival of the Fittest" which made evolution enter a new dimension: Social Darwinism. This was a development, using organic evolution to justify social behavior, mainly racism, slavery, social class and imperialism. Imperialism had always been a feature in ancient history. Empires such as the Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek and Roman - all mentioned in the Bible and all six having had dominance over Israel. But it was Social Darwinism which provided justification for more recent imperialism.
While this blog is written, Jeremy Paxman is presenting a documentary series about the British Empire on the BBC. Unlike former presenters on this subject, Paxman gives a more realistic view of British imperialists invading other countries, particularly India, and subjugated the indigenous population to servitude, lower social class and racism, along with the expectation to be looked on as god-like by the indigenous and treated as lords. All of these were based on the notion that the British were a superior race due to the result of a greater advance in Organic Evolution which inevitably led to the imperial philosophy of Social Darwinism.
Racism at football grounds was most certainly the result of Social Darwinism, the insult of racist fans, for example, throwing a banana on to the pitch in the direction of a black player with a reminder that such a person, despite his excellent footballing skills, was still closer to the Primate than the white offender at the stands - was of Darwinian origin, although I have wondered whether the offender was bright enough to realise this. Nowadays, such racism is a criminal offence here in the UK, and quite rightly so.
But the worst case of racism and national superiority were the German Nazis over the Jews. During the Second World War, up to six million Jews were needlessly slaughtered under the Nazi leader, Adolf Hitler. The sole reason is definitely Darwinian in nature. When I visited the Yad Vashem and Holocaust Museum in Israel back in 1993, I came across this introductory poster at the start of the visit:
The singular tragedy of the Holocaust, in which some six million Jews were ruthlessly annihilated by Nazi Germany and its collaborators, is a pivotal chapter in human history....Guided by racial principles, Nazi ideology ordained that the Germans belonged to a superior race that was destined to rule the world. The Nazi vision of a new racial order called for the overthrow of democracy and humanism. Rooted in traditional and political Jew hatred, Nazi racial antisemitism defined the Jew as Germany's foremost enemy....In the Holocaust, man's most cherished beliefs about himself and the nature of civilisation were violently defiled. The events of the Holocaust are compelling and confronting them, every thinking person feels the weight of their imprint.
Here we have the result of Darwinism - the slaughter of millions of Jews due to national and racial superiority. This is not done so much out of Darwin's Natural Selection as Spencer's "Survival of the Fittest" and its immediate consequence - Social Darwinism.
The next image I have posted to give the real, shocking truths of Darwinism. It shows indeed that the snake is still talking and on this occasion has found a very keen ear in the head of the Nazis.
But what about today? Recently I have come across an article in the Daily Mail newspaper, the timing of such writing could not have been better. It was written by columnist Sonia Poulton, and was published 6th March, 2012. On the subject of the Welfare Reform Bill, she wrote that our present Government is into "Brutal Acts of Savagery". The article features on how the most vulnerable in society - the disabled or sick person will, under the reform, be made to work unpaid in factories and private businesses if they want to keep on receiving State benefit. These include patients with Alzheimer's Disease and Multiple Sclerosis. Meanwhile, company bosses and business executives can save by employing such people and make a greater profit, while the bureaucrats of the Department of Work and Pensions - who decides on who receive benefits - can carry on with their travels, hotel expenses and stationery paid for by the State. The result of all this for the disabled is cold, naked fear - of being rejected and excluded from society and the feeling of being unwanted. The knock-on result will include being beaten up on the streets, the perpetrators goaded with the idea that their taxes are being used for benefit fraud - despite the percentage of frauds given by the DWP is only 0.5%. In the past year, according to Poulton, street attacks on the disabled had risen by 42%.
Suicide among the disabled is rising due to the Reform Bill, the last count being 103, and evidence seem to indicate that it is nearing 150. Again, Poulton suggest that these suicides brings relief to the cost of the National Health Service. There seem to be a shocking similarity here, with the fate of the disabled as with the holocaust, where many Jews were put into unpaid labour, except without the gas chambers.
Then there is Dr. Francesca Minerva, a philosopher from Oxford University, also mentioned in Poulton's article. She recently suggested that babies born with disabilities such as Downs Syndrome should be killed. She then says that such children are not human and for them to live would be a burden on the national expense. Shades of Adolf Hitler! The snake is still talking and we are listening.
Here in the UK, where there is a strong social class ethic, academics are given a far wider respect than a commoner or unlearned person. Education is the catch-all in a person's worth, along with wealth. It looks to me that not only is the snake talking, but his seductively alluring many to deception under the false notion of high education, wealth and social status. I once attended a church where most, if not all of the graduates of my age believed in Darwinism. Despite their best intentions to hide their thoughts and feelings, and their attempts in forming friendships with me, I was able to detect an underlying current belief within them of my academic and therefore social inferiority.
It was 1973. The thunder rolled outside. I was alone in the house, as the rest of the family had gone out for the evening. As a devout believer in Evolution, I turned to the beginning of the Bible and began to read Genesis, starting with the very first verse: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
I was converted. There and then I turned from Evolution to Creationism in one turn of 180 degrees. God has spoken to me. I was convicted and believed.
God has saved me from my academic insanity!