Friends,
I have been having a nice conversation with a friend named Jon. Jon is an atheist/evolutionist. From what I gather, he is proud of such designations. Jon and I have been going back and forth with one another because I disagree strongly with his analysis of the so-called ‘evidence’ for evolution; and he disagrees strongly with my belief in Genesis 1.
Recently, Jon wrote to me:
By the way, evolution doesn’t give me purpose. I just want to know how the universe works. It’s a selfish desire, nothing more.”
Well, his statement got me thinking even more about what Darwinism does and does not have to offer to the world. I’d like to make a couple of observations about Darwinism and the effects it has had on this world we live in today. These observations are in no way exhaustive, but they are a start. Jon believes that if I would just read ‘peer reviewed’ research papers I would suddenly swoon under the convincing, preponderance of evidence regarding evolution. He believes that I will repent before Darwin and confess my ignorance, confirm his atheism, and announce my own. I have told Jon that ‘peer reviewed research’ means: papers written by evolutionists, reviewed by evolutionists, and eventually approved by evolutionists who have a stake in the outcome. He has not indicated how often these papers are reviewed by people who do not accept the premise of Darwinian evolution. (Jon has also said that he would provide me with ‘dozens of links’ to such papers.) So, my observations.
What has Darwinism done for the world? How has it helped us? First, I need to dismiss the notion that Darwinism (a particular form of evolution) is a synonym for science. Darwinism may be a particular branch of scientific inquiry, but it is not science in particular. In fact, Darwinism, it can be argued and has been argued, is just as much a religion for some scientists as Christianity is for some theologians. I think this needs to be firmly understood because sometimes the two words, ‘Darwinism’ and ‘science’ are used interchangeably and that causes a great deal of confusion among people who then start thinking that anytime a scientists starts speaking, he is automatically giving credence to evolution or Darwinism. It also causes problems because those of us who benefit from other sciences (say, the science of the use of polymers or computer chips or medicine) are hypocrites because we benefit from, use, and appreciate plastic bowls and computers and tetanus shots while rejecting Darwinism: a philosophical, theological, and intellectual ball of nonsense and meaninglessness.
So, it needs to be clearly understood from the outset that I am not opposed to science. My other friend Dan has accused me of this, but it is just not true. I am opposed to philosophical Darwinism as an explanation of natural history. I am opposed to Darwinism as an explanation of origins. (Although, it seems to me that Darwinism doesn’t really explain origins as much as variation among species–and even that is not well done.) Science is wonder and if the world wasn’t ordered the way it is Science would be impossible to do. I am opposed to Darwinism as an ‘alternative’ to creation. (Just because atheists believe it does not mean it is true or even proven.) Finally, I am opposed to evolution as an adequate explanation of variation among species. I categorically reject the idea of ‘descent with modification from a common ancestor,’ because ultimately, such an explanation of is a categorical rejection of the Word of God.
Those things need to be said so that there is no mistaking where I am coming from, but permit me one last thought. I am not, then, one who necessarily even accepts what is currently being espoused as a theological alternative to Darwinism, viz., Intelligent Design. In my estimation, ID is entirely too accomadating of the premises of evolution even though it rejects the philosophical aspects of Darwinism. I’m sure, as far as it goes, ID is intellectually stiumulating for some folks and satisfying. As a science, it is another alternative to Darwinism. In my estimation, it is not a profoundly satisfying theological concept. In other words, it is not, necessarily, a Christian doctrine of Creation. I’ve read some of it, and I find it not too stimulating because, frankly, it is a bit complicated at times (that’s not to say that I don’t understand it). I appreciate that they are trying to make sense of things, but I’m not entirely persuaded that it is a necessarily Christian, which Scripture is. I believe in Genesis 1: Creation by God, through Jesus Christ. We might read about this in Colossians 1:
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. (Colossians 1:15-20, NIV)
This passage of Scripture, which is not Genesis 1, expresses my understanding of how we came to be here and why and to what end. The beginning and end of Creation is Jesus Christ. It exists by Him, and for Him. Jesus Christ is the goal of Creation. Apart from His Word, the Creation would fall to pieces. If this understanding of life is undone, then the purpose of the universe is undone. But I submit to you that God’s will is not undone, His purpose stands, and no matter how many people believe in the lie of evolution, God’s purpose in Christ will continue to stand. This is what Jon, and my other atheist friends, simply do not understand.
Thus, John is right: Evolution gives him no purpose. It gives no one purpose. It satisfies none of the inquisitiveness we have about life, why we are here, and to what end. In short, it leaves us with an emptiness that cannot be satisfied by mere intellectual inquiry. In other words, Darwinism leaves us empty, unsatisfied, and trekking towards the grave with no prospect of a future.
I will post a second post later explaining another aspect of what Darwinism has not been able to offer the world.
Soli Deo Gloria!
jerry
Life Under the Blue Sky: The View From Below 
“I have told Jon that ‘peer reviewed research’ means: papers written by evolutionists, reviewed by evolutionists, and eventually approved by evolutionists who have a stake in the outcome.”
You don’t understand peer review. It’s not a matter of evil biased scientists controlling what’s published.
It’s a matter of humans (with all their human failings) assessing the suitablity of a paper for publication based on their assessment of the evidence presented, the authors consideration of published material and their reasoning used in the paper. Papers are not refused publication because a reviewer disagrees with conclusions. There are many examples of published paper which go against the prevailing scientific ideas – providing their is evidence and reasoning there should be no reason too refuse – use of multiple reviewers and editors help prevent refusal.
There are examples of peer reviewed and published papers written by ID proponents. They were accepted because they presented and discussed real evidence. (The authors may subsequently argue the evidence supports ID but inevitably that is opinion not supported by the evidence).
The problem with ID is that there has never been a testable hypothesis advanced, let alone empirical evidence to discuss. So how could a reputable journal publish what is only a fancy or opinion of the author. Just imagine how journals would contain all sorts of racist, sexist, unscientific rubbish if they enabled publication of scientists’ personal opinions sans evidence.
No you are proposing a conspiracy theory to explain away the lack of evidence for ID>
Friends,
Jeff has made a thoughtful post concerning the things I have said in my initial post. He has a light heart and a sense of humor. You might pay him a visit and see my reponse. I appreciated the things he said, and the way he said them, even if I didn’t agree with much of it.
jerry
Ken,
No, I’m not ‘proposing a conspiracy’ for ID. I already stated that ID is not the same as a belief in Genesis 1. I’m not arguing for or against ID. I’m arguing for the historicity of Genesis 1 on it’s own, without having to jump through hoops to get there. I believe Genesis 1 stands on its own without help.
Thanks for clearing up what is meant by ‘peer reviewed’ because I wrongly assumed that all atheists and evolutionists were in cahoots, trying to ‘control’ information and thought by controlling what the public does and does not know about the proven hypothesis of evolution and specifically Darwinian evolution. Seriously, thanks for clearing that up for me. Now I can rest a little easier since I know there is no conspiracy.
jerry
Ken,
PS–do you disagree then that ‘peer reviewed’ papers based on Darwinism, ‘proving’ Darwinism, and concluding with Darwinism are always read by people who share the underlying premise of Darwinism? Or, are these Darwinist papers ever peer reviewed by people who are not Darwinists, and who don’t agree with the premise of the conclusions? I’m just curious.
jerry