Creation rescued me from drugs
I believed in the theory of evolution until I was about 30 years old. A basic acceptance of what I had been taught at school produced in me a conviction that our origins were essentially chemical, whether or not God was involved. So I came to the conclusion—quite logical from my point of view—that drug-taking might prove to be an effective avenue of personality transformation and regeneration:
For from Chemicals thou hast come;
And unto Chemicals thou shalt return.
In reply to the great questions of life—Where have I come from? Who am I? Where am I going?—I had been given this one over-arching answer, an answer quite consistent with the theory of evolution as it was then taught. Chemicals were where I had come from, chemicals were what I was made of, and it was chemical transformations over time that would determine the ultimate destiny of the race. This is what I was taught. And this is what I accepted in good faith.
For more than 10 years I was committed to the idea that drug-taking—in short, chemicals—could and would provide an answer to my quest for personal transformation. And so began a long series of chemical experiments as I set about putting into practice what I had been taught.
My teachers and other authority figures all agreed in their own way that it was chemicals in which we lived, moved, and had our being. The media in various ways reinforced this. As with the majority of our State schoolchildren today, I had been denied access to any alternative. Evolution, although labelled a ‘theory’, was presented as fact. There were no other explanations—at least none we were permitted to examine at school.
My early experiments with drugs became, over time, an all-absorbing passion, as I strove to wrest personal transformation from the chemicals I had been taught to believe in at school.
Life falling apart
Of course, things got blacker and blacker, following, if you like, the Second Law of Thermodynamics rather than a law of evolution. There was no upward progression, only disintegration and decline. Eventually I was incapable of holding down even the most menial job. In every respect my life was falling apart. But my belief in chemicals remained firm. And I kept on believing—even though the facts of my own moral disintegration were plainly before me.
I found myself feeling sorry for people such as Charles Darwin
Then one glorious day I heard a bona fide Christian explaining the biblical view, relating what was written in the Bible to the geological facts. It was as though a terrible weight lifted from my mind, as God leaped over that horizon which I thought stretched back ‘millions of years’. How liberating—to find Him working actively in the here and now, so much closer and more involved with His creation. Yet how sobering—to look back on the history of man’s terrible ability to deceive himself and to delude so many with scientific sleight of hand. It was wonderful, yet frightening, to be free!
I found myself feeling sorry for people such as Charles Darwin—building bunkers in their minds to escape the light of God and His truth. I could see also an underlying resentment in the writings of Darwin, Marx, and Freud, and in those other pedlars of doctrines growing out of this essentially Hindu faith in evolution.
I was so glad to throw away the filthy rags of my own Hinduism, and to put on the full armour of God, separating myself intellectually from those poisonous premises that had all but destroyed my life. In the clear light of creation, it made perfect sense to abandon those dark practices of drug-abuse, alcoholism, and sexual caprice. For I had not been made in the image and likeness of a brute beast, but of God.
What’s driving children to drugs?
I want to urge parents to understand that it is evolutionary thinking which plays a large part in driving your children to believe in drugs and to pursue lifestyles of randomness and chance. Whether they immediately put their underlying faith into practice or remain merely ‘nominal’ in their commitment to evolution, the seed of their self-destruction is often sown, once that soul-destroying doctrine is in place.
When sufficient pressure comes, the seed will germinate. Your children will go back to their roots—quite literally—because they understand that where the source is, there also is to be found the agency of change, the ‘life’. And if they feel badly enough about themselves or about the state of the world, as I did, they will certainly want change. In their death they will crave some new kind of life—any kind of life—even the half-life of a chemically induced illusion.
But they won’t be going to God or to Jesus Christ or to the Bible in their quest for transformation. I can assure you that all those things pale into pious irrelevancies, once the fundamental principles of evolution are locked into place.
Most governments do not permit their teachers to present even a critique of evolutionary dogma
This leaves us with a question: Who will open these intellectual prison doors? Certainly most governments do not permit their teachers to present even a critique of evolutionary dogma, much less an alternative point of view; for there is only one real alternative to evolution, and that is creation. To teach creation is, by implication, to suggest that a higher authority than government exists. And if a higher authority than government exists, then clearly the government itself must remain in principle subordinate to that higher authority.
Nor can we expect teachers on the State payroll—persons deriving both their income and ultimate authority from the State—to present Christian alternatives which presuppose both the existence and the legitimacy of an authority greater than that of the State. To do so would be to undermine their own credibility.
While the Bible appears discredited, suppressed, and in other ways denied, the pronouncements of the State and its agents become, by default, the ‘word of god’. And all must obey the word of ‘god’.
I know by direct, personal experience that the nightmare of drug-addiction is essentially a ‘mental’ problem
Yet it is precisely the consequences of obedience to that ‘god’—the consequences of taking seriously that god’s curriculum—that I have attempted to outline. We obey gods such as that to our own peril, to the peril of our children, and to the peril of our children’s children.
I appeal to you as one who has come back from the ‘dead’, as it were. I know by direct, personal experience that the nightmare of drug-addiction is essentially a ‘mental’ problem, the problem of wrong thinking. When conditions are propitious, wrong thinking will lead to wrong actions—or rather, to the application of a misguided faith.
For us to focus correctives at the point of action without correcting the thinking from which those actions are flowing is rather like putting a small bandage over a cancer. You don’t see the lump anymore, but that doesn’t mean the problem has gone. The victim is still sick and will eventually die—just as many of your children are sick and will die in that same nightmare that I experienced—unless you administer now the cure of creation.
I was raised in a militant atheistic-socialist family, but when I was at secondary school the headmaster spoke of Jesus one day at assembly. He said “Jesus was just a man, but a great moral teacher …”. I found out several years later that Jesus is the Son of God, and also a great moral teacher. But by then I had nearly destroyed myself with drugs: fortunately Jesus is also a great restorer too so I have been completely healed.
While I appreciate the article, as a public school teacher I disagree with the comment (albeit from a different country)
“Nor can we expect teachers on the State payroll—persons deriving both their income and ultimate authority from the State—to present Christian alternatives which presuppose both the existence and the legitimacy of an authority greater than that of the State. To do so would be to undermine their own credibility.”
In fact, there are many Christian teachers I work with and know personally, and I can tell you for certain that they work to teach the truth about such topics as origins. Furthermore, I can also guarantee you that I teach them personally to think for themselves, and not mindlessly “buy” what I, the textbooks, or any other teacher are “selling”. Public school is not a mindless moral vacuum because there are many Christian teachers who “stand in the gap”.
Since the curriculum in New Zealand Primary Schools must adhere to the ‘secular education’ which the Human Rights Bill prescribes, teachers in New Zealand are not free to present what are termed “religious statements of faith”. In my experience there was an unwritten rule among the staff to keep your Biblically-based belief system out of the classroom … but if you held a belief system based on evolutionary ideas that was quite OK to talk about, and it was also encouraged by educational authorities.
However, as a teacher, it is useful and permissible to talk about origins and worldviews of various ethnic groups, so if you delve into the cultural heritage of Maori and Polynesian peoples this material is classed as a legitimate part of a ‘secular education’ … Therefore I encourage teachers to use the inexpensive little book Io Origins: Ancient Knowledge of the Living God in Aotearoa, which is available through CMI’s bookshop. This book shows that the God of Creation was known by many people groups of the past, and truth about Him has been encapsulated in oral histories over hundreds of centuries. It is our job to ensure that the current generation learns of the alternative view about origins, and can make up their own minds based on the evidence.