Also Available in:

The deep inconsistency of evolutionism, revealed amid the COVID-19 crisis


Stephen Asma
Published: 5 May 2020 (GMT+10)

As of the time of writing, we are in the midst of a global viral outbreak (a pandemic) known as COVID-19 (the “coronavirus”). The majority of us are being confined to our homes in an attempt to mitigate the spread of the disease (“shelter in place”), with the goal being to save human lives, and protect the most vulnerable in our communities such as the elderly or immunocompromised people.

Commenting on this situation, the New York Times featured an article called:

Does the Pandemic Have a Purpose? Only if we give it one. The coronavirus is neither good nor bad. It wants only to reproduce.

Yes, that is a lengthy title. This is an opinion piece by Mr. Stephen Asma, a professor of philosophy. Obviously an attempt to capture an uplifting tone in the midst of this crisis, Mr. Asma’s opening line is, “Nature doesn’t care about you.”1

If nature doesn’t care, why should we bother?

From his evolutionary perspective, this is probably the most accurate thing he has to say in this article. Within an evolutionary worldview, he is being consistent because human life is not intrinsically valuable, and it has no deeper meaning. His next line is:

“That may seem harsh, but strictly speaking, nature doesn’t care about anyone or anything, except passing genes into the next generation.”

But this still doesn’t go far enough, because nature doesn’t care about anything at all! Nature is not a sentient individual that thinks. It is just an abstraction, which means this is a fallacy of reification (acting as if something abstract is something concrete). The same is also true about viruses—he has anthropomorphized them by suggesting they “want” to reproduce. But they cannot even reproduce on their own! They require hosts to do this, meaning technically they are not alive at all. Machines do not have wants and needs.

In any case, the author’s next step is to reinforce his point (that nature doesn’t care about us) by way of some examples of vicious behavior by parasites. “Why would a loving God create dangerous parasites?”, is the implied point here. Why would God allow the existence of viruses such as the coronavirus? The answer is found in the Fall and the Curse in Genesis 3. This ‘nature’ we see around us is not as it once was; it is not the same as it was when God declared it all to be “very good” in Genesis 1. In fact, when we see bad things occurring in the natural world it should remind us what went wrong, and cause us to consider how fragile our lives are.

Mr. Asma writes:

It’s obvious that our struggle with other organisms matters a great deal to us – causing real despair and tragedy. But from the more general evolutionary perspective, this drama is value neutral. Strictly speaking, it isn’t even a drama because there is no plot in nature.

Keep these statements in mind because they will become very ironic when we discover what Asma is arguing our response should be. Notice also that Asma has created a dichotomy that his own worldview cannot logically support. How can there be “real despair and tragedy” if humans are part of nature, and there really is no drama, caring or love in nature? Evolutionists cannot live consistently with their worldview. They want to have their cake and eat it, too. What would consistent evolutionism look like?

Consistent Evolutionism

Darwinism, hailed by Mr. Asma as a “great achievement”, is very clear on one central point: “survival of the fittest” (actually reproduction) is what drives evolution forward. Asma in his own words on this:

Disease and death are not bugs in the system, but features. In fact, the cold-bath truth is that natural selection works only because many more organisms are born than can survive to procreate.

So how should people who really believe that react to a global viral pandemic? Certainly not by “sheltering in place” and caring for the sick! That notion spawns from Christian morality. Rather, if he were being consistent, he should suggest that nature (evolution) should take its course. Just carry on as normal and let people be exposed. Ideally, this would cause a great deal of death among the lesser-fit—but surely that would be a good thing that would benefit the human species by making us stronger and fitter. That is, after all, how evolution supposedly works. Yet, paradoxically, that is not what Mr. Asma is suggesting we do. Instead, he suggests we make believe we are at war.

Imagining that we are at war with an enemy will help us make the difficult personal sacrifices (like social distancing and sheltering in place) that go beyond our own egoistic hedonism.

Hedonism (the pursuit of pleasure above all else) would certainly not dictate that we expose ourselves to a virus. Hedonism, in this case, would be on the side of sheltering in place to avoid the virus for our own selfish benefit. But, shouldn’t some simply have to die in the struggle with nature? Isn’t that what Asma just got finished saying a few paragraphs earlier in this same article? If Mr. Asma wants to suggest a heroic sacrifice in the face of this virus, then from an evolutionary perspective he should be saying the opposite: that we should ‘sacrifice’ by going about our lives as if there is no virus. Which is it? One cannot have it both ways and still be consistent.

How is it a benefit to the human race, evolutionarily speaking, to shelter in place? It seems that, despite all his macho rhetoric about ‘cold bath truths’, Mr. Asma really cannot face up to the consequences of his own worldview. He lauds evolutionism but then tries to ‘get it off the hook’. He pretty much admits this when he states:

Since we cannot find our species’ value objectively by looking at the neutral laws of nature, then we must just assert it. And simply affirm that the universe is more remarkable with us in it. [Emphasis added]

Asma has actually been featured by the New York Times writing on the topic of religion previously. A couple of years prior, he had an article published by the title, “What Religion Gives Us (That Science Can’t)”.2 In it, Asma’s not-so-subtle anti-religious attitude is yet again on display, but with a patronizing bent; Asma feels that, even though religion is foolish nonsense, it is still necessary for society as a kind of emotional painkiller (i.e. “the opiate of the masses”, to quote Marx):

I do not intend to try to rescue religion as reasonable. It isn’t terribly reasonable. But I do want to argue that its irrationality does not render it unacceptable, valueless or cowardly. Its irrationality may even be the source of its power … We need a more clear-eyed appreciation of the role of cultural analgesics.

In other words, Asma wants to try to take advantage of the placebo effect. He is suggesting, rather callously, that we continue to allow people (really, Asma seems to mean the unsophisticated masses) to believe in religion, just to keep them happy.

Using the pandemic to belittle Christian thought

God did not want His Creation to suffer like this, and it is not CMI’s aim to gloat during a global crisis. As Christians, we can see the obvious logical evolutionist inconsistences in the efforts being made to save human lives. But when a major newspaper that has previously displayed its antipathy to Christians abuses this pandemic to ensure the flag of evolutionism does not fly at half mast, we felt we must respond.

After talking down to religious people as having a “pre-scientific” worldview, he turns around and says that we must simply assert things to be true because we want them to be true. This is because, despite his soul-less Darwinian outlook, he is still a human being with a soul living in God’s universe. He cannot help but to see the inescapable fact that human life really is valuable for its own sake. Since his worldview provides no basis for this, he turns to existentialism—irrational leaps of blind faith. But the Christian worldview requires no such irrationalism. Perhaps this may be why he went out of his way to take a swipe at the Christian worldview early on in his article. The Bible gives us the basis for understanding how we got here (it was no accident!) and why our lives have intrinsic value, and why Jesus advocated healing the sick, feeding the hungry and clothing the poor, etc.

Genesis 1:27 states, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” Our lives have intrinsic value, greater than any animal or inanimate object, because we are a special creation of God in His own image. That is why we must try to preserve lives in the midst of this crisis. Asma claims,

Some might argue that a human victory is not what’s needed here, that the neutrality of nature free of concepts of good and evil obviates a winner or loser. That may be true, if we view it from a distance, but in the thick of it, the imperative of our genetic survival remains. It is our unique Darwinian legacy.

But surely he must know that even the most dire, worst-case predictions about COVID-19, while potentially devastating in terms of lives lost, would never suggest the total annihilation of the human race! The remaining survivors would undoubtedly be the most fit. Plus, we’d all have lower healthcare costs as a result of fewer sick (and sickly) people to take care of! And that is the essence of Darwinism. It is only with a Christian ethic of “love your neighbor as yourself” that we can respond with care and empathy in this situation. In fact, it could be argued that social distancing, wearing face masks etc. are part of this ‘loving your neighbour’ mandate, to ensure that you do not potentially spread the virus to others.

From an evolutionary perspective though, it might help the genetic makeup of our species for the weakest among us to die. But what if that were your grandmother? Or father? Or brother? This crisis is an opportunity for us Christians to show the compassion and truth found only in the Bible; this is in sharp contrast to the spiritual and intellectual bankruptcy of those like Mr. Asma who promote the Darwinian worldview—which has been reduced to irrational, illogical and inconsistent assertions in the face of cold hard facts they simply cannot live with.

References and notes

  1. Asma, S., Does the Pandemic Have a Purpose? Only if we give it one. The coronavirus is neither good nor bad. It wants only to reproduce, The New York Times, nytimes.com, 16 April 2020. Return to text.
  2. Asma, S., What Religion Gives Us (That Science Can’t), The New York Times, nytimes.com, 3 June 2018. Return to text.

Readers’ comments

Laurel P.
I think we all need to be praying for Mr Asma, that his heart would be softened and that he would read and consider the letter written to him as mentioned in an earlier comment, that our Father would draw him, that our Lord Jesus would reveal the Father to him, and that the Holy Spirit would convict him of his own sin, his need for righteousness and the truth of a future judgment.
Richard P.
To be very blunt, the views expressed by Jennifer P alarm me (we have quite a few people expressing similar views in this country too).
I'm not big on conspiracy theories myself. With any such theory you have to ask, "What is the motivation?" To take an unrelated example, did the US, did NASA, have the motivation to fake the Apollo moon landings? Very much so! Did they have the technology at that time? I doubt it. But that's not what convinces me that Americans really did walk on the surface of the moon. The absolute clincher is that the Soviets had both the technology and the motivation to refute it at the time. They would have said "we detect no radio signals coming from the moon," without a moment's hesitation. But they didn't.
So returning to COVID-19: what is the motivation for governments, all around the world, ideologically and commercially opposed to one another, to conspire and agree together to sabotage their own economies? What benefit have they to gain by doing so? It just doesn't stack up. Furthermore, there would be thousands of potential whistle-blowers in positions of authority, in government or opposition.
Jennifer seems to think that the whole illusion was concocted in Canberra: it may be beneficial to look further afield. If the death toll in Australia is indeed low, she should be grateful. The UK's is currently 31241: well beyond the best-case estimate targeted by the British government.
I'm also surprised by the picture she paints of suspicion and division in society. Yesterday I enjoyed a socially-distanced street party to mark VE Day. Everybody agreed that the lockdown was actually bringing people together, by thinking of one another and getting to know each other more than we had before. God's common grace was on display!
David G.
What I take from this article is the inability of evolution to accurately explain reality in total. Even an atheist thinker has to reach outside the rubrics of evolution to vainly assert a hollow value system based in nothing other than what in his life-world is random preference. Its as meaningful as dust on the window sill.
Paul Price
Thanks, that is exactly what the article was intended to convey. Some have wrongly taken it as a political article or an endorsement of certain governments or their actions, which it is not. Regardless of what governments do, there is a moral issue involved with whether or not we risk potentially exposing people to a deadly virus--a moral issue that evolution is not equipped to handle on a fundamental level, since evolution cannot account for true morality at all, and it regards death as a "feature, not a bug".
Jennifer P.
This mandated spacing is so unnatural and has created a coldness and suspicious interaction between people . This intense suspicion and fear of others is unhealthy as everyone is now viewed as a potential walking petri dish of germs and contagion. People now are so intimidated and fearful and anxious and wearing masks (what happened to the appreciation that we are, as the Bible teaches ,” made in the Image of God ” ) People are not going to be the same again. I predict this will scar the collective health of Australia. Unfriendliness and suspicion will rule the day. Gone is the happy go lucky larikin spirit , humor and laughter , the ” she’ll be right mate” , the indominable fighting ANZAC spirit , help and friendly words and deeds offered to the lonely and marginalized , the love of sports and outdoor activities, the enjoyment of the environment , parks , beaches and fresh air. Locked down inside has no medical science behind it .This illegal Cabal Council Coup in Canberra dreaming up this horror for the people of Australia and the sheeple don’t object and follow submissively rule by rule by our ‘ betters ‘. Elite PM , Premiers and Political hacks, media journalists, medical so called experts who don’t have an ounce of common sense let alone wisdom.

It is madness on a colossal scale! A fear driven exaggeration faux flu which has massively under delivered on death statistics. 50 older people die and we destroy our economy and future ? 247 unborn babies die per day in Australia and we care nothing for them ? We live in evil times far in excess of the ” interesting ” times !. It is a case of mass delusion and panic . It was and is and will be one of a long line of hoaxes and stupid scams that people want to believe no matter how counter intuitive and non rational.
Gary Bates
Hi Jennifer, yes this is an emotive issue. However, I think if you spoke to most of the scientists at CMI they probably would not agree with your assessment of the merits of mitigation. The lockdown is most certainly taking it's toll in many ways, no question. But even as Christians we tend to look for magic bullet answers. There are none. If you see my responses to Christine G, and Chuck R. on this article, I pointed out there is no cure, no vaccine etc. So, the potential for a massive death rate was huge. The only course open to them was mitigation. But there is gong to be a cost in some way. Think of the flu pandemic of 1917/18. There was no cure, no vaccinations then. The death toll was horrendous. So, the govts' action were to try and save lives. That's a good thing and I believe they are in line with biblical principles. If you watched our initial podcast when it first came out, we also predicted that if govts did not act, they'd be criticised for inaction when we saw a huge death rate. And if they did act and the rate was low, they'd be similarly criticised. They can't win. Whether we agree with the methods or not, I think their motives were to save lives. Not everything that the authorities do is bad or has some sinister agenda to it. When Jesus healed the sick and fed the poor and hungry, he was reversing the effects of the Curse. He didn't say, "Oh well, they are going to die anyway." The life of the unborn, for example, is not more precious than the elderly or the lame in God's eyes. He came to save sinners, which is all of us. I think of when He wept at the tomb of His friend Lazarus He was moved by what sin did to His Creation. I think rather than blame govts. for what is happening, we should remember that it is all our fault as to why viruses, cancer, tsunamis and even earthquakes have come into this world. It should a reminder to us that something is wrong, and our need for a Saviour.
John P.
As with all atheists and God haters Asma is inconsistant and as you say wants to have it both ways.I once wrote to Phil Adams in Australia and received a similar response to what Asma would likely say if we tried to correct him. Adams is a nonchristian journo in Australia. We can sow the seed and the Holy Spirit will water it if it takes root but some people choose to live without God in their lives and unfortunately they'll get what they wish for. Although off topic, it seems to me either the end of Western civilization or the end times- or both- are nigh. Yet this pandemic might yet result in Revival. We are in God's loving hands.Great article, as always. God bless you in your ministry.
Chuck R.
After submitting my comment I read your response to Christine and I quickly saw that my comment wouldn't be appreciated either, but perhaps having such an int nse desire to save lives at any cost is misguided. Considering that Jesus placed less value on His human life vs His submission to His Father's will (Matt. 26:39) plus His disciples and the many martyrs and many others who suffer to spread the Gospel. were they all wrong? Especially considering that the Gospel is like a virus in that those who 'get' it have been known to be subjected to intense displeasure and even death by governments and other people Perhaps our keeping quiet about Christ is the better option if our only concern is this current life? Maybe our great fear of death, our unwillingness to accept the inevitable needs to be weighed against the massive amount of economic problems we are causing, the long term damages that will cause much harm and death to many people is the real error, all due to our acceptance of nonChristian influences. Perhaps at times like this instead of us Christians being extremely concerned with preserving human life, we should be preaching the Gospel; telling people that this life on earth is fleeting and we all need to be prepared for what is inevitable.
Maybe this is actually a good opportunity for another harvest.
Gary Bates
Thanks for your reply. But Chuck why are you setting up false dichotomies to defend a really indefensible position? It does not have to be either or. You mention missionaries giving their lives for the sake of the Gospel. How is that an apt analogy in this case? What Gospel purpose are we serving by going out to work, or a gym or a salon to get our hair cut, and avoiding sheltering-in place? People in essential services like hospitals need to work to save lives, so I see those essential services as probably apt and even Gospel centered. And there are Gospel principles in mitigating the spread of disease. Saving lives is a biblical admonition. How many Scriptural examples would you like me to find? I could possibly even draw from a commandment which is not to take (or presumably risk) someone else's life. And recklessly not isolating, going into large groups and not wearing masks for the protection of others is putting others potentially at risk in a climate of rising infections and still poor testing capabilities. And when you cite economic problems and some sort of inevitability, once again you are simply wrong because you falsely set up an argument that we are accepting non-Christian influences when we are not. How is following a govt. order to save lives and stop the spread of disease unbiblical? People will die due to the virus, but not all have to die because we can employ actions that can save lives. Why spend millions building hospitals? Why take medicines if you are ill? They all cost money, so who decides what the monetary value of a human life is? If you continue to maintain that the short term economic pain is more important than saving lives then that is not a Christian or Gospel centered approach in my opinion. To me you are actually thinking secularly and I honestly cannot see even a single biblical application in your reasoning. For example, how do you put a value on Jesus' sacrifice you mention? Was it worth it because He potentially saved millions? Would it still have been worth his while if He did just to save you, potentially the only sinner? That is the biblical principle and application I draw as a Christ follower. I just hope that no one in your family gets seriously ill from COVID-19 and that a doctor in their overcrowded hospital is not forced to make such decisions on who has the better chance of surviving and deserves more care. We saw these poor medical staff having to make these decision in Italy, Spain and even in New York. That is, unless you thought it was all fake, in which case there is little point in discussing the principles involved anyway. Chuck, I hope I have shown what biblical principles are involved in this. It is not easy and there are no magic bullets fixes. But we must draw biblical wisdom from such situations. Even though CMI has demonstrably brought people to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, I would rather shut the doors of CMI than unnecessarily cause the death of even one of my colleagues. Not just because it is my God-given role to care for them, but God does not need CMI, you or me to complete His Will. He is God. But I do believe, based upon His sacrifice for us, that He values human life. I do hope you are big enough to reconsider that your comments may have been hasty. All the best.
Chuck R.
Another major influence evolutionary has had on our thinking is that this life is all you get and has helped increase a general great fear of death The world-over extreme reaction to this virus, the surprising easiness of getting people to forgo the economy and shelter to avoid the virus shows that many are unable to accept death and are willing to preserve life at all costs because evolution says this is it. This is all you get. Along with evolution, there are many other religions and even quasi-Christian religions that teach we must earn our way into the next life; that we must appease a god to get into its heaven. A better deeper understanding of Biblical Christianity allows us to be accepting of the inevitable "For I am hard pressed between the two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better. Nevertheless to remain in the flesh is more needful for you." Philippians 1:23-24
Gary Bates
Chuck, I know you are a regular commenter to our site, but I am going to be frank because I believe you are way off base with this remark. You are basically saying that you are willing that, even as Christians, we should take our chances and risk dying and not social distance even if it means infecting others ('do unto others?') because we have a surety of an afterlife. Actually, your inference smacks more of a 'survival of the fittest', and just take our chances, to me. With that attitude why not drive a car without seatbelts? After all, you are assured of going to heaven! Please see my earlier reply to Christine G. because you are also saying you are favouring economic pragmatism over life. Did you really mean that? So, what was Jesus' sacrifice for? Respectfully, it does not look like you have thought this through properly before commenting, and I suspect it's because you said that everyone is overreacting. That's surprising to hear from a Christ follower. This mitigation efforts are about operational science.. Why don't they shut the economy down every year for the flu? Because that virus has been around for years, there is some herd immunity, they know how to treat it and the secondary conditions from it, and we have vaccines for prevention. This is new! I repeat, it's new! It's unknown and they are still learning about it. at the very least 50 million died in the 1917/18 Spanish flu pandemic. There were no vaccines, and penicillin was not discovered until 1928 so they did not have the ability to treat the secondary conditions such as bacterial pneumonia that stemmed from the virus. 'Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it." Don't you think that govts. would have been extremely reluctant to affect the economy by ordering lockdowns? They are judged on their economic performance. But I applaud them because they believed that saving lives was the most important thing. And I agree 100% . Not money before lives, nor conspiracy theories before lives. And I mention the latter because of those who are saying that the reporting is false--that there are not as many people infected etc. This is frankly nonsense and is just based on non-provable assumptions and supposed agendas rather than data. I suppose the refrigeration containers in the back lots of New York hospitals storing the dead bodies were fake news and just made up. Moreover, there is also a massive inconsistency in what you say. The health authorities have criticised some States for opening back up. So, if govts. order lockdowns, then they overreacting, but now they are defying medical advice and opening things up. So which is it? I would appreciate you thinking about things more carefully and particularly in a bibilical manner before being so dismissive. Not everything our govts. do it wrong or agenda-ridden. Maybe they were trying to save lives. Maybe they were worried about criticism of potential deaths for inaction. But if they do act and reduce the number of deaths, then uninformed commentators say it's an overreaction. They can't win!
Michael A.
Have you offered to write an alternate view for the New York Times?
Paul Price
I have not contacted the NY Times. I consider the probability of them publishing anything by a creationist such as myself to be extremely low. I would submit this article to them for consideration as an Op-Ed, but their website states it must be exclusive to them (which obviously this would not be). Perhaps you'd like to try contacting them yourself?
Christine G.
I do appreciate your articles and thoughts concerning this virus. My life prayer for myself has been to attain Biblical wisdom and at this time of COVID-19, a level head and being able to maneuver through the facts vs. emotion. Having both elderly parents and grandchildren, I am very careful in the approach I’ve taken to this virus. I have continued to visit my grandchildren because all the adults involved are comfortable with the visiting. Our parents are out of town and I have encouraged them to get out of their house-they live alone. The hospitals are not stressed; this was the main reason we were to shelter for 15 days. 15 days turned into 30, turned into.....? I put a high value on life- pro life, anti assisted suicide, etc. Having 20+ million people claiming unemployment in such a short period speaks to our quality of life. Not worshiping inside my Church with my Christian brothers and sisters is not acceptable to me besides being unconstitutional. We are to quarantine the sick, protect the weak and allow the healthy to live their lives. This virus has been here in the US at least since December. It was making people sick, some were dying of flu, respiratory problems, pneumonia. Not until it was discovered, named and erroneously predicted that 2.2 million Americans would die did people begin to panic. Study the CDC charts carefully that are posted on their website. As Christians we know we’ll all die, we know viruses are part of this fallen world. Thank you for your time, Chris in AR
Gary Bates
Christine, your reply is a little off topic but let me attempt a response. The govts. recognize there is no cure to COVID-19 and because it is new/novel, there are no vaccines availableis still no definitive treatment or cure. The shelter-in place option was not just to prevent our hospitals being overwhelmed but to also mitigate the spread. There is no herd immunity for the same reason. And there is too much fake news out there on this subject. These are difficult decisions that the govts. have to make, and I note you said you are pro-life, like many of the Republican States and the Fed. govt. So, it's ironic that they will fight to the Supreme Court for the rights of the unborn, yet, at the same time, lifting restrictions and opening up too soon, they are seemingly content to just accept that the elderly and immunocompromised etc. will die. Which life is more important? Sure, they might stand a better chance of treatment if our hospitals are not overcrowded but this misses the point. They have all said that the don't want the economy to stall. So, yes, everyone is counting the potential cost. But what cost do you put on a human life? How do you quarantine the sick as you suggested when one can be asymptomatic for 14 days? What would Jesus think about putting money before lives? Why did He die so that we might live, and so on? I think it is completely unwarranted that people talk about their constitutional rights in this case. By asking us to not help spread the disease the govts. were actually following these biblical principles. When Jesus came and healed the sick He was reversing the effects of the curse. This is why medicines and vaccines are a good thing. There is much debate from Americans (the only country where people are bringing this up as a liberty issue BTW, and where I live). A state of emergency was declared! But regardless, I propose that even if wearing face-masks or shelter-in orders were unconstitutional, the main question is "What is the right thing to do?". And as Christians I believe we should not play a part in spreading a sickness that might kill people. This is personal responsibility. For example, wearing a face mask does not protect the wearer, but protects others in case you have a virus that you might spread. Have you watched our podcasts on this subject such as Pandemic? And it is not a corollary that this alleged unconstitutional act is going to automatically lead to something worse. Moreover, in this video we mention that if the govts. mandate mitigation and reduce the deaths, then people will say "See there was no need." Or "It was just a ploy to reduce our constitutional rights to meet." But if they did nothing they would similarly get blamed. We have no skin in the game when is comes to supporting govts. We oppose their support of evolution, for example. But we are not anti-establishment for the sake of it. Instead, we are pro-Bible and all decisions and actions need to be understood and discerned in the light of biblical principles. See why CMI rejects conpiracy theories.
Stephen S.
I always wonder whether you guys typically send your reaction pieces directly to the opponent to read. I believe in taking the fight to the front, so I hope you don't mind if I do. I just sent the following to Mr. Asma....

"Hello Mr. Asma,

Last night creation.com published a reaction to your recent NYT article, "Does the Pandemic have a Purpose?...". It is their lead article today:


It calls out your ideas as prime example of the inconsistency of the evolutionary worldview. I would be curious to know what you think of their assertions.

Btw, I take their side on all such matters. It is evolution that is irrational. A belief system that is an untenable house of cards. Natural selection has only ever been a long down-hill slope. The arrival of niche features in creatures (speciation) have their genesis in genetic information that was front loaded, with engineered features only appearing when triggered by the creatures' built-in abilities for Continuous Environmental Tracking (CET). Amazingly forward-thinking designs for the robust exploitations of niche environments as the creatures propagate around the globe. This is what modern genetics science is revealing in spades.

I propose to you that Christ is the reality. Evolution is the analgesic relieving the atheist's headache against believing the reality of the Christian God.

Best regards,

Thanks, Steve
Paul Price
Thanks, Steve! I think Mr. Asma is more likely to take note of this having come from somebody else, than if we at CMI had attempted to contact him directly. It will be interesting to see if he responds, but to be honest I believe the real "frontlines" would be your own friends, family and neighbors who do not know the Lord. Mr. Asma has likely already made up his own mind, but he is influencing countless others.
Dean D.
It was hard to read the entire article because the worldview of evolution is so depressing. No joy. Only pain and sadness without hope. Only Jesus brings peace, joy and contentment. Thank you Jesus!
Neil O.
Good article. Brief and to the point. Mr Asma wouldn't last long 'looking down' on 'ignorant' Believers, if called upon to debate the rationality of their Christian faith, with the likes of (say) Irishman, John Lennox, Professor Emeritus of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, who has spent a lifetime associating with and even formally debating Anti-Theists of acknowledged stature and intellect, such as even Mr Asma would, I believe, defer to.
Keep up "the good fight", CMI.
Terry D P.
Mr. Stephen Asma and Richard Dawkins speak truly of the “non-existent god/creator” they believe in…

«/ Richard Dawkins — 'The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is ... In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic ... no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” /»

For the “god/Prince of this world” aka Satan is indeed “pitiless and indifferent”.

«/ And if indeed our gospel be found veiled, the only people who find it so are those on the way to perdition. Their unbelieving minds are so blinded by the god of this passing age, that the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the very image of God, cannot dawn upon them and bring them light. — 2Co§4:3-4/»
John W.
There is still a dichotomy for the Christian to answer though. It is true that things are "wrong" because of the Fall. But that was + or - six thousand years ago, surely plenty of time for a good and powerful God to rectify. The Cross didn't rectify the "wrong" - humans are still suffering. The Christian answer to Darwinian pointlessness must address this "still wrong 6000yrs on" scenario if we are truly addressing the inconsistencies of atheist philosophy.
Paul Price
What you are referring to is God's promise to ultimately reverse the effects of the Curse and the Fall, and to restore all things in a new heaven and a new earth. Lita Cosner and Gary Bates wrote on this—their article may be of interest to you.
Geoff C. W.
Clever Mr Asma. I wonder how many suicides are encouraged by his writings of hopelessness.
Martyn M.
Very relevant at this time. However I would not argue that "love thy neighbour" is purely a Christian belief. As CS Lewis argues it is a universal innate belief given to us by God.
Gary Bates
Hi Martyn, I think you've made our point. In other words, exactly! The term 'Love they neighbour' comes from Scripture, was taught by Jesus. So the term is most certainly Christian. And we would agree that it is innate in humans but you can only say that because you, and CS Lewis, believe that humans are made in God's image. But the context of the article was demonstrating the logical inconsistencies of evolutionism applied to humans, which says we are evolved animals. In their scenario, human life has no meaning or purpose except what someone chooses, so why try to save people from COVID-19?

Paul Price responds:

I may be a little rusty on my Abolition of Man, but didn't Lewis say that the Tao (the universal moral code) is more in line with the Confucian version, "Do not do to others what you would not want others to do to you"?

I do think the Christian mandate to "do to others" goes a bit further than the innate moral code might dictate. That's why Christianity has had a positive impact on all the cultures it has come to influence; it does offer a morality above and beyond anything else the pagan world has to offer.
Ricardo M.
Atheists will never understand due to the folly and idiocy of their unbelief that we live in a fallen order because of sin and in it death and suffering have their own logic, sinful man could never live in a perfect environment and God would never allow it either so He drove the first couple out of the garden of Eden forbidding them to eat from the fruit of the tree of life and to live forever. The present world would be worse than hell hadn´t God passed a death sentence on Adam and Eve so we can say that He acted in grace in spite of all the havoc that disease, wars, disasters and crime work on earth.

Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.