The Unstoppable evolutionary juggernaut?
Its arguments amount to naught1
Published: 7 November 2017 (GMT+10)
There are various dictionary definitions for ‘juggernaut’ but they include: ‘A huge, powerful, and overwhelming force’2; ‘anything requiring blind devotion’.3 We might also think of a large, out-of-control lorry or truck leaving destruction in its wake. All of these seem appropriate ways of describing the way in which evolution and deep time beliefs are impacting the thinking and decision-making of many people today. Is that an irresponsible claim, a wild exaggeration? Not at all. CMI writers have spilt much ink in spelling this out over the years. To name just a few examples, we have highlighted evolution’s link with social evil,4 the assault on marriage and the family, the violation of the sanctity of human life and increasing crime,5 as well as genocides6 and wars.7
In spite of this, our education system (from primary school to university), popular science programmes, wildlife documentaries, news bulletins, social media outlets—all exhibit a mind-set that disregards the Bible’s claims about origins, not to mention the scientific evidence in its favour. All display a fawning adoration for the power of ‘science’ to explain our origins, deal with our problems and even provide meaning to our existence! In this Internet age, everyone can publish his/her opinion. And every ‘fresh’ opinion that toes the secular elite’s party line has the potential to spread like wild-fire. The speed at which the body of information online is added to—the ‘content shock’—is quite astonishing. In 2016, every 60 seconds, there were 400 hours of video uploaded to YouTube, 3.3 million posts on Facebook, 44.4 million WhatsApp messages and around 206 million e-mails sent!8 When the vast majority of these people defend, or at least accept, the secular world-view, it might seem that the juggernaut is unstoppable.
The cult of ‘science’
Thankfully, there are occasional voices of reason to be heard above the clamour. In May 2016, the influential American ‘journal of religion and public life’, First Things, carried an article appropriately entitled ‘Scientific Regress’.9 Referring to what the author called the ‘Cult of Science’, he wrote,
“The Cult is related to the phenomenon described as ‘scientism’; both have a tendency to treat the body of scientific knowledge as a holy book or an a-religious revelation that offers simple and decisive resolutions to deep questions. … Some of the Cult’s leaders like to play dress-up as scientists—Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson are two particularly prominent examples—but hardly any of them have contributed any research results of note. Rather, Cult leadership trends heavily in the direction of educators, popularizers, and journalists.”
Quite so! In fact, famous though these science popularisers are (especially in the United States) the two men referred to above do not qualify as empirical scientists in their assertions about origins, being neither impartial nor unprejudiced. Rather, their humanist colours are clear for all to see. Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson had this to say recently (emphasis added):
“Some claim that evolution is just a theory, as if it were merely an opinion. The theory of evolution—like the theory of gravity—is a scientific fact. Evolution really happened. Accepting our kinship with all life on Earth is not only solid science. In my view, it’s also a soaring spiritual experience.”10
As for pop science educator Bill Nye (nicknamed ‘the Science Guy’), make what you will of the following statement:
“I’m insignificant. … I am just another speck of sand. And the earth really in the cosmic scheme of things is another speck. And the sun an unremarkable star. … And the galaxy is a speck. I’m a speck on a speck orbiting a speck among other specks among still other specks in the middle of specklessness. I suck.”11
One really does wonder why someone with that view would bother getting out of bed in the morning! When men like Nye and Tyson are so feted by the ‘establishment’, their description by the First Things writer as ‘Cult leaders’ seems quite justified.
How to respond
Of course, simply to talk about the might of the secular machine and shrug our shoulders achieves nothing. Yet, in the face of such overwhelming odds, what can believers in biblical creation do? What can we possibly hope to achieve? Firstly, as Christians, we must acknowledge that “the battle is the Lord’s” (1 Samuel 17:47)—that was the attitude of David (although merely “a youth”, v. 33) in facing the Philistine giant Goliath. It must be our attitude too. Prayer and reliance upon God is vital. Secondly, we must continue to take every opportunity to engage with people in the places where we find ourselves; together we really can make a difference. This might involve speaking up in conversations and sharing tidbits of information that few people are aware of, giving people things to read or watch, sharing articles on social media, supporting or organising a creation-teaching event locally. Impossible odds? Remember the words of Jesus, “What is impossible with man is possible with God” (Luke 18:27).
Christians who take their stand on Genesis as history should take heart. It may sound clichéd but it is still true: ‘One with God is a majority’ (consider 2 Kings 6:15–17). Those who hold faithfully to the Word of God are on the side of Truth. Of course, people will continue to pay homage at the altar of Scientism. However, as a self-described humanist has acknowledged, “Science is a blessing, but scientism is a curse … and peddles uncertainties … [and] transforms science into an ideology.”12 For this reason, as irrepressible as the evolutionary juggernaut may appear—and even when its spokespersons have more qualifications and plaudits than you can shake a stick at—its claims are actually baseless and unconvincing (see Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels). As one final example, consider this very recent admission by internationally known physicist and science-writer Paul Davies in Scientific American. Referring to the alleged evolution of the first cell, he wrote:
“We are almost as much in the dark today about the pathway from nonlife to life as Charles Darwin was when he wrote, ‘It is mere rubbish [to be] thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter.’ ”13
References and notes
- Slightly expanded version of CMI-UK/Europe’s CMIExtra, March 2017. Return to text.
- From en.oxforddictionaries.com. Return to text.
- From dictionary.com. Return to text.
- Wieland, C., Evolution and social evil, Creation 27(2):48, 2005; creation.com/evolution-and-social-evil. Return to text.
- Gurney, R., Roots and fruits, Creation 34(3):20–22, 2012; creation.com/roots-and-fruits. Return to text.
- Ambler, H., Herero genocide, Creation 27(3):52–55, 2005, creation.com/herero-genocide. Return to text.
- For example, see Cosner, L., Darwinism and World War One, Creation 32(2):15–17, 2010; creation.com/darwinism-and-world-war-one. Return to text.
- Allen, R, smartinsights.com, 11 August 2016. Return to text.
- Wilson, W.A., Scientific regress, firstthings.com, May 2016. Return to text.
- Tyson, N. de G., Cosmos: A spacetime odyssey, U.S. TV show, March 2014. Return to text.
- Nye, B., Humanist of the Year 2010 acceptance speech, American Humanist Society Conference, 2010, youtube.com/watch?v=S4dZWbFs8T0, accessed 20 January 2017. Return to text.
- Wieseltier, L., Perhaps culture is now the counterculture, 28 May 2013, newrepublic.com; accessed 20 January 2017. Return to text.
- Davies, P., The Cosmos might be mostly devoid of life, Scientific American, 1 September 2016. Return to text.
Thank you again, Philip and all at CMI. You have set out the seriousness of the effects of evolutionary thinking on society, and the confusion of the cult of science and scientism with real science in the thinking of so many. But is this juggernaut unstoppable? I trust we do not think so. Just as Goliath was stopped by a stripling shepherd boy who was incensed by the way his God was being insulted, so may this juggernaut. Unike David, perhaps we are not troubled enough by the disrespect continually shown to our God and His word. Perhaps we do not really have the faith necessary to stand in front of this truck and just take the consequences. Truly, the battle is the Lord's, but is he waiting for us, the 'blogosphere battlers' to engage with the enemy of men's souls? Sites like CMI are the armouries where ordinary people can stock up constantly with really solid, reliable ammo for best effect in our engagement. And this matters so much. Millions of people are believing the lies of the devil, and we have the only truth that can set them free. Let's rise to the challenge of this age, engage prayerfully with the arguments and trust our God. He may yet come and show his Glory to us. Are our weapons not mighty to pull down strongholds? And if we take a few knocks along the way, that is the way of our Saviour. God bless you for your labours
Cosmological and biological evolutionary "historical theories" are the only theories where an effect is not only "far greater" than the "cause", but actually "opposite" to the cause: You get life from non-life; consciousness from non-consciousness; reason from non-reason etc etc. This violates the long established principles of causality, and effectively turns science on its head. You can't get more "unscientific" than that; meaning, in its attempt to negate the role of a Creator the scientific world has truly gone mad.
"The theory of evolution—like the theory of gravity—is a scientific fact." Mr Tyson, it's the "Universal law of Gravitation", not a theory. Probably because it took less than a year to come up with the formula for it : F = G*((m sub 1*m sub 2)/r^2), now, Mr. Tyson, why after 150 years and thousands if not millions of scientists who are believers, there's still no formula for less complex life evolving into more complex life, much less non life evolving into life? Just the smug and constant declaration that it's a fact.
Incidentally, we advise people not to use the argument that evolution is not a fact because it is 'just a theory'; see here.
One of the things we can do is engage evolutionists where they are found. Take part in youtube conversations as well as blog comment sections. It is not likely you will change the minds of those with whom you directly engage but there are others who may be reading the comments looking for answers to these questions. If they do not see logical responses to the claims of evolutionists they may incorrectly assume none are forthcoming. If we engage and challenge evolutionists where they are preaching their false doctrine these people will see there are other ways to interpret the evidence found in the world around us and other explanations regards its origins.
I was raised by a father who believed in "scientism”. Were he alive today, he would be on board with the increasing emergence of "technocracy". When I was born-again I began to view all things anew through the special revelation of Bible Scripture. The most difficult falsehood for me to abandon was the idea of deep time, because of the manner of voracious certainty with which radioactive nuclide decay measurement and the interpretation of it was presented. When I talk to people today about creation issues, this is usually the first thing mentioned.
The work of the people of CMI is necessary to combat these false ideas, and it is not just the secular scientists that have to be dealt with, but the people at "BioLogos", "Reasons to Believe", et al. We see results from the ministry of CMI, and that is why the work must go on.
I can't thank you AND THE LORD enough for the information you lay out here. I truly believe in the history of Genesis and the entire Bible. I work in a secular band and hear most of the things written here. I'm not real smart about a lot of this stuff but evolution just cannot hold water! Thank you.
Thank you Philip, especially for your “How to Respond” section. As CMI has previously noted, one bad consequence of the evolutionist juggernaut—if it is allowed to operate long enough—is increasing racism.
Now atheism is resurgent—but still with a morals-free evolution—and it has no protection against racism, and seems to be likewise drifting (back) into racism. The American problems of the last 10 years might have been brewing, unseen, for a generation. Only in Christ is there “Jesus loves the little children… red and yellow, black and white, all are precious in his sight”.
Bill is right, he does suck. Well at least his science does. If this is what he is teaching the children of the USA, random meaninglessness, is it any wonder youth suicide rates are so high.