Feedback archive → Feedback 2001, 2007
‘God doesn’t care a bit’ about origins?
24 September 2001; reposted and updated 18 August 2007
From S., Canada, who declined permission for her full name to be used. Her letter is printed first in its entirety. Her letter is printed again, with point-by-point responses by Dr Jonathan Sarfati, interspersed as per normal email fashion. Ellipses (…) at the end of one of the paragraphs signal that a mid-sentence comment follows, not an omission.
I am interested to know if you think evolutionists are going to hell for their beliefs. I am a highschool student who is taken aback by your complete faith in your narrow minded theory. I study science and religion at school and on my own. What’s so bad about evolution? It’s certainly more believable and educated a theory than yours. People don’t step away from God or Christ because they beleive in evolution, I’m sure God doesn’t care a bit who thinks what about the origin of the universe. The money people donate … should be given to those who are physically starving and mentally ill. If you were any kind of Christians you would be defending and aiding God’s creation and not trying to rope people into thinking as “in the box” as you do. Spend your energy fighting for a realistic cause—this one means nothing. Neither theory will ever be proven. If you decide to e-mail me back, I hope you can answer this question for me—how do you feel about the creation stories of other cultures and faiths—they must have some merit if your theory does.
It would have been nice if you had found out what we believe before writing in the way you have. We have several articles that make it clear that we don’t believe that all evolutionists will go to Hell, for example:
- Is it possible to be a Christian and an Evolutionist? A leading creationist answers an often-asked question
- Do I have to believe in a literal creation to be a Christian?
People go to Hell because they are sinners and show that they don’t want any part of God. God is not only perfectly loving, He is also perfectly just, so must punish violations of His holy law. Since our shortcomings offend His infinite holiness, the punishment must also be infinite. Since we are finite creatures, infinite punishment entails infinite duration—Jesus Christ Himself taught that the punishment of the wicked was as eternal as the life of the blessed (Mt. 25:46). Either we must suffer such punishment, or else a Substitute must endure it in our place (Isaiah 53). The Substitute must be fully human to substitute for humanity (Heb. 2:14), must be perfectly sinless so He would not have to atone for sins of His own (Heb. 7:27), and must be fully Divine to endure God’s infinite wrath (Is. 53:10). To be the mediator between God and man, Jesus must be both. 1 Timothy 2:5 states: ‘For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.’ He proved His credentials by rising from the dead, which left the tomb empty, and He appeared to more than 500 people at once. See Did Jesus Christ really rise from the dead? Those who refuse to trust in Christ’s death and resurrection must endure the punishment for their own sins. And since by their refusal, they show that they don’t want any part of God, He gives them what they want—eternity apart from Him. Jesus Himself said to those condemned to Hell, ‘Depart from me …’ (Matthew 7:23).
I am a highschool student who is taken aback by your complete faith in your narrow minded theory.
I’m a Ph.D. scientist who is taken aback by one so inexperienced who condemns and rejects our ‘theory’ before examining the evidence.
I study science and religion at school and on my own. What’s so bad about evolution? It’s certainly more believable and educated a theory than yours.
Why? Have you seen one kind of creature changing into another, or any change increasing genetic information? Presumably all you’ve seen is sorting and loss of already existing information. It doesn’t sound very “educated” to make assertions without evidence.
People don’t step away from God or Christ because they beleive in evolution, …
We are confronted almost daily with practical examples of the very opposite. It’s also well documented that atheists use evolution as a pseudo-intellectual justification for their faith. The eugenicist Clinton R. Dawkins said that before Darwin, it was impossible to be ‘an intellectually fulfilled atheist’. Many people see the hopeless inconsistency of trying to hold to biblical Christianity (and any other sort would surely be a Christianity of one’s own invention) and at the same time to evolution. Our website will allow you to search for many discussions of these contradictions. For example, the testimonies by Sonia, Joel Galvin and Lita Sanders demonstrate the baneful effects of compromises with evolution and the beneficial effects of CMI’s consistently biblical stance.
… I’m sure God doesn’t care a bit who thinks what about the origin of the universe.
You seem very sure. What is your basis for such sureness? It would make far more sense to find out whether God has told us how He did it, which He has in the Bible (see Q&A: Genesis )
The money people donate so you can build that monstrosity of a museum [built by AiG-US in Kentucky] should be given to those who are physically starving and mentally ill.
Can you justify this under an evolutionary framework? If ‘survival of the fittest’ is true, why should we help our competitors? You might like to see what Darwin himself thought [see also Darwin and eugenics: Darwin was indeed a ‘Social Darwinist’].
If you were any kind of Christians you would be defending and aiding God’s creation and not trying to rope people into thinking as “in the box” as you do.
What is your basis for this statement? Surely a Christian is one who follows Christ, and Christ clearly accepted a literal account of the creation of Adam and Eve at the ‘beginning of creation’ (Matthew 19:3–6, Mark 10:6) and a global flood (Luke 17:26–27). See also Jesus Christ on the infallibility of Scripture and Genesis: Bible authors believed it to be history.
But it’s notable that conservative Christians (i.e. those who believe the Bible), including CMI staff, have a high rate of donating to charities. It shouldn’t be so surprising, because the Bible teaches charity and those who trust the Bible in its entirety have a logical basis for generosity. So the museum, in supporting the Bible’s reliability, is likely to have a good side-effect in increasing donations to charities. So it’s not necessarily ‘either/or’ but ‘both/and’. This was explained long ago by Dr Carl Wieland in the article You should be feeding the hungry [see also Helping the Needy—with Creation? Surprising research facts about who really helps the poor, published after this response].
I must also ask why you seem to have no problem with all the evolution promotors around. Couldn’t you say the same about them, i.e. why spend money on them instead of on feeding the hungry? At least our ministry is funded by voluntary donations, while much evolutionary propaganda is funded by money coerced from taxpayers, many of whom oppose the message preached from these secular pulpits.
Spend your energy fighting for a realistic cause—this one means nothing.
As explained, one’s view of this ‘cause’ affects our views of many other causes.
Neither theory will ever be proven. If you decide to e-mail me back, I hope you can answer this question for me—how do you feel about the creation stories of other cultures and faiths—they must have some merit if your theory does.
This does not logically follow. It’s like saying that if the oxygen theory of combustion has merit, then so must others, e.g. the phlogiston theory. The difference between our ‘creation story’ and others is that ours was endorsed by Jesus Christ, and He rose from the dead. The founders of other religions rotted in their tombs (see also Did Jesus Christ really rise from the dead? and Holy books? Which one are you going to trust?).
“Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created.”” (Revelation 4:12)
Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.