Why Darwinists Argue

This post has been merged into Darwin’s Dyke, posts that explore the weaknesses of Darwinism.

Generally speaking, anyone who comes out of an argument with me and is still unconvinced of my position just wasn’t listening. Maybe it’s because they were too busy already planning out their rebuttal, trying to shout me down or patting themselves on the back about how witty and/or right they suppose they are. In most cases, mere mockery has replaced wit and the right position in an argument is determined for them by a consensus of their peers.

Such has been the case recently. Our recent discussion has centered upon, rabbit trails notwithstanding, whether belief in evolutionary science, the predominant naturalistic scientific worldview, requires faith. I think it does. The entire reason it was a topic of ‘discussion’ was because a site called richarddawkins.net has quoted Richard Dawkins, the veritable Pope of traditional gradualistic Darwinism as saying:

“Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is the belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.” [Note: this quote is best read for accuracy’s ake in a snitty British accent.]

With all due respect to Mr. Dawkins, his well-documented antireligious bias and the giant Piltdown chip on his shoulder, no self-respecting dictionary would ever print such an inflammatory definition without qualification. In fact, the definition Mr. Dawkins proposes would really only encompass a type of faith that Creation scientists also rightly abhor: blind faith.

Anti-Creationist Fundamentalists [ACFs] would have us believe that blind faith is indicative of all religious belief, but blind faith really only applies to mysticism or superstition [in the strictest sense of the word]. ACFs have lied to the public, largely through the media and our educational systems. They would have us believe that superstition, mysticism and faith are synonymous with religion, while evolution, rationalism and reason are synonyms for science. This false dichotomy is reductionist twaddle.

The truth is that both science and religion require faith.

A weight of evidence itself does not constitute proof.

Evidence must be conclusive. The fact that the Creation-Evolution debate continues at full fury suggests heavily that neither side has conclusive evidence of their position, though neither can be disproven. [For Creationists, this condition isn’t problematic; our position requires a certain amount of faith. The writer of Hebrews stated that without faith it is impossible to please God for we must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him. Blaise Pascal put it this way: “God has given us too little evidence to be sure, but too much to ignore. For Evolutionists, this condition is likely aggravating, though it should be noted that Darwin, in his Origin of the Species, never actually proved his theory; instead, he stated that “are far too ignorant” to argue against its complete impossibility and should be “extremely cautious” before concluding that it could not have occurred. [Origins, Ch. 6]] In any case, most ACFs fail to realize that believing something to be true, even due to a weight of evidence, is faith. It’s not blind faith; rather, it’s reasoned or reasonable faith. Yet faith nonetheless.

Of course, in their zeal for the faith, ACFs tend to suppose that their beliefs hold more weight than any belief associated with religion, even if said belief is accompanied likewise by a weight of evidence. [We have our evidences. You have yours.] Yet I’ve even read nonsense on some of their sites which claim, “Now when a scientist says, ‘I believe…’ he really means, ‘I admit to the truth everybody knows…’” If they were interested in honesty, they would say, rather, that when the evolutionary scientist says, “I believe,” he really means he has faith in what all of his peers presume to be true. Fortunately, truth is not determined by majority opinion, or have we forgotten that the entire educated world once believed that the universe revolved around a flat Earth?

Perhaps we Creation scientists have put ourselves at a disadvantage by allowing fringe elements to voice themselves too loudly [Still, the evolutionists must deal with scientists who propose our universe was birthed in a lab by aliens in another universe who will never know if their experiment was successful or not and whom we can never truly know exist or not. And don’t even get me started on the whole Omega Point nonsense!]. Or perhaps we’ve done so by honestly admitting that we do, in fact, exercise faith, when evolutionists will not be as honest.

We believe God created the world and that creation bears His fingerprints. We believe that what may be known of God has been revealed to us in the Scriptures and through His creation, bearing in mind that this world has fallen from its original perfect state and has, at one time, been drastically altered by the judgment of God, specifically in the form of a worldwide catastrophe which flooded the entire earth and simultaneously broke open the fountains of the deep. When I hear of earthquakes and study tectonic plates, I am reminded that God did indeed break up the deeps, resulting in deep fissures and instability along those fault lines. When I see nature “red in tooth and claw,” I am reminded that Adam’s sin had consequences for all nature and that the peace of earth will not be restored until Christ returns. When I hear of calamities and thorns, blizzards and droughts, I am reminded that the Earth travails, crying out for renewal to its original state. When I hear of planets and moons that spin backwards, of Uranus tilted on its side, the dodo, the platypus, the incomparably grotesque frog, I am astounded by the whimsy of God. When I survey the Grand Canyon, I am at once impressed by the grandeur of God, borne out also in the eagle’s regal bearing, incomparable color-swept sunsets and unspoiled mountain vistas, and by the evidence of God’s wrath against sin, for the geological columns were laid down, we believe, in quick succession as the flood waters receded [a mechanism Darwin suspected must be essential to fossilization, though he did not grant the possibility of a Biblical calamity in favor of his pet theory of gradualism], the intense pressure fossilizing the creatures of earth in such an inescapable calamity that fish were fossilized in the act of swallowing other fish, memorializing the wrath of God in stone. When I view the cosmos through a telescope, examine the alien miniature world revealed through a microscope or gaze upon the overwhelming ocean, I note the irreducible otherness of God. When I feel the warmth and light we glean from the sun, consider how Jove’s gravity protects us from cosmic accident and note how perfectly situated Earth is in the heavens for life, I see the care and providence of God. When I see the Cotesia congregate larvae tear their way out of the Manduca caterpillar’s body, the black widow eat her mate upon the web or ravenous wolves stalking the wounded deer, I am reminded how Man is transformed into something loathsome [maggots rather than a butterfly] when he sinned against God, how we devour one another [though this concept is monstrous to us] and how death stalks us all. When I see the tulip break through the snow in Spring, the butterfly blossom from its cocoon and some mother animal lay down her life for her cubs, I recall that death like winter is not all-powerful, that we can change through Christ from something grotesque to something beautiful and free and that Christ laid down His life for us when we were as helpless as babes.

This is mere poetry, of course, but life itself is poetry when it has meaning and purpose. What can Darwinism offer us?

Perhaps this is the final irony. Put simply, the arguments, even the very arguings themselves, of anti-Creationists are pointless. What purpose is there in making your points if you are a cosmic burp who will eventually be replaced by something better, and so on and so forth until life succumbs to the oblivion of heat death? What purpose is there to making arguments from reason that emerged accidentally, since we cannot ever know if we can trust said reason to be valid? If evolutionary thought is true, why argue at all? Why not let religious nuts believe whatever they want? Why not eat, drink, be merry, make love and perish in our hedonism and narcissism? Is it because passion and diversion are also meaningless if everything else is meaningless? They’ve opened Pandora’s Box, but locked Hope away. Darwinism offers no basis for either morality or passion. It calls passion a chemical control brought about by social need, an illusion to help us get along and gain an evolutionary edge. Darwinism doesn’t really believe in love any more than it truly believes in hate. All passion, all emotion and all allusions to morality and conscience come down to the survival of the fittest. It’s all fake, because for some reason life was too stark and hard, so natural selection felt the need to psych us out with false emotional responses and needs. Once you see the man behind the curtain, the mystical Oz is revealed as a sham. In the end, Darwin calls love, philosophy, philanthropy, art, music, soul, theology, meaning and reason itself mere diversions of no substances. All means to a biological end.

So to what purpose do they argue?

Is it because they feel the need to shake innocent children out of their belief in Elfland, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the benevolence of governments, the Earth as cradle, the risen Christ? Do they, in other words, see it all as fraud and wish to force Pan out of Neverland so that he can see life for what the suppose it really is, get himself a thankless job and be as miserable and pointless as they are? Is it really just selfishness that motivates their arguments? For what benevolence is there in this pursuit? They will say that reality is far better than fantasy, but not if the truth is really this stark and horrible! I speak of children because, in the world of men, they are naturally ignorant and innocent.

In times of war, do we sing them songs to chase away the darkness or thrust them upon the bodies of the slain so they might appreciate the horror of war? Were Darwinists philanthropists, they would pity the world and turn up the music until it drowned out all reason. But Darwinists do not argue out of benevolence; they are bitter old men, obsessed with their own mortality, unwilling that anyone else should be merry in their awful presence.

Do not think for a moment that I have capitulated. I do not propose Darwinism to be true. Nor do I think of the religious-minded as children. I’m merely exploring the ramifications of their worldview. Yet some will say that I have only embraced the supernatural because the real truth is too horrible. I do prefer fantasy if Darwinian horror be true! I daresay my life will be happier for my delusion [with the exception of the inevitable Darwinian wet blanket.]

But Something tells me I am NOT wrong and that, in fact, I am perfectly correct. Not only do the evidences of nature back up my position [We Creationists also have our weight of evidences!], the realities of my existence – passion, morality [conscience] and the instinctive quest for significance – support the veracity of worldview. Evolution’s advocates make excuses for the existence of these realities, but they do not fully grasp them. Professing themselves to be wise, they have become fools.

In the Christian paradigm [a little place I like to call Reality], the Darwinists are abominable children who appear embittered and old before their time. Worse, they are children running headlong towards a cliff, hands clapped over their ears, eyes clenched tight, screaming, “Lalalala! I can’t hear you!” Creationists, you see, have a benevolent duty to argue our case. The cure for their wretched and pitiable condition is truth, which sets free rather than enshackles. They may not hear, but only because they do not want to. We pray to God they hear and believe the truth before it is too late.

–Sirius Knott

Read more about Darwin’s Dyke, posts that explore the weaknesses of Darwinism!

6 Comments Add yours

  1. David says:

    The tired worn out dichotomy between evolution and creationism! Why is there so much energy wasted on this debate? It seems Creationists are placing the Almighty within a box walled in by man-made, literalistic dogmatic anthropomorphic walls hemmed in by the limitations of our faulty human reason. Science does not deal with God but is simply working with observation. Then theories are made to try and explain these observation and findings. Why is there such a problem? It seems the differences so long touted by clergy and scholars between evolution and creation is more visible in the imaginations of men than it is in the inscrutable Wisdom of God.

  2. Sirius says:

    So your answer to the question of why we argue would be to stop arguing altogether? I imagine this is because you suppose you are right. [You’re not.] Yet if you were correct, what purpose is there to YOUR arguing at all?

    I think you missed the point.

    Dogmatism doesn’t bother me. Even your statements are dogmatic. The real question is which dogma we are to be dogmatic about!

    As for putting God in a box… impossible! But we can know what God has revealed of Himself through nature, in the person of Christ and through the Scriptures. Or we can remain willfully ignorant to our own damnation.

    Let’s put the shoe on the other foot: You seem to be trying to keep God out of the box entirely! But all truth being equal, God is not excluded from science. No one but God has observed the beginning of the universe. Scientists are just making educated guesses about our origins.

    But let me posit a final question: You seem to suggest that God would see no dichotomy between evolution [Be careful! I did not say science!] and creation, though the former tries to marginalize him to a “God of the gaps” if He’s acknowledged at all. On what basis do you make this claim?

    I’m interested in your answer. Please don’t argue from “Well, everybody thinks so…” either. I’ve got that one covered.

    —Sirius Knott

  3. I like your site Sirius, your articles are very well written and surpass what I hope mine could be haha.

  4. ericburns says:

    Excellent post. I completely agree!

  5. Eric Kemp says:

    I know I’m alittle bit late on this one…but GREAT article Sirius. Seriously.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s