Darwinism Taken To Court
In 1859 Charles Darwin presented to the world his origin of the species. He proposed that millions of years ago life spontaneously formed in a rich “primordial soup” of organic chemicals. Every form of life and every creature including humans, he submitted, evolved from that simple origin of life. What is forgotten is that Darwin acknowledged in the first edition of his book that supernatural assistance from God was necessary to drive biological evolution.
The intelligentsia of the world was ready for him. The arts, sciences and academia had just emerged from the mind-shackling superstitions of Dark Age theology. Atheism and agnosticism were the heady wine of the intellectuals in Darwin’s day. Darwin’s theory lent itself to a worldview of reality that could be explained by natural law. Within a few decades Darwin’s theory of evolution was no longer considered an hypothesis, but a scientific fact. The ironic twist was that while his theory of evolution was not based on scientific, empirical investigation, those who ruled the halls of academia imperiously proclaimed it as fact.
The Apostle Paul’s words (Romans 1:20-22) were again fulfilled:
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine
Nature, having been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that
they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as
God, or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart
was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools… (NAS)
As in Israel of old (Isaiah 2:8; 44:13-17; 46:5-7) those who cut down a tree, built an idol and then worshipped it, Darwinism became just such a hand-crafted idol. At its altar 99 percent of America’s practicing scientists pay homage. They dare not publicly do otherwise or they could be purged and shunned by America’s top universities. Academic freedom is a farce in the sacred temples of Darwinism. For example, the veteran writer Forrest M. Mimms was dismissed by the noted periodical, Scientific American, simply because he did not believe in Darwin’s evolution… never mind that he never mentioned this fact in his writings.
The reign of Darwinian naturalism in our leading universities for 130 years has eroded the moral values of our society. The most influential intellectuals in America and around the world are mostly naturalists who believe that God only exists as an idea subjectively in the minds of the religious. In the universities of our Darwinian establishment, naturalism is the virtually unquestioned assumption that underlies not only natural science, but all intellectual pursuits. Darwinism is not only considered a biological fact, it also greatly influences the behavioral sciences and humanities – a twist Darwin never intended. As such, it must bear much of the responsibility for the social ills of today.
The famous Harvard paleontologist, George Gaylord Simpson, described the “meaning of evolution” as follows: “Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind.” What would be your response if you were one of the over 70 percent who agreed? Probably, There is no God; I can do my own thing. The judges who make legal decisions, the journalists who mold public opinion, the educators who shape our children’s thinking all were educated at these universities.
After 130 years of godless Darwinism reigning in academia, every student is taught a Darwinian worldview which directly impacts ones values. Condoms are distributed in high school cafeterias; homosexual relationships are just as viable as heterosexual marriages; abortions are now a method of birth control. Rape, drugs, murder, suicide are prevalent in the youth culture of today.
Finally, someone from within the sacred precincts of academia said, Enough is enough! Phillip E. Johnson, former law clerk at the Supreme Court and for 20 years a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley, hauled Darwinism off to the Court of Universal Truth. Although a Christian, Johnson in his book, Darwin on Trial (1991), solely used the natural disciplines of logic and science to prove that Darwinian evolution was fraudulent in its claim to be “scientific fact.”
Johnson methodically tears away at the fabric of Darwinism by addressing each of the following problem areas of evolution: natural selection, the mutation controversy, the lack of fossil evidence, the assumption that “biological relationship means evolution relationship,” the vertebrate sequence, molecular evolution and pre-biological evolution. Johnson demands that the scientific community use the rules of science, that is, proof by empirical results. He shows that no empirical proof exists for any of Darwinism’s main assumptions.
In one of Johnson’s refutations, he identified what Darwin termed “variation” as what is called mutation today. “Mutations are randomly occurring changes which are nearly always harmful when they produce effects in the organism large enough to be visible, but which may occasionally slightly improve the organism’s large enough to be visible, but which may occasionally slightly improve the organism’s ability to survive and reproduce.” But the fact that scientists have been able to breed fruitflies into every possible genotype only proves that fruitflies can be caused to change through artificial selection not “natural selection.” Ultimately the end result of all these genetic experiments is still a fruitfly – not a new species. This experimentation does not at all make a case for beneficial mutations being the engine behind natural selection.
Natural selection can be seen as a tautology – a way of saying the same thing twice. “In this formulation the theory predicts that the fittest organism will produce the most offspring, and it defines the fittest organisms as the ones which produce the most offspring.” Johnson comments on this tautology by stating, “When I want to know how a fish became a man, I am not enlightened by being told that the organisms that leave the most offspring are the ones that leave the most offspring.”
The fossil record is Darwin’s weakest link because of the lack of missing links. Additionally, the age of the fossil is basically determined by the age of the rock in which it is found; and the age of the rock is determined by the age of fossils in the rock. Is this scientific reasoning? Observes Johnson, “Most people are unaware that Darwin’s most formidable opponents were not clergymen, but fossil experts.”
Although Biblical creationists have been challenging the citadel of Darwinism for years, Johnson’s scientific case against evolution has been taken to the university campuses aggressively and successfully challenging professors to debate. In addition to Darwin on Trial, Johnson published a new book (in 1995) challenging the devastating moral impact of Darwinism on our culture. His goal is to “legitimate the assertion of a theistic worldview on the secular universities.” Actually Johnson is a creationist who allows for the Genesis creative days being any length of time – not just 24 hours. Yet he is hailed as a hero by the fundamentalists who use the 24-hour creative day as a test of Biblical Christianity.
Chapters One and Two of Genesis provide conclusive proof that the seven creative days are not each 24 hours. The Hebrew word “yom” is used exclusively in Genesis to denote “day.” After Genesis describes the creation of the heavens and the earth including the account of the seven creative days (“yom”), the very next verse (Genesis 2:4) summarizes the entire work of the preceding verses: “These are the generations [Hebrew, “history”] of the heavens and the earth when they were created in the day [“yom”] that the Lord God made the heavens and earth.” “The day the Lord God made the heavens and earth” must be longer than 24 hours because it includes the work of all seven creative days. The “day” of Genesis 2:4 defined, in fact, the whole period of creation!
How long was the seventh day? Genesis 2:1-3 reveals that God finished his creative work at the beginning of the seventh day and rested. But the Genesis account is clear that the seventh day did not end. In Hebrews Chapter four we are informed that Israel failed to enter into God’s seventh day rest during the time of Moses, Joshua and David. But Christians now have the privilege of sharing in God’s seventh day of Rest. In the Gospel of John, Jesus gives and enlightening account of why God’s seventh day of rest lasts until the end Christ’s 1,000-year Kingdom on earth. If the seventh day is a long period of time, the same would be uniformly true of each of the first six days.
So while evolution proposes enormous periods of time to arrive at the complexity we see in this world, we know the Bible does not, on the other hand, suggest an unrealistically short week of 24-hour days to accomplish God’s creative work.
When the final verdict in the trial of “Creation vs. Evolution” will be made universally known, Darwin and all the most determined evolutionists will be thankful for their wise and loving Judge – who is also their Creator.