Why
People Believe in Evolution
by Wayne Jackson
People do not believe in evolution because they have been led there
by solid evidence. They are stampeded into the Darwinian community
by superficial, emotional, and personal factors.
The most insidious and damaging ideology ever foisted upon the mind
of modern man is the notion that human beings are but animals, and
the offspring of other, more primitive creatures. It is known as the
theory of organic evolution. This concept has been reflected in recent
years in such volumes as Phil Donahue’s, The Human Animal (1986),
and in the earlier production, The Naked Ape (1967), (as man was characterized)
by zoologist, Desmond Morris.
Tragically, multiplied thousands across the land have ingested, to
a greater or lesser degree (sometimes even with a religious flavor),
this nefarious dogma. But why? Have folks intellectually analyzed
the matter, and thus, on the basis of solid evidence and argument,
accepted this viewpoint. Not at all; rather, for a variety of emotional
reasons, this concept is entertained so readily.
In 1974, Marshall and Sandra Hall published a book titled, The Truth:
God or Evolution? In the opening section of this excellent volume,
the authors listed several reasons why the evolutionary theory is
embraced by so many. With credit to them for the germ thoughts, I
would like to expand the discussion.
Brainwashing
Since the issuance of Charles Darwin’s, The Origin of Species (1859),
there has been a massive campaign to flood the “intellectual market”
with evolutionary propaganda. Though such ideas by no means originated
with Darwin, he popularized evolution more than anyone else. His book
sold out (1,025 copies) the first day of its release.
Another significant milestone was the famous Scopes Trial, conducted
in Dayton, Tennessee in July of 1925. Twenty-four year old John Thomas
Scopes, a high school science teacher, had agreed to violate Tennessee’s
Butler law, which forbade the teaching of any theory that holds man
has descended from a lower form of life. The entire affair was “rigged,”
but it brought together William Jennings Bryan (three-time Democratic
nominee for president), who volunteered to represent the state, and
the famed criminal defense attorney, Clarence Darrow, who defended
Scopes. The trial, the first ever to be broadcast on radio, brought
national attention to the issue of creation vs. evolution. As a result
of that encounter, the concept of creationism was cast into an unfavorable
light, and evolutionary dogma gained considerable respectability,
albeit undeserved.
From that time, however, the theory of evolution has accelerated
in influence via the media and the public school system. Today, there
exists a determined campaign for the indoctrination of evolution,
and millions have absorbed it into their minds.
Intimidation
Hand-in-hand with the brainwashing factor is the impact of intimidation.
Supposedly, evolutionary doctrine has the endorsement of “science.”
In 1966, H. J. Muller, a prominent geneticist, circulated a statement
signed by 177 biologists. It asserted that evolution is a “scientific
law” which is as firmly established as the rotundity of the earth.
Since most folks want to be thought of as “educated,” and as they
have been led to believe that “all educated people believe in evolution,”
they have defected to the Darwinian camp. Most of these individuals
could not cite a solitary argument in defense of evolution; they simply
believe it is fact because “the scientists say so.”
Informed people should know the following:
Evolution is not a scientific law. It is a mere hypothesis that
falls quite beyond the pale of the scientific method (observation,
experimentation, and verification).
There are numerous laws, e.g., the laws of thermodynamics, genetics,
etc., which contradict evolutionary assertions.
Many scientists dispute that evolutionary dogma is true science.
Evolutionist Robert Jastow, for example, has conceded that belief
in the accidental origin of life is “an act of faith,” much, he says,
like faith in the power of a Supreme Being (Until the Sun Dies, New
York: Warner Books, 1977, p. 52).
Theodore N. Tahmisian, a nuclear physicist with the Atomic Energy
Commission, has said:
“Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life
are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest
hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact
... It is a tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure jaggling
... If evolution occurred at all, it was probably in a very different
manner than the way it is now taught” (Fresno Bee, Aug. 20, 1959).
It is hardly necessary, therefore, to yield to the pressures of evolutionary
brow-beating. We ought not to be cowed down; we should be more aggressive,
demanding that those who affirm their confidence in evolution argue
their case logically.
Religious Confusion
Some have been thrust toward evolutionary ideology because they are
repelled by the confused (and sometimes cruel) state of the religious
world. Religionists have sacrificed their own children in the name
of “gods” (cf. Jer. 19:5). In the Far East the cobra is worshipped
as deity. “Christians” (so-called) have warred with the devotees of
Islam.
Catholics allege that the bread and wine of “the Eucharist” magically
turn into the body and blood of Jesus, while Protestants insist that
such does not occur. Some contend that “baptism” is administered only
by immersion, while others allege that “sprinkling” or “aspersion”
will suffice. A rather unique view suggests that it takes all three
“modes” to constitute the “one baptism” of Ephesians 4:5 (cf. Wycliffe
Bible Dictionary, Peabody: MA: Hendrickson, 1998, p. 201).
This disunity has driven many to disenchantment with religion in
general, which includes a rebellion against divine revelation. This,
of course, is precisely what Jesus indicated. He admonished those
who professed a loyalty to him to be “one,” that “the world might
believe” (Jn. 17:20-21); the Lord thus implied that disunity would
produce the opposite effect, i.e., unbelief.
But people need to realize that a departure from the original does
not negate the genuineness of the original. The segmented status of
“religiondom” does not authenticate evolution. The fact of the matter
is, the evolutionists are as divided as the religionists.
For example, Sir Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, contended that
biological life evolved here on earth. On the other hand, Sir Fred
Hoyle has argued that “spontaneous generation” occurred in outer space!
Some Darwinians speculate that the evolutionary process has occurred
quite gradually, over eons of time. Supposedly this explains the lack
of transitional forms in the fossil record. Others (e.g., Richard
Goldschmidt, and more recently, Stephen Gould of Harvard), suggest
that evolution has proceeded rapidly, almost in snatches.
There is wholesale disagreement among the advocates of evolution.
Those, therefore, who have fled from religion because of its disunity,
have found no haven in Darwinism.
A World of Disorder
Many feel that our world environment, which is so characterized by
brutality and suffering, is more consistent with Darwin’s tooth-and-claw,
“survival-of-the-fittest,” principle, than it is with the notion that
the earth is tended by a benevolent God. There might be some leverage
in this argument if there were no other rational explanation for the
ills of this globe.
But the fact is, a compelling case can be made for the proposition
that life’s tragedies are the result of man’s rebellion against his
Creator; and negative consequences have been allowed to follow as
an educational process on behalf of the human family. In our recently
published book, The Bible and Mental Health, we have an entire chapter
chronicling some of the values of human affliction.
But here is another matter for consideration. While the believer
has some basis for explaining the presence of “evil” in a fashion
that is consistent with the existence of a powerful and benevolent
God, the evolutionist has no reasonable explanation as to why there
is a human sensitivity within man that judges some things to be “evil”
and others “good.” How can a package of mere “matter,” which, according
to atheism, is the sum of man, arrive at a rational, moral judgment
concerning this phenomenon called “evil”? The problem of “evil” is
more challenging for the evolutionist than for the creationist.
Tangible Evidence
Many folks are impressed with the evolutionary case because it is
buttressed, they believe, with tangible evidence, whereas religion
seems to partake of a dreamy, surreal environment. After all, scientists
have “fossils” to prove their case, don’t they?
This argument is exceptionally deceptive for the following reasons:
All of the fossils ever collected represent less than 1% of the
potential evidence, according to David Raup of Chicago’s Field Museum
(Museum Bulletin, Jan., 1979, p. 50).
Not a single fossil has ever been discovered that clearly demonstrates
a link between basic organism “kinds.”
All fossil evidence is subject to interpretation; and even evolutionists
dispute the data.
For example, when Donald Johanson and his colleagues discovered the
few bone fragments they dubbed “Lucy,” back in 1974, they alleged
that this little creature walked on two legs, and was on-the-way to
becoming human. Numerous evolutionists, however, seriously disputed
this. We discussed this matter in considerable detail in the October,
1986 issue of the printed Christian Courier.
But Bible believers are not without “tangible” evidence in the defense
of their case. Numerous archaeological discoveries have been made
which support the historicity of the Scriptures (see our book, Biblical
Studies in the Light of Archaeology.
If, then, a general case can be made for the factual correctness
of the Bible, one may reasonably conclude that its affirmations regarding
the origin of humanity are correct as well.
Escape from Responsibility
Another reason why many so readily accept evolution as the explanation
for mankind, is that such allows them to “cut loose” from God, and
hence to be free from moral and religious obligations. They thus can
become their own “gods,” and write their own rules. Richard Dawkins
says that “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled
atheist” (The Blind Watchmaker, New York: W.W. Norton, 1986, p. 6).
This viewpoint was vividly illustrated some years ago when Clarence
Darrow spoke to the inmates of the Cook County jail in Chicago. Hear
him.
“I do not believe there is any sort of distinction between the real
moral conditions of the people in and out of jail. One is just as
good as the other. The people here can no more help being here than
the people outside can avoid being outside. I do not believe that
people are in jail because they deserve to be. They are in jail simply
because they cannot avoid it on account of circumstances which are
entirely beyond their control and for which they are in no way responsible”
(Arthur Weinberg, Attorney For The Damned, New York: Simon & Schuster,
1957, pp. 3-4; emp. WJ). This shocking statement reveals the motive
of some evolutionists.
Conclusion
People do not believe in evolution because they have been led there
by solid evidence. They are stampeded into the Darwinian community
by superficial, emotional, and personal factors. They only delude
themselves when they think otherwise.
