APOSTATE CHRISTIANITY ENABLES DARWINIAN EVOLUTION
by Dr. Fillmer
Hevener, Pastor
It is no secret that over
the last century, Darwinian evolution has made sharp
inroads into the world's scholarly community, its
scientific community, the Christian community, and all
other areas of education.
Has this pervasiveness of the theory of evolution been
founded upon the evidential strength of the theory itself,
or are there other forces that have contributed largely to
this theory's success?
Darwinian evolution has been assisted in our 20th and 21st
centuries by such doctrines as: the supremacy of
materialism, a rejection of the supernatural, and apostate
Christianity.
Of course, a rejection of the supernatural realm and
materialism are closely allied. Materialism holds that the
only realm that exists is the material, the physical
realm. If such a view were true, this doctrine would
automatically preclude the supernatural, which is above
and responsible for the natural world.
However even more insidious in the promotion of Darwinian
evolution is apostate Christianity.
EVOLUTION: WHAT IT IS AND ISN'T
Before showing how the apostate Christian community has
supported evolution, let's make a clear distinction
between two types of evolution. Micro-evolution means
variation within a family (species). For example, if we
should breed a black cow with a white cow, the color
patterns of the
offspring would probably be a mix of black and white. Or,
if we were to breed a large horse and a smaller horse, the
offspring would probably be a horse of medium size. This
type of change WITHIN a family is supported by common
knowledge and is well documented within the scientific
community. Therefore, micro-evolution does take place
regularly.
However, evolutionists would have us believe that because
micro-evolution takes place, macro-evolution also takes
place. This is not the case.
Macro-evolution is the teaching that one family (species)
can produce another family (species). That is, that the
cat family, for example, could produce a rabbit. Cats
always produce cats, rabbits always produce rabbits, fruit
flies always produce fruit flies, and dogs always produce
dogs. Addressing the question of boundaries of micro and
macro evolution, B.C. Collins writes:
"Such wide crosses as the cat with the dog or the jack
rabbit have never been obtained. (Elements of Genetics,
313.)
Horticulturists are constantly working to produce roses
with new colors and new combinations and patterns of
colors. They are working within the framework of
micro-evolution and are producing new variations within a
type. However, this operation is completely different from
producing a
new type from the same type, from producing a lilac from a
rose, for instance. Roses produce roses, lilacs produce
lilacs. Marsh writes: "...the most that hybridization can
do in the matter of change is to give rise to another
variety within some already existing kind." If dedicated,
intelligent scientists cannot produce new types from the
same type in the laboratory, why should one believe that
blind chance could do something that scientists cannot do?
(See: Evolution, Creation, and Science, Marsh, Chapter 9.)
Evolution has no answer to the question: Where and how did
life begin? This point is crucial, for all evolutionists
agree that no evolution can take place unless there is
life. Evolutionists do not claim that dead plants and
animals evolve. Therefore, the very basis of the theory of
evolution must be built on the reality of living objects.
Attempting to solve this problem of the origin of life
through materialistic means, Dr. Lynn Caporale, makes the
Alice-in-Wonderland assertion that: "...dust itself edged,
in slow motion, over a boundary into life." (Darwin In The
Genome, p.1.) Such nonsense is neither scientific nor
honest!
What is the difference between a dead stick and a live
sapling? One difference is that the live sapling has
teleonomy in it (information stored within a living
thing.) The sapling is a machine that is capturing energy
to increase order. A dead stick, however, cannot thrive on
sunshine, water, and nutrients of the soil, but rapidly
decays.
What about so-called evidence supporting evolution in
fossil records? The late Stephen J. Gould, a Harvard
evolutionist, had this to say: "Most species exhibit no
directional change during their tenure on earth; a species
does not rise gradually by the steady transformation of
its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed."
(Evolutions Erratic Pace, Natural History, 86.) Henry Gee,
chief writer for Nature Magazine, writes: "To take a line
of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not
scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion
that carries the same validity as a bedtime story."
(Quoted in Wells Icons of Evolution, 37.)
Then, there is the second law of thermodynamics. It is
well known among the scientific community and laymen
alike, that chemical compounds ultimately break apart into
simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more
complex. Therefore, in the real world, there is a downward
trend toward disorder, not uphill toward order. In terms
of organic life, it is clear that an open system, with
access to the sun's energy, in and of itself, does not
generate long-term growth and organization. The sun's
energy may bathe a pile of steel from now on, but that
steel will never become a functioning automobile and, most
certainly, not a living organic entity. Availability of
energy (by the first law of thermodynamics) does not stop
the basic principle of decay (by the second law of
thermodynamics.) "Quantity of energy is not the question,
but quality." (Edward Blick, Ph. D., Evolution and the
Second Law of Thermodynamics, 3.) As Dr. Henry Morris
writes: "In the case of a plant for example, there must be
a coded system for its growth written into the template or
code. Where does this code come from? A code always
requires an intelligent coder," an intelligent designer.
To believe that such living, organic marvels can come
about by chance takes more faith than many objective
thinkers can muster.
Language change also flies in the face of the theory of
development from the simple to the complex. Just as there
are physical laws, there are also linguistic laws. One of
these laws is that the longer a language lives, the
simpler it becomes in grammar and structure. For example,
the
objective case of the pronoun "whom" is rarely used today
except in situations calling for formal English. It is
being replaced by the subjective case "who." Consequently,
in most situations, the English speaker or writer does not
have to choose between "whom" and "who." Instead, he
takes the simpler path and uses the subjective case for
both needs. In addition, middle English is more complex
grammatically than modern English, and old English is more
complex grammatically than middle English. If the law of
complexity to simplicity continues back to early man, it
would be absurd to have a simple sub-human form speaking a
complex language. However, such a law would fit perfectly
into the Genesis account where man is created mature,
marriageable, intelligent, and with the ability to
communicate through language.
In reality, evolution is a religion. Two widely held
definitions of religion are: (1) A belief, founded largely
upon faith, that attempts to answer such basic questions
as: "Where did man come from, How did he arrive here, and
Where is he going? A second simple, but comprehensive
definition is: "a system of faith." Faith is the common
element in each of these definitions. Evolution is a
system of faith in materialism and chance. Therefore,
evolution, a religion, should have placed upon it the same
restrictions that other religions have placed upon them in
the public schools of our nation.
APOSTATE CHRISTIANITY SUPPORTS DARWINISM AND MATERIALISM
An apostate is one who forsakes his moral principles and
his faith.
For centuries, the Christian community, at large, has
recognized the Decalogue, the Ten Commandments, as the
basic moral guide in matters of one's relationship to his
Creator and to his fellowman. The first four commandments
have to do with one's relationship to God, man's Creator,
and the last six commandments give guidance in one's
relationship to his fellow man.
Although most Christians give lip service to all ten
commandments, most of them ignore one of the ten. Which
one is ignored? If you guessed the fourth commandment, you
are correct.
Now, let's study the fourth commandment and by so doing,
see how ignoring this commandment has opened the
floodgates for materialistic Darwinism, macro-evolution.
The fourth commandment reads: "Remember the Sabbath day to
keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your
work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your
God. In it you shall not do any work: you nor your son,
nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female
servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within
your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and
the earth and the sea and all that is in them, and rested
the seventh day. Therefore, the Lord blessed the Sabbath
day and hallowed it." (Exodus 20: 8-11.) (Italics mine.)
Notice the following critical points made by God in this
commandment:
a. "Remember" the seventh day
(Saturday; look at your calendar) of the week because it
is the weekly birthday of the world and all that is within
it.
b. The seventh day of the week is a special day of rest,
blessed and hallowed, honoring the Creator and His
handiwork, the creation of the world.
c. The other six days of the week are to be days of labor.
Of course, it is no secret that the Christian world,
generally, ignores the fourth commandment and its
instruction to rest on this weekly holy, blessed day, the
birthday of creation by the Creator God. Instead of
resting on that day, the Christian world says, "No," we
will work on the seventh day and rest on the first day of
the week." (Sunday.)
By rejecting the fourth commandment, the Christian world
has assisted materialistic evolution by refusing to
recognize the Creator God identified in this commandment.
Rejecting the fourth commandment has also helped to
undermine the entire Genesis account of creation, for it
is in
this commandment that the Creator God is identified as
well as the time-frame in which He carried out His
creation.
Genesis speaks of the "evening and morning" as the first
day, the second day, etc. This phrase would clearly
indicate a twenty-four hour period, not long periods of
time conjured up by Darwinian evolutionists. Therefore, in
summary, by rejecting the fourth commandment and its
information concerning creation and the Creator, the
Christian world, at large, has opened the door for error
concerning the question of origins. This rejection created
a vacuum which has allowed materialistic evolution to slip
into the thinking of both Christians and non-Christians.
The fairy
tale of macro-evolution is allowed to be taught as
scientific truth in our public schools; the fact is,
Darwinian evolution is a religion without basis in fact.
The Christian world has enabled Darwin and chance to push
out of our thinking the Creator and His intelligent design
of the universe and the world and all that is within them.
The time has come for the dedicated Christian to stand for
truth and demand that the religion of Darwinian evolution
be taken from our public classrooms and that it be treated
as all other religions are treated in public education.
Let your local school board representatives know how you
stand on this issue. Let them know that you are a voter
and that your vote will go to one who treats
macro-evolution for what it is, a MATERIALISTIC RELIGION! |