Why People Believe in Evolution
http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/whyEvolution.htm
by Wayne Jackson
September 25, 2002

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