Answers to Popular Questions on the Creation/evolution debate


This page consists of popular questions posed to me on the internet - and my replies.

It became necessary to make this page due to the power of Twitter to incite evolutionists to join in exchanges. I was returning to Twitter the following day to find 400 or more new notifications, which is not easy to keep up with, especially as the attitude and language of the majority of evolutionists is poor. I hope that people truly interested in the subject of origins - and who shouldn't be? - will read my replies here in a more relaxed and thoughtful manner.

(I have used 'S' and 'A' for 'Statement' and 'Answer'.}

--------------------

S. Why should I believe in a 2,000 year-old book? That's just ridiculous.

A. In that case, why should you believe there are no gods, a world view which goes back to at least fifth century BC Greece?

The question is also a sign of "chronological snobbery".

C.S. Lewis defined chronological snobbery as “the uncritical acceptance of the intellectual climate of our own age and the assumption that whatever has gone out of date is on that count discredited.”

If one is to read the scriptures, the ancient philosophers or the great writers of more recent centuries, it becomes clear that the writing of old is generally of a more superior quality than today's.

--------------------

S. Religion damages children.

A. Richard Dawkins even said that faith-based education is 'child abuse'. Notice that this was within the context of discussing several faiths. One of Dawkins' and other evolutionists' favourite tricks is to group religions together.

In the feeble-minded, this facilitates the easy dissemination of lies; they can be convinced that religion is "the root of all evil" made up mainly of suicide bombers and paedophile Catholic priests.

Evidence, however, shows that children are hard-wired to believe in God. I am convinced that one of my problems growing up was that I had little or no spiritual outlet, which I believe caused (or at least aggravated) my depression.

Secularists want to ban faith schools and some want to ban any outward sign of faith in the wider community. These are the ones who don't understand children and their need to connect with the Divine.

It is child abuse to deprive children of the spiritual outlets they desperately require. If they believe themselves to be "cosmic accidents," rather than precious souls, and therefore with no hope of life after death and no moral lines-in-the-sand, they are naturally disposed to become depressed, lack motivation and behave badly.

So, not only is it child abuse but 'society abuse' - everyone loses when humanists/materialists are successful in imposing their world view on all of society.

--------------------

S. I stopped believing in Santa Claus, the tooth fairy and a Sky Pixie when I was a child.

A. The zealous use of the expression 'Sky Pixie' shows the hive mind of the 'atheist'. They call themselves "free-thinkers," but they're not (more on that later).

We can test that a fat man does not travel around the world annually on a sleigh pulled by reindeer (leave a glass of milk on the mantelpiece if you don't believe me!) and that teeth do not magically turn into money while a child sleeps (also easily verified through simple observation). The Creator, on the other hand, does not fit into the same category and it is disingenuous to pretend that He does.

Also, Creationists are not claiming that Santa and fairies exist!

As stated above, children are 'hard-wired' to believe in God and billions of adults have and still do also believe - the vast majority of people who have ever lived - therefore to adopt the attitude that faith in spiritual matters is a "delusion" infers that nearly everyone who has lived was mentally ill and that 'atheists' have been the only sane people. How likely is that? How deluded is that?

By definition, a delusion is an infidelity to the norm, so 'atheists' are the most likely candidates to warrant a diagnosis of 'delusion'.

--------------------

S. I'm glad I'm an atheist, so I can think for myself.

A. Strange then that 'atheist' apologists should use the same terminology (see 'Sky Pixie,' above) and use arguments which are decades out of date or plain erroneous which they picked up on atheist websites.

There is a bigger problem for the "free-thinking" 'atheist'. If there is no Creator and our thoughts are merely the result of chemicals in the brain obeying the fixed laws of nature then there can be no such thing as free-thinking or free will.

This has been expounded by such atheistic evolutionists as Dr Will Provine and Richard Dawkins.

--------------------

Q. I don't need to believe in God to be moral.

A. Again, there are major philosophical and chemical reasons why God does exist, whether you believe it or not.

If matter is all there is and the Theory of Evolution is true then what is important is your survival to pass on your genes. Being charitable towards another person only offers an evolutionary advantage if there is a chance of reciprocation.

Empathy and charity are the result of us being made in the image of God. Evolution theory cannot account for unselfish giving and self-sacrifice.

There are thousands of 'charities' on which millions of people rely to provide a salary, but that is self-interest to obtain money to survive!

Real charity comes from our God-given empathy for our fellow beings; from our God-given conscience.

Well-known atheist apologist, the late Dr Will Provine, believed that, "Finally, there is no reason whatsoever that ethics can't be robust, even if there is no ultimate foundations for ethics."

He's not an atheist now he's passed on. Can you see the huge problem with his statement? If there is no Divine Lawmaker then who decides what is right and wrong?

There is no need to imagine, because we know what life was/is like when regimes gain power and impose their subjective 'laws' on the people - while ensuring that their survival advantage is heightened by being in control!

What we see in North Korea is perhaps the most atheistic country on Earth and, most people would agree, the most ghastly to its people. When even basic transcendental values are abandoned, the natural result is a North Korea. Ironically, the masses are expected to consider the ruling dynasty as gods (or else).

Compare this with the compassion and forgiveness available in Christianity. The faith also made modern science possible due to the belief in an ordered universe created by the Almighty.

Thomas Jefferson was not a Christian and rejected the divine nature of Christ. He wrote his 'Jefferson Bible' or 'The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth' by using Christ's moral teachings. He declared them to be, "the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man."

Why then do so many people these days want to reject the values which brought them many freedoms to replace them with rules made by people with their subjective views and self-interest - like in North Korea?

That is not hyperbole by any stretch of the imagination. With the diminishing role of faith in the West, we are seeing our freedoms slide away continuously. Orwell's vision in "Nineteen Eighty-four" is now a terrifying near-future prospect: "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever."

Another problem, if you believe Dr Provine and Prof. Dawkins, is that if there is no free will then people cannot help being either moral or immoral; in fact, these words are meaningless. This dangerous idea has helped push moral relativism, which is destroying the fabric of society as one group of people try to assert superiority over others by claiming the moral high ground. It is part of a very old trick called 'divide and rule'.

Even Richard Dawkins lives as if God exists (free pdf book). I believe that nearly everone does, because to truly live as if God doesn't exist (that matter obeying the laws of nature is all there is) would surely reduce a person to animal behaviour. It is very sad that some people actually look to animals to justify their behaviour, notably regarding sexual deviation.

--------------------

S. There are no real scientists who reject the Theory of Evolution.

A. As previously stated, it was the Christian world view of an ordered universe which enabled modern science to flourish. Here is a list of some such believing scientists.

True, there are many who worked before 1859, but also many after. One interesting name is Scotsman James Clerk Maxwell (1831-79). The BBC website says,

"James Clerk Maxwell is one of our greatest scientists and without him we may not have x-rays, radio or colour photography. But while scientists Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton are household names, Maxwell is barely known to the general public."

It is strange that the man whose red/green/blue colour system used in television and whose methods enabled the first colour photograph to be produced for a lecture as far back as 1861 is largely forgotten.

Actually, it is not so strange when one takes into account Maxwell's Creationism.

--------------------

S. The fossil record proves evolution.

A. In fact, the fossil record is one of the Creationist's best friends, because it shows the very opposite, i.e. fully-formed organisms well adapted to their environment.

When I recently pointed this out to an evolutionist, he came back with "punctuated equilibrium" (or "equilibria"), which some evolutionists employ as a way around the actual fossil evidence. Darwin believed that there should be immensely more variety in the fossils than we observe and he wrote, "Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory."

"Punctuated equilibrium" means that there was rapid change over relatively short time-spans and that is why the "finely-graduated organic chain" does not exist, because these plants and animals died without having the decency to leave fossil remains. Their offspring, which we have evidence of in the fossils, were around for a long time, leaving billions of fossils, then it was 'all change' again relatively rapidly - and dying without leaving evidence of their alleged existence - to produce another batch of fully-functional and adapted organisms.

Science is supposed to be about looking at the evidence and coming to a sensible conclusion, but here we have an excellent example of ignoring the evidence and making up a story to fit a pre-existing world view.

The Creationist position of plants and animals reproducing "after their kind" is the only logical conclusion from the fossil record.