Evolution is Not Stupid
Tim Challies recently wrote a very good post critiquing the logical conclusions of Darwinism as a comprehensive worldview. He discusses an article in Psychology Today on evolutionary psychology. Challies compellingly argues that the holistic worldview offered by Darwinsm is empty and often rather silly.
I would like to contrast this article with the very typical Christian responses to evolutionary theory: “That’s stupid! You must really be an idiot if you believe that humans evolved from monkeys!” This is not a good argument. It convinces no one, and makes the Christian look like an arrogant dope.
Exhibit 1: Dr. Kent Hovind (aka Dr. Dino)
.
.
.
Yeah… I can see that.
A few years back, I was invited by an unbelieving friend to attend a Creationism/Evolution debate at a local church. (He had heard about the debate on a conservative talk radio program.) I attended the debate with my friend and his believing co-worker. There were three participants in the debate: Hovind, a Young Earth Creationist (YEC), an Old Earth Creationist (OEC) and an atheistic Darwinist. Hugh Hewitt was the moderator.
The OEC was a perfect gentleman. He asked many good questions of his fellow participants. The Darwinist came off a bit smug, though he was definitely in hostile territory. He also asked intelligent questions of the other participants.
The vast majority of the audience was with Hovind. They seemed more interested in seeing Hovind trounce his foes than in actually learning something. And Hovind was more than willing to oblige.
I cannot remember a time when I was more embarrassed to call myself a Christian. Hovind was a complete arse. He had this silly PowerPoint presentation that he blindly plowed through, completely disregarding the challenges of the other two. It seemed as though he had forgotten it was a debate, but instead believed it to be one of his conferences. He repeatedly referred to evolution, in his grating Dixie drawl, as “stupid”, “dumb”, etc. I can still hear him in my head: “Now, that’s the dumbest thing I ever heard!”
I am convinced that Hovind persuaded no one that evening. Personally, my conviction in the YEC position was temporarily weakened, because Hovind failed to even attempt an answer at several very good challenges.
…
Evolution is not stupid. Evolutionists are not stupid. The vast majority of evolutionary scientists have a far better mechanical knowledge and understanding of how this universe operates than I can ever hope to attain. Does this mean they are right about the Big Bang and macro-evolution? No. I am a YEC. However, it is sinfully arrogant and thoughtless to dismiss these people as fools. And this is precisely what Hovind did, and what many Christians do when confronted with evolutionary theory.
Here’s some advice: If you are having a spiritual conversation with an unbeliever, and the topic of evolution arises, DON’T dismiss the theory and its adherents out of hand. Feel free to offer the watchmaker argument. If you must, try the banana argument. (On second thought, don’t. It’s a terrible argument.) If those fail, and you have nothing left – don’t sweat it. It is possible to accept Darwinism and be saved. It’s not a deal-killer. Darwinism is not the unforgivable sin.
I have seen too many evangelists get hung up on this issue. I have seen too many Christians get in way over their head and look foolish. Darwinism does not keep sinners out of heaven. Sin, rebellion, pride… a hard heart does that.
…
I recently found this YouTube clip of Hovind and Ali G. I soiled myself.
Good points. A “Creation Museum” just opened near my city and it has theists and atheists at each others’ throats. Good to know there’s still some out there who don’t seem afraid of science disproving their God.
While I believe there are serious theological implications inherent in accepting Darwinism, I don’t see why so many feel the need to draw blood over the issue. If the OECs turn out to be right, and the earth was created in six really, really long periods of time… oh well.
It seems one more example of the Church getting really worked up over secondary matters, all the while ignoring the main things (e.g. sound doctrine, faithful preaching of the gospel, etc.).
It just becomes another one of those conversations that “promote controversies rather than God’s work”. For me “who cares” in the end we’ll all find out. I choose to believe the bible.
Jim,
I rather liked Kent Hovind when I was younger. He really helped me understand creationism better. I havent seen this debate, but I never really saw him as arrogant and I saw him in person twice myself.
My dad and I were talking a bit ago regarding the fact that he’s in JAIL now regarding tax evasion.
He used to preach on why he doesnt pay income taxes and why its not biblical. Simply put, according to the Bible, we must obey the law of the land unless we are told to compromise our faith in Jesus. Taxes simply dont do that.
Anyway, Dad said that there are a lot of people out there that liked his teachings that may walk completely away from the Lord because of the fact that he’s in jail now for a reason such as this. The man that possibly led them to Christ is a criminal regarding stealing from the government– not regarding his faith.
And we all know he will continue it in 10 years when he gets out because its his ‘conviction,’ albeit a faulty one.
Im glad I learned some really good pieces of information, but at the same time, I kind of scooted away from the “Oh yeah, I know this guy” and it kind of does bring a bit of shame.
I soiled myself. I soiled myself. I soiled myself. I soiled myself. I soiled myself. I soiled myself. I soiled myself. I soiled myself. I soiled myself. I soiled myself. I soiled myself. I soiled myself. I soiled myself. I soiled myself.
I understand. Unbelievable!!!
IVE RESERCHEDD EVOLUTION FOR QUITE SOMETIME NOWW AND IF GOD CREATED EARTH IN 6 DAYS OR SOO WHY IS THERE PROFF THE EARTH IS BILLIONS OF YEARS OLD….I CHOOSE NOT TO BELIEVE IN GOD WHEN YOUR DEAD YOUR DEAD….
Whos to say the proof that the earth is billions of years old is correct?
“Evolution is not stupid. Evolutionists are not stupid.”
Well Jim it depends on how you define stupidity. It also depends upon wether or not the evolutionist is an athiest. The scriptures call people who do not believe in God fools. Would you consider that a degree of stupidity?
Psa 14:1 To the choirmaster. Of David. The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”…………..
For people who are theists from a Christian leaning and who happen to be Old Earth Creationists they are also being stupid because they are butchering the Genesis account of creation in order to not be ridiculed by the Evolutionist camp but at the expense of a hypocritical hermenutic when they try to espouse other Christian doctrines.
Logically if God said six days in Genesis for the creation but really did it in billions of years, ( a lie no matter how you spin it) then when he speaks of the necessity of regereration, or of sin or repentance or the substitutionary death of Christ etc etc etc. Then with the same yard stick of biblical interpretation we can no longer take these doctrines at face value. If God does not change as he says he does not then perhaps he is telling another little white one!
So I would say that as far as God and scripture are concerned and that should be the primary paradigm of all bible believing Christians, both OEC and evolutionists are acting stupid reguardless of their I.Q.
Paul,
I don’t disagree that there are serious theological problems with the OEC position. My point was merely that Christians do a disservice to their (and their brothers’ and sisters’) witness when they refer to evolution as “stupid”, because, “Anyone who believes we evolved from monkeys is stupid.” I just think it’s a bit more complex than that.
Additionally, I would make a distinction between wisdom and intelligence. Is atheism the antithesis of Biblical wisdom (i.e. the fear of God)? Yes. Are atheists/Darwinists stupid? I’m sure some are, but they are not, as a group, definitionally dumb.
Yes Jim I agree there and am sure had I witnessed the debate would have cringed right along with you. I was cringing when that chap was on the Ali G show in a funny kind of way! He seems to have little or no tact. No matter how we as Christians disagree with people we need to speak the truth in love without insulting or trying to shame them into submission. A hard standard some times, yet a command from scripture. If we are not prepared to obey the holy scriptures in our methods of debate why should we expect others we oppose to do the very thing we are unwilling to do? ( submit to the word of God and it’s Christ) I believe that is called hypocrisy!
Creationism isn’t stupid one day U will see that when Jesus comes. everyone will bow down. Jesus made us because he loves us and because he wanted some company. If you say there are no facts about creationism then what are the facts for evolution, there are none. but i will pray for you.
Did I say Creationism is stupid? Did I not say that I am a Creationist? Sigh…
Jim, I’m guessing that comments like #11/Shaina are precisely the sorts of things that you’re talking about in this post.
Here’s what I’ve discovered:
1. Evolutionists (and particularly, anti-creationist evolutionists) are typically incredibly arrogant, while
2. YECs are typically indifferent to the facts. It pains me to say this, because (a) I used to be one, and (b) I think they’re doing so for incredibly sincere and noble reasons.
How many times do you hear the “undissolved salt in the oceans” argument? Or the “moon dust” argument? Or the “decreasing speed of light” argument? Or… shall I go on?
These things are demonstrably, palpably, laughably false. And most YECs know that. But if the audience is right, they’ll repeat them anyway.
That’s… frightening. And it’s a behavior I don’t see in the evolutionist camp. To the contrary: the evolutionists routinely link to the creationist articles they’re criticizing and are completely up front about they arguments they’re making.
They’re often incredibly smug, anti-Christian, and everything that we say about them.
But I’ve come to the conclusion that they’re correct. And, like Ken Miller, I’ve also come to the conclusion that whether they’re right or wrong has no bearing on whether one is a Christian or not.
-Andrew
Ahem… Andrew. please explain why you have come to this conclusion:
“But I’ve come to the conclusion that they’re correct. And, like Ken Miller, I’ve also come to the conclusion that whether they’re right or wrong has no bearing on whether one is a Christian or not.”
Otherwise, we will have to take your comment as a mere opinion, based upon personal observation rather than one provable by veriifiable facts. Isn’t this what we creationists are accused of a lack of all the time?
(weird, not sure this went through)–
Mbaker, I’ll do my best!
First, you’ve asked me why I think evolutionists are correct. I don’t know that I could point to one thing and say ‘a ha!’, that’s the proof of evolution. As far as I can tell, it just doesn’t work that way.
What I can do is point to the scientific consensus. As far as I can tell, **EVERYONE** who is considered an expert in their field holds to a fact that is inconsistent with YEC. That is: all the biologists agree as to common descent, all the geologists agree as to an old earth, and all the astrophysicists agree to an old universe. It’s true in lots of different fields, too: paleontology, archaeology, oceanology, and so on.
I don’t just mean that all biologists are evolutionists. I mean, for example, that all geologists endorse the principle of plate tectonics. And plate tectonics, in turn, requires an old earth. All of the archaeologists accept uniformitarianism and the geologic time scale. Again, these are not people with an axe to grind in any kind of ideological or theological argument: these are just professionals. And ALL of them accept as true facts in their fields that are hostile to YEC.
Isn’t that a little odd?
Now, I can tell you how I used to answer that question — by either dodging it or giving some version of a conspiracy theory. The scientific orthodoxy is ruled by materialists who suppress competing theories. Richard Sternberg. We all know those kinds of answers.
But the more I thought about it, the more it’s just not a very good one. Why would the average North Korean or Chinese biologist hold to common descent just to try and prop up the U.S. orthodoxy? Wouldn’t countries like that want to embarrass the U.S., and wouldn’t it be in their interests to expose a conspiracy if there was one? And why would the good Christian biologists hold to common descent if they knew it was part of an atheist conspiracy? It just doesn’t make sense.
And YEC postulates a global conspiracy to suppress the truth not only about evolution, but physics (radioactive decay), geology (continental drift), archaeology (the geologic column), oceanography (the lack of evidence for a global flood), paleontology (the relative evolutionary ordering of the fossil record), and so on and so on. It became too much for me to swallow.
Second, I came to understand that many of the people on ‘our side’ are less than honest. Evolutionists write papers and, for all their arrogance, tell you *exactly* where they stand. By contrast, it was incredibly difficult for me to figure out what many creationists actually believe. Ken Ham (and, to pick an OEC, Hugh Ross), are refreshingly up front about their beliefs, for example. But they’re not scientists.
The sciencey-types among creationists — mostly employed by the Discovery Institute — are deliberately deceptive. Is William Dembski (“The Design Inference”) an YEC or an OEC? I’ve read everything he’s written, and *I still don’t know*! I *think* he denies common descent, but I can’t tell for sure. Same thing for Jonathan Wells and Phillip Johnson and a bunch of these guys.
Worse, the ones who *have* answered the questions typically “play” different roles to different groups. For example, when Michael Behe talks to secular audiences, he explicitly endorses common ancestry of men and apes, as well as an old Earth. On the other: when he was on Hank Hanegraaf’s “Bible Answer Man,” he strongly implied that evolution lacked the creative power to generate new species (which would deny common descent). Paul Nelson plays the same sort of game. And so on.
That’s kind of weird. Not dispositive, but weird, don’t you think?
I realize that a lot of this is macro-level, and to some extent that IS “personal observation.” I’m not a scientist, and even if I was, I wouldn’t be out here evangelizing for Darwin (there are a bit more weighty matters to evangelize for instead!
). So I’m not telling you to take what I say as gospel. I’m telling you my journey, and suggesting that if you go ahead and read the evolutionists’ websites and their non-Richard-Dawkins-books, you’ll probably eventually come to the same place I did.
cheers,
-Andrew
Andrew,
You mentioned oceanography and “the lack of evidence for a global flood”.
Genesis 7:4b
“…and every living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground.”
Genesis 7:19-23
“And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep. And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all mankind. Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark.”
To deny a global flood is, in my opinion, to deny the truthfulness of Scripture. This is where I diverge from OECs – I will allow God to speak the truth and call every man (scientist or not) a liar. Reading “period of time” rather than “24-hour day” into Genesis 1 is one thing. How do you get around Genesis 7 and the flood account? I don’t think this text could be any more explicit concerning the global nature of this flood and the total destruction it wreaked on all creatures not in the ark.
Tim Challies recently wrote another post on evolution. I agree with his conclusions.
“Where science and Scripture clearly disagree, we must hold fast to God’s Word.”
Scientists have been, and will continue to be, wrong. God will never be wrong. Therefore, where Scripture speaks clearly, I will listen. Even if that means rejecting current scientific understandings of how God’s world functions and came to be.
…
Have you read C.S. Lewis’ Abolition of Man? It’s not entirely pertinent to this topic, but this discussion makes me think of it.
God Bless
Andrew,
Bravo. Great answer. That opens up a whole new area of discussion, which I love to see happen. Thanks for your willingness to furnish the basis for your beliefs.
I’ve a lot more questions for you, but it’s late, so I’ll get back to this tomorrow. Hopefully you’ll stick around for a while.
Jim:
I don’t see a necessary contradiction between Genesis 7:4 and a “local” flood. The Flood could have destroyed all of humanity without covering the earth.
I concede that you have to read Genesis 7:19-23 expressively. I don’t think this means being liberal or eisegetical with Scripture; for example, I would read Gen. 7:19-23 in the same way that I read the account of Babel in Gen. 11:4 (“Then they said, ‘Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth.’”), or Satan tempting Jesus in Matthew 4:9 (“Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.”).
I don’t think I am doing violence to the Scriptures by reading these passages as expressive rather than literal, in the same way that you would read the sentence “I ate a monster hot dog yesterday!” as an expression, and not an indication that I have consumed a mutated, flaming poodle.
I have read Lewis’s _Abolition of Man_. What are you thinking about in particular?
Mbaker:
Absolutely! Thanks for your kind words.
-Andrew
Guys,
My husband was given a series of tapes by Hovind recently, called “The Age of the Earth” which present a quite different and more scientific explanation. Fascinating stuff. In them he discusses the six kinds of evolution, the theories of thermodynamics as a comparison, and many other things you may not have heard, if you’ve only listened to parts of his presentation. He was after all a science teacher for 15 years so he isn’t exactly a dummy either. I would suggest you view this whole teaching. It makes some interesting scientific points. After reading Jim’s post I was prepared to dislike the man, but was pleasantly surprised by the depth of research on this particular teaching. Suggest you check it out.
Andrew,
Lewis’ “Abolition of Man” is one of my favorite books. I was thinking of his idea of “chronological snobbery” – the tendency of modern man to worship all that is new and discard all that is perceived to be old.
When science speaks to the origins of the universe, it will only ever be able to speak hypothetically. You cannot test/prove the Big Bang in a laboratory (any more than I can test/prove a Six Day Creation). I simply cannot reconcile evolutionary theory (and its attendant worldview) with Christianity. Where God’s Word speaks definitively about scientific matters (you and I will likely have to agreeably disagree about the Flood Account – if “all the high mountains” are covered and all flesh is destroyed, then I don’t see how to get around a global flood), I choose to believe.
God Bless
Jim,
I respect where you come out on this. I simply disagree with you as to whether the Bible is speaking authoritatively about scientific matters in the particular passages you’ve highlighted. I suspect you agree with me that we can disagree but not divide over this issue.
Mbaker,
Go on to youtube, and do a search for “Kent Hovind.” You’ll see that his ministry has gone out and censored the step-by-step refutation of the videos (including the one you reference) by asserting a fraudulent copyright claim, even though the beginning of the video explicitly disclaims any copyright. (Go ahead and check your own video, you’ll see it’s in the public domain!)
This is shockingly dishonest. In any event, his science is flat-out wrong, and has been disavowed even by other YECs. See, for example:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp
in Christ,
-Andrew
Mbaker,
While I strongly disagree with Andrew regarding evolution, and particularly his take on the Flood, I have to agree with him regarding Hovind. Some of his stuff sounds convincing and scientific, but his presentation is pretty dishonest. He’s not a dummy, but he knowingly presents material that has been debunked. I was able to detect several examples of this when I saw him, and I don’t follow this stuff very closely (like Andrew does).
I think the man brings shame to the name of Christ when he knowingly parrots bad information (and when he refuses to pay his taxes).
God Bless
Jim,
I agree with you in principle. I think, for example, if archaeologists were to present what they described as the tomb and body of Jesus (didn’t they attempt this on MSNBC a few months ago??), then we should reject that in favor of Scripture.
I suppose my hermeneutical method is to do that as a last resort. Where Scripture can be harmonized with science, I’d prefer to do that unless it does violence to the meaning of the passage.
in Christ,
-Andrew
Andrew and Jim,
Here’s a link that might interest you. It is a very,very detailed, and, yes, scientific look by a Christian geologist, called the “Stratospheric Evidence of the Flood.” This one takes a while to wade through, but is worth the time, especially for those of us who are amateur geologists.
http://www.creationism.org/symposium/symp3no2.htm
Mbaker,
I am not a geologist (even an amateur!). But here’s what I would respectfully ask you to think about. The article you link was published in *1971*. It was not published in any scientific or peer-reviewed journal. If Nevins’ argument is true, the entire field of geology has been conclusively proven to be flat-out wrong for nearly 40 years.
Why is it, then, that Nevins didn’t submit his claims to a forum where other geologists could evaluate them? And why is it that every geologist who *has* evaluated claims like these has rejected them?
I am instantly suspicious whenever one person — whatever their credentials are — claims to have refuted an entire field of study. And that’s what we have here. Either every geologist for the past 40 years is wrong (including good and faithful Christian geologists!), or Nevins is wrong.
Now, it occasionally happens that someone sets an entire scientific discipline on its ear; people like Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking come around and show us that we were mistaken about some basic fact. But those are your Nobel Prize-winning, once-in-a-generation super-geniuses.
A quick web search for “Stuart E. Nevins” shows that it is probably a pseudonym for ICR fellow Steve Austin. In any event, this Nevins guy is not a Nobel Prize winner. I can’t find any published scientific papers (and that’s rare; even grad students tend to publish a dozen or so by the time they get their Ph.D.).
Let me try it this way: Mbaker, why do *you* think no other scientists support Nevins’ position? Do you think it’s a conspiracy, or that they’re all mistaken, or… what?
in Christ,
-Andrew
Andrew,
You said:
“Let me try it this way: Mbaker, why do *you* think no other scientists support Nevins’ position? Do you think it’s a conspiracy, or that they’re all mistaken, or… what?”
No, I’m definitely not a conspiracy buff, but I do think that
the scientific community as a whole does not readily accept anything that doesn’t agree with the majority opinion. And certainly Christianity isn’t exactly a majority opinion in most of the evolutionist camp.
Because someone isn’t “published” or hasn’t won a Nobel prize means very little regarding the veracity of their work. I don’t find that to be a valid argument because he hasn’t been published or recognized by his peers. As a professional photographer that was the case with me in my early years. It is with anyone in the writing profession as well.
The point is Andrew, that none of the theories can be proved conclusively one way or another, as Jim pointed out. That leaves us with the choice of what to believe. As Christians, we have to take the Bible as our ultimate proof, otherwise we are, as scripture says, going to be tossed about by every wave of doctrine that comes along.
My big problem with evolution is that if we take it that man developed by stages from apes, that would pretty much leave a thinking individual such as Adam out of the equation. Certainly, it would be hard for an ape to name entire catergories of animals, and have conversations with God. Perhaps that’s a weak argument, but nevertheless, at what point did man become intelligent enough to understand God if he merely evolved by chance over millions of years?
I can’t square evolution and Christianity together as you do, because it seems that God would have had to make a lot of wrong experiments to get to a man such as Adam. And God doesn’t make those kinds of mistakes, nor would he have to experiment for millions of years to come up with such a perfect model.
Once I photographed a series of birds of prey for the Zoological Society. My assignment was to photograph the feet of bald and golden eagles, believe it or not. The reason was that each bird has a different set of “fingerprints” on their talons that identifies them, just like humans do. I find it hard to believe that each eagle, each snowflake, each leaf could be so different, and that everything in nature could become so ordered, after evolving from the chaos of a Big Bang. Since God is not a God of disorder, it just doesn’t compute for a Christian.
http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=1020
Interesting post on evolutionary worldview.
If Evolution and Creation is to be compatible, it means that God must have evolved along with Mankind, since Man was created in God’s image. Which means that God is not Eternal, because He would have had to evolve from some organism Himself. Which means that He is also constantly improving and learning, ultimately denying that He is Omnipotent and Omniscient.
So evolution seems to be compatible with Open Theism in a sense, but definitely not with the God of the Bible.
Rooivalk,
I don’t completely follow. While you and I seem to agree that evolution creates lots of problems biblically/theologically, I don’t think it necessarily requires an evolving God. I think an Old Earth Creationist could coherently maintain that God is uncreated, eternal, sovereign, unchanging, etc.
God Bless
I’m a christian and I believe In evolution. Evolution does not disprove there is a god and god does not disprove evolution. Who’s to say god does not work through evolution. I still think that us as a species did not evolve from monkeys. If I remember correctly they have more chromosomes than we do. If we evolved from them them we would ether have than same amount or more. Or maybe monkeys evolved from us! You don’t see them complaining, whining and moaning about which is which in life. Religion clouds rational thinking and makes us less prone to think outside the box. For Me I believe in god but don’t walk around with closed eyes to the world of science. Remember what the Catholics did, they stunted human growth for like 200 years because the where afraid of science. Just think of how much more would know by now if that crock of religious crap didn’t happen. Religion is trouble! A walk of faith is enlightenment and learning. Look at everything like a child and learn to appreciate the world and learn to love. Well that’s all i have to say.
Yes, keep living in fear of your psychotic god. Refuse to listen to the voice of sanity that often cries out from the deepest parts of your subconscious. Just convince yourself that anything logical, provable, and true is evil and the work of your other psychotic god (who you act like is even more powerful, all-knowing, and omnipresent than the ‘good’ god). Waste your life on your useless pursuit of ‘holiness’. Don’t be a good person who wants to make the world a better place- be a hypocrite who only does good to try to buy your way into a better place in the afterlife, while hoping and praying that those like me are murdered soon by your loving god.
BTW, to the last poster- you seem more sane than most. You are right, faith and evolution can coexist. However, like most Christians, you are wrong in the belief that evolution teaches that man evolved from monkeys. It actually teaches that men and monkeys had a common ancestor, that is all. It’s amazing how many religious people argue from a position of ignorance.