Unmasking the Lie of Naturalism

While many Christian have a strong reaction to the teachings of evolutionists, the real issue is not that we are told we evolved (though I feel it is an affront to God and it denies the clear teaching of scripture). The real issue is if evolution were true, there would be no need for God. It seems many evolutionists are on a crusade to remove God from the equation of life. They may say if a person needs to believe in God for some sort of emotional crutch, that is okay, but there must be a system for origins that would not require belief in a supreme being. Evolutionists present the belief, though unfounded and untested by any scientific method, that the universe came into existence through natural means and chance occurrences.

I recently preached on this topic during a series I entitled Masquerade – Unmasking the Lies We Believe. I used a number of quotes and thoughts in this message, and I would like to share some summary thoughts from this message along with a listing of the quotes.

Evolution can be defined as “A theory that states the universe is self-contained, and that the origin and development of all its
complex systems (the universe, living organisms, man, etc.) can be explained solely by time, chance, and continuing natural processes, innate in the very structure of matter and energy.”

As Time Magazine reflected back on the 20th century in its December 31, 1999 issue, editors concluded “Darwinism remains
one of the most successful scientific theories ever promulgated.” Is Darwinism really the most successful scientific theory? I believe the methods used to support this “theory” should make scientists a little red with embarrassment.

Evolutionists would like us to believe that all of science and every reputable scientist support the theory of evolution. A seven-part series aired on the Public Broadcasting System stated “all known scientific evidence supports [Darwinian] evolution as does virtually every reputable scientist in the world.” In response to this series, 100 scientists with degrees from such prestigious universities as Cambridge, Stanford, Cornell, Yale, Rutgers, etc. took out a two-page advertisement in a national
magazine. These scientists included professors from Yale Graduate School, the Massachusetts Institutes of technology, Tulane, Rice, Emory, and elsewhere. They included world-class scientists like Nobel nominee Henry F. Schaefer, the third most cited chemist in the world; James Tour of Rice University’s Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology, and Fred Figworth, professor of cellular and molecular physiology at Yale Graduate School. This two-page ad was entitled: “A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.” They stated: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account
for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

One scientist was asked why he signed this document.  Philip S. Skell (Member National Academy of Sciences, Emeritus Evan Pugh  Professor at Pennsylvania State University) stated: “Scientific  journals now document many scientific problems and criticisms of  evolutionary theory and students need to know about these as well. … Many  of the scientific criticisms of which I speak are well known by scientists  in various disciplines, including the disciplines of chemistry and  biochemistry, in which I have done my work.” Since the original document was published, more and  more scientists are adding their names to the list. You can read more  about this and see 20 pages of names of scientists who have signed this  document. http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

Evolutionists would also like us to believe recent discoveries add weight to the theory of evolution. Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, graduate of Cambridge University, director and senior fellow at the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle stated, “I believe that the testimony of science supports theism. While there will always be points of tension or unresolved conflict, the major developments in science in the past five decades have been running in a strongly theistic direction. Science, done right, points toward God.”

Even Charles Darwin knew the fossil record did not support his claims, but he believed that in time these so-called
“transitional forms” would be discovered. Since Darwin’s writings, no transitional forms have been located. There should not only be evidence of creatures that are combinations of two species in the fossil record, but we should still see them around us today.

Michael Behe wrote about discoveries being made in molecular biology. He wrote of what he called “irreducible complexity,” which refers to the minimum level of complexity that must be present before such a tightly integrated system can function at all. Natural selection is said to work on tiny, random improvements in function – which means it does not kick in until there is at least some function to select from. But irreducibly complex systems don’t have any function until a minimum number
of parts are in place – which means those parts themselves cannot be products of natural selection. Though Charles Darwin didn’t use the term “irreducible complexity,” he still spoke of the concept: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would
absolutely break down.”

I choose to believe the Bible, which says “In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth.” I realize that creation requires a miracle and will include ideas or events I could never understand, however, I’m okay with not being able to fully
comprehend God. I realize it is difficult to fit miraculous events into “science,” but with honest inquiry, one would have to agree it is just as difficult to place evolution into the study of science. A definition for science is “A systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. In an older and closely related meaning (found, for example, in Aristotle), “science” refers to the body of reliable knowledge itself, of the type that can be logically and rationally explained.” The problem with evolution is that it is not testable, logical, or rational. Ernst Haeckel, a
German biologist and philosopher of the 19th century realized this problem and therefore modified his drawings of embryos to offer support to the theory of evolution. He presented the idea that all embryos looked the same in the early stages and became a model of evolution. The problem is that his peers recognized his fraudulant drawings, but for some reason, these drawings are
still used today in textbooks to present aspects of the theory of evolution. You can find discussions on this issue and other evolution frauds online at websites like http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html.

Two quotes about God being the “cause” of all things: Stephen C. Meyer: “Most scientists now believe that energy, matter, space, and time had a beginning…You can invoke neither time nor space nor matter nor energy nor the laws of nature to explain the origin of the universe. General relativity points to the need for a cause that transcends those domains. And theism affirms the existence of such an entity – namely, God.”

Nobel Prize winner Arno Penzias said about the Big Bang: “The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted had I nothing to go on but the first five books of Moses, the Psalms and the Bible as a whole.”

I spoke of how ludicrous it is to see everything as random chance and included these thoughts:
George Sim Johnson: “Human DNA contains more organized information than the Encyclopedia Britannica. If the full text of the encyclopedia were to arrive in computer code from outer space, most people would regard this as proof of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. But when seen in nature, it is explained as the workings of random forces.”
In the 1890’s a hieroglyphic inscription was found in an excavation in Egypt. No one thought this table evolved through natural causes and random chance, but rather everyone knew someone wrote it. If you came into the kitchen and saw the Alphabet cereal spilled on the table, and it spelled out your name and address, would you think the cat knocked the cereal box over? How can evolutionist, with a straight face, say the DNA code with all its complexity was written by chance over time?

Nancy Pearcy summed it all up: “The issue is not fundamentally a matter of evidence at all, but of a prior philosophical commitment.” Naturalists are really pushing a philosophy not science. The philosophy is basically “There is no God.” Sir Julian
Huxley: “Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the creator of organisms from the sphere of rational discussion.” Oxford evolutionist Richard Dawkins: “The more you understand the significance of evolution, the more you are pushed away from an agnostic position and towards atheism.” The Psalmists summarized it well: Psalm 14:1 “The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”

Daniel Daniel Dennett underscored evolutionists attempt to make sure our children bought in to this philosophy and abandoned the teaching of the Bible and the belief of their parents: “If you insist on teaching your children false-hoods—that the Earth is flat, that “Man” is not a product of evolution by natural selection—then you must expect, at the very least, that those of us who have freedom of speech will feel free to describe your teachings as the spreading of falsehoods, and will attempt to demonstrate this to your children at our earliest opportunity. Our future well-being—the well-being of all of us on the planet—depends on the education of our descendants.” (He is co-director of the Center for Cognitive Studies and the Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy at Tufts University – near Boston Massachusetts)

These are a few thoughts underscoring the challenge presented to us by evolutionists and what appears to be the real issue. I would welcome your comments below. It’s not really science verses the Bible, but the philosophy of naturalism versus the teaching of the Bible. You can hear my entire message by visiting our church website: www.sonrisebaptist.org. Click “listen online.” It should be posted by Wednesday or Thursday (March 28 or 29).

One Comment

  • Stephen Y.

    Well written Tim,

    These are the three arguments I use (hopefully they add something):

    1. Cambrian Explosion

    The Cambrian Explosion was a change in the type and number of fossils seen in a small period of time. The fossil record shows relatively “simple” organisms for millions of years and then all at once; complex organisms. And there are thousands of them. Evolution would predict the opposite of this. For evolution, we should see an upside down pyramid of increasing diversity and complexity, however, the Cambrian Explosion is more like a block of wood attached to a string: millions of years with only simple organisms and then all at once, thousands of complex organisms.

    2. Irreducible Complexity

    Even evolutionary scientist believe this to be a problem with their theory. There are uncountable examples of this but the most popular is the flagellum/centriole. It’s because a centriole is basically an engine. Any single part of an engine is useless without the whole thing, of course.

    3. The Origin of LIfe/Proliferation

    If I remember correctly, 52 is the new number of proteins needed for a “self replicating” molecule. 52 proteins. Proteins are made of up to 300 amino acids, but 150 for the smallest proteins. These 150 proteins have to come from a bank of a specific 20 amino acids out of a countless possible amino acids. Each amino acid is made up of a minimum 9 parts (absolute minimum). And all of this has to be in the right order…. You don’t have to be a math major to know that the chances are astronomical by chance. Like fill up several bank pages with “0”s just to get close to the chance. What’s even worse? This is to make a self replicating protein, which is no where even close to life. You need a phospholipid membrane, some way to create energy and the highly, highly (as mentioned above) complex DNA to have life. Even with all those, you need a kind environment because the cell has no way to prevent lysis (cell membrane death).

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.