Part 4: HOW WELL DOES EVOLUTION THEORY AGREE WITH SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES AND DISCOVERY?
4-B: Complexity of the Natural World – Evidence of Supernatural Designer
4-C: Laws of Science
4-D: The Marvel of DNA (Deoxyribonucleic Acid) Structures
4-E: Monkey-to-Man Evolution? Missing Evidence of Missing Links
4-F: Micro Versus Macro Evolution
4-G: The Problem with Darwinism
4-H: In Summary, What Does Science Tell Us about Evolution Theory?
4-G: The Problem with Darwinism
In his book Origin of Species Darwin states, “Let the strongest live and the weakest die.” This harsh statement undergirds certain philosophies that have come to the fore in modern times. For example, ideas justifying genocide of “inferior races” that characterized Hitler’s Nazism, these can be traced right back to the pages of Darwin’s Origin of Species. Macro-evolution theory offers no support for such practices as showing kindness to the weak or love for our fellow human beings.
The great emphasis nowadays on macro-evolution theory (e.g. ape changing its complex genetic machinery to evolve into human form) lacks scientific basis. As this study has tried to show, new scientific insights (such as in DNA genetics) and simple observation of the natural world offer plenty of confirmation.
Unfortunately, macro-evolution theory has already had its subtle, damaging influence on mankind’s philosophical orientation. (And this became tragically evident during the 20th century in Adolph Hitler’s genocide campaigns, the philosophical underpinnings of which were rooted in macro-evolution theory.)
But monkeys are not our ancestors, and we are not merely animals driven by instinct. Nor are we some kind of accidental, mechanical by-product of natural processes. The truth is, we are thinking, intelligent beings created by God.
Our ancestor?…. or Divine Origin!
The first man and woman came to life as fully formed human beings through the supernatural power of the Creator
To accept the theory of macro-evolution would mean accepting the idea that some races of humankind must be more “advanced” than others. From the ethical point of view, that is problematic. But if we understand that our basic genome is fixed, then we can appreciate the diversity in the human population, with its grand variety of races and types of people… without those nasty feelings of superiority, prejudice, and so on. And from the scientific point of view also, we are more on track and accurate in our thinking.
A further downside to the macro-evolution theory of origins: it tends to minimize the role of the Creator in the formation of the natural world; it easily leads to conclusions in impressionable minds that their lives have no meaning or accountability (since God seems so far away). If we believe that we are descended from animals, and that the Creator has very little to do with us (or doesn’t even exist), then who needs to worry about right or wrong? Everything is just a struggle for survival-of-the fittest anyway, so go ahead and fend for yourself. As mentioned, macro-evolutionary thinking was the basis for Nazi philosophy and its belief in a superior race; it rationalized the cruel policy of eliminating other competing races in the climb towards evolutionary supremacy.
But if our younger generation can learn to appreciate the Creator’s role in the formation of the natural world, then we provide them with a solid background from which their ethical development can mature in a positive direction – with a greater sense of responsibility to their Creator and to the welfare of others, as well as the reassurance of His existence and concern for them. .
We human beings have the capacity to choose between right and wrong, as well as the desire to seek after God. Each one of us is very special to Him, and He loves each one of us as if we were the only person in the world. Of course, God has countless others whom He loves besides just you, and so He expects us to treat others as the precious children of God that they are.
We are here for a purpose: to glorify God and to make our lives useful in service to our fellow human beings. We are not here just to make ourselves rich or famous; our gifts, talents, education, and wealth should be directed to helping improve the lives of others and to making this world a better place to live.
To conclude, it is difficult to understand what all the fuss is about – why the teaching of Intelligent Design/Creationism is viewed as some kind of sinister deviation from truth. Instead, we should resolve to bring this teaching to light in our educational institutions; and by so doing, offer upcoming generations the kind of sound ethical and scientific principles that will better guide them through the challenges of the future.
Educationalists are justifiably concerned about non-rational viewpoints in science teaching. In the process, however, “the baby often gets thrown out with the bathwater.” Throw out superstition, yes, but keep a proper understanding of the Creator’s role in the formation of the natural world – not just for ethical considerations, but also, because such understanding is genuinely scientific.