There was a time when I was a Christian yet still believed in evolution; If I come off sounding a bit harsh in this post, believe me that I’m not trying to condemn – I’m trying to inform. My brothers and sisters in Christ, if you believe in evolution then you need to know who you’re in bed with (so to speak).
Some people believe the evidence for evolution is overwhelming so it must be true. They then somehow try to reconcile their beliefs with the “facts.” When people see the Bible contradict "science" then it's usually the facts of the Bible - not "science" - that become suspect. People then are using "science" to interpret the Bible rather than trusting the plain words of the Bible. This attitude is actually encouraged by staunch evolutionists. Consider this quote from Nature Magazine (as quoted on the NCSE Website):
"Scientists would do better to offer some constructive thoughts of their own. For religious scientists, this may involve taking the time to talk to students about how they personally reconcile their beliefs with their research. Secular researchers should talk to others in order to understand how faiths have come to terms with science. All scientists whose classes are faced with such concerns should familiarize themselves with some basic arguments as to why evolution, cosmology and geology are not competing with religion. When they walk into the lecture hall, they should be prepared to talk about what science can and cannot do, and how it fits in with different religious beliefs."
Well that certainly sounds reasonable, doesn't it? DON’T BE FOOLED!! These same people who try to assure you that evolution and Christianity are perfectly compatible are telling a completely different story out of the other side of their mouth. Here are a few other quotes about what evolutionists really think of a Creator (I've added some bold for emphasis):
The obvious implication is that THE DESIGNER OF LIFE IS INCOMPETENT. We all know it; no amount of gushing over how "perfect" life is can cover up the fact that everything here can be improved upon. Let's stop making up excuses and admit that the Creator did a half-assed job. (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/3991/index.html)
...It makes sense if every feature of an organism is the product of its history, but it doesn't make sense if you want to argue independent design with appropriate reuse of common elements. Unless, that is, you're willing to argue that the Designer is wasteful, incompetent, and lazy. (Talkorigins.org/feedback)
Another problem when considering a designer in nature is that of disuse or elimination of parts of the design. I must ask myself why a designer would go to the trouble of creating a certain model of living organism, only to have that organism, over time, throw away much of the creative handiwork. Many parasitic organisms have done just this.
Evolutionary theory provides answers to such questions. I can't seem to find satisfactory answers anywhere else. (Talkorigins.org/feedback)
In human males, the urethra passes right through the prostate gland, a gland very prone to infection and subsequent enlargement. This blocks the urethra and is a very common medical problem in males. Putting a collapsible tube through an organ that is very likely to expand and block flow in this tube is not good design. Any moron with half a brain (or less) could design male "plumbing" better. (Talkorigins.org)
God's omnibenevolence usually goes along with claims that He is all-knowing and all-powerful. But the three qualities are not compatible with the observation that there is suffering in the world. (Talkorigins.org)
If we conclude that living organisms are designed, and we know that some of these organisms reproduce by laying eggs within a living organism, so that their newly-hatched young can quite literally eat the helpless creature from the inside out, how can we infer that the designer of this system is a kind and benevolent one? (Talkorigins.org)
I guess the "Biblical Creator" in his infinite wisdom could not design eyes any better than natural selection could. (Talkorigins.org)
These same evolutionists who claim it’s OK to believe in both God and evolution must themselves believe in some other god – not the God of the Bible. If evolution were true, then the god of evolution would be a clumsy, incompetent, lazy, moronic creator who couldn’t create his way out of a wet paper bag. He is not the all-powerful Creator who spoke the universe into existence.
It escapes me why so many Christians will associate themselves with such devout God-haters. Why do they trust the opinions of finite men (especially godless men) over the infallible words of the Bible? Science is not the gospel. What evolutionists consider “true” today will most assuredly be found wrong later – just read any “science” text book from 50 years ago and see how much garbage we once believed was true. If you wed your faith to science today, you will be widowed tomorrow. But the Scripture cannot be broken.
Let me give you one quote from the Bible, “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female” (Mark 10:6). So, Jesus said that God created Adam and Eve at the beginning of creation (on day 6 of our 6,000 year history to be precise). Yet evolutionists say God created man (or rather, man evolved with or without God) around 16 billion years after the Big Bang. Who are you going to believe?
Now don't get me wrong: I believe a person can be a Christian even though he believes in evolution. I just think the two beliefs are strange bedfellows.
No comments:
Post a Comment