Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!

Are They Lying?

      If one reads the Creationist literature, one begins to notice a certain arrogance in it. The Creationist literature is written in such a way as to imply that evolutionary science overlooks the obvious -- the "obvious" fact that all Creation shows evidence of intelligent design. To the Creationist, everything points conveniently to the foundational premise, that all living things were specially created. But look beneath the surface.
      Most of the Creationist arguments I was taught as a child have at one time or another come up on the USENET group talk.origins -- and all have there been shown to rely on faulty facts. To give just one example among many, consider the Creationist response to evolutionary genetics.
      It has been pointed out many times that human genes are 97% identical to chimpanzee genes. In response, the Creationist textbooks used in my homeschooling gave a list of other comparisons, with other living things. Among other things, they claimed that, in some particular of our blood chemistry, we are "most similar to" the butter-bean. It was, of course, intentionally ludicrous, the purpose being to make the idea of common descent appear laughable. At the time, I laughed just as the author intended. But nowadays, I laugh for a different reason.
      The same list of comparisons also said that, in the structure of the eye, we are "most similar to" the squid. Again, the intent was to make the reader laugh at the notion of common descent. But here the Creationist revealed what they never intended: that they were wrong. The squid comparison is based on the established fact that, of the invertebrates, the squid is the one whose eye is most like ours. The Creationists, however, failed to use the necessary quailifier, of the invertebrates. In fact, when one considers vertebrates, especially mammals, one finds many species with eyes much more like ours than the squid or the octopus. The eyes of apes and monkeys are very similar to our own. If any one of us was shown three eyeballs removed from their bodies, one a squid's, one a chimpanzee's, and one a human's, most of us could easily tell which was the squid's; but those not trained in comparative anatomy would have difficulty telling the chimp's from the human's. So the eyeball example, as used in my Creationist textbook, was at best uninformed or misinformed, and at worst, deceitful. This casts doubt on the rest of the list of comparisons as well.
      More importantly, though, is that such a list completely misses the point. Evolutionary scientists did not choose genes arbitrarily among the possible comparisons; there was a sound scientific reason: genes are the vehicle of inheritance. Even if the squid was the animal whose eye most resembled ours, the fact would remain that the bloodline does not run through the eyes. Any two humans with the same shade of brown eyes may or may not be close relatives; but any two humans with the same set of genes unquestionably are close relatives. Again, the Creationist's use of superficial physical resemblances to try to refute genetics is at best uninformed, and at worst, deceitful.

      I could go on with countless examples: pictures of Tyrannosaurus eating watermelons (an alligator's teeth are just as shallow-rooted; I suppose the alligator cannot possibly be carnivorous?); the alleged pterosaur found alive in a mine (so where is it now?); the allegation that the so-called "Nebraska Man" was once widely accepted among evolutionists (it was not)...even just listing examples without discussion would make for tedious reading. Because of all this, some mainstrean evolutionary scientists have come to believe that Creationists are simply lying. Now, I hesitate to join in that accusation. Remember, in Scripture, Satan is the Accuser, and the archangel Michael dared not make accusations even against the devil. So, while it does seem very suspicious that the Creationists base a supposedly-scientific case on so many factual errors, I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Rather than accuse fellow Christians of lying, I prefer to believe that they are speaking in misunderstanding and ignorance.
      In order to give someone the benefit of the doubt, however, there must be some doubt. The more I read of Creationism, however, the less doubt I have. I am almost ready to join my fellow evolutionists and say the Creationists are lying.

      On the other hand, there is a much more serious issue here. For I have heard talk of undeniable lies coming from certain sectors of Creationism. Some people have told me they were taught that the Lord created dinosaur fossils to test our faith, whether we will trust His Word. Others have told me they were taught that Satan created dinosaur fossils to lead us astray. We will look at these, in order.
      First,what of the claim that the Lord created fossils to test us? I must first ask, on what is this idea based? While it is certainly possible for the Lord to create whatever He pleases, possibility is not proof. Consider the scene at the Fall of Man, where "The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife." Obviously, God could simply have created skins without animals, clothing the man and woman with no loss of life; but when have you ever heard that interpretation? No, it is generally held (rightly or wrongly) that God got the skins by killing the animals, in a prefigurement of the coming sacrificial system. Does it not seem inconsistent to believe, on the one hand, that the Lord created fossil bones of animals who never lived, but on the other hand, that He had to kill living animals to get skins -- skins He well knew how to create?
      Even deeper than this, of course, is the notion of His creating said fossils to "test" us. What sort of test is this? Am I to understand that the Lord would fabricate evidence of things that never were, just to see whether we believe it? First of all, this contradicts all the evidence of the Gospels and Acts, in which the Lord produced all manner of miracles, so that by believing these physical occurrences, we might also believe in Him. Would an unchanging Lord create things we are supposed to doubt, and then things we are supposed to believe?
      The other claim, that Satan placed the fossils to decieve us, may also be dispensed with quickly. "Through him [Jesus] all things were made; without him [Jesus] nothing was made that has been made" (John 1:3). Only Christ can create; Satan cannot. Thus, in order for Satan to place false fossils, he would have had to shape them from existing rock. Physically possible, of course, but again, possibility is not proof. It is all too easy for well-meaning Christians to declare as fact that this or that is an elaborate scheme by Satan; but such claims are as untestable as Creationists believe evolution to be. They are not even scripturally defensible -- there is no place in scripture that says anything about Satan molding fossils. Such a teaching is but another of the many that religious manipulators use to control people: simply state flatly that Satan is behind this or that thing they personally disapprove, and expect their followers just to take their word for it, without substantiation. This is how cults get started.
      There is a further false teaching I must deal with. The same person who was taught that Satan planted the fossils, was also taught how it supposedly happened -- that at the time of Creation, Satan tricked the Lord and slipped the fossils in. The problem with this notion is obvious: in order for Satan to trick God, he would have to be smarter or more powerful than God. Any God who can be tricked by Satan is not worth worshipping, since he would be unable to save us. Whomever believes that Satan tricked God must necessarily believe himself lost!!

      Every man and woman must constantly be on guard. Even the most devout of us are but frail children of dust. How has it happened that certain Creationists, in their zeal to defend the Creation story in God's Word, have instead spread damnable heresies about the very nature of God? Is belief in a literal Creation really worth losing your soul? Is others' belief in a literal Creation really worth destroying their souls? May it never be!

      I know that I will see both Creationists and Evolutionists in the New Jerusalem, for entrance therein depends solely on the promise of Christ. I also know that there will be both Evolutionists and Creationists in hell, for the religious zeal of men is but so much wind before God. Ask yourself this: do you really think you can lead your scientist friend to salvation by talking about "Creation science"? (That was what you were trying to do, right?) Has not the Lord stipulated the Gospel, and it alone, for salvation?
      I may yet find I am wrong about evolution. I am not worried, for I have trusted in the promise of Christ, who washed away my sin with His blood, and my belief in evolution has not diminished His glory in my eyes one bit. But how ironic it will be if I am wrong -- for I will be able to say in all honesty, "It was the Creation Scientists who persuaded me that evolution was true."

Back to "Science Did Not Ask for Your Opinion"


I am accepting emails, unless the spam gets too bad.