As we have seen, the inconsistencies in the evolutionary methodology are staggering; the evidence, non-existent at best and simply imagined (a product of wishful thinking) at worst. The questions that the evolutionary hypothesis asks, as well as the “answers” it gives, are not scientific at all, but philosophical. As a philosophy, then, the theory of evolution is the foundation for a religion – the religion of humanism. As a religion, it is simply, yet, another attempt by humanity at reaching God (at best) or otherwise replacing God (at worst).

The irony of this theory is found in the fact that it is the elites of society that are the proponents of this madness, which takes advantage of the misfortunate who cannot or otherwise don’t think for themselves. They ridicule those of faith all the while their theory rests on nothing more than a pipe-dream. There is far more evidence for divine design than any other theory, combined. They wag their fingers at organized religion, while by definition theirs is but a religion organized into an agenda. They accuse the church of corrupting the masses, but their agenda is force-fed by many in the public school systems, parroted by many in the media, legislated by many career politicians, and (most importantly) funded by many of the richest in the world. And they mockingly accuse dissidents of stupidity when their theory (as we have examined) follows no known Natural Laws; which is compounded irony when their theory is based on the “natural” (rather than supernatural).

The thrust that drives Darwinism and all subsequent ideologies is nothing more than a religion – The religion of Atheism. First, one can be a self-proclaimed Atheist if one wishes, but that one cannot at the same time claim it to be rational to be an Atheist. An Atheist, by definition, demands that “there is no God.” However, to demand that there is no God, one must be able to investigate the entire universe – all planetary bodies and masses – simultaneously; one must be able to span the entire space and time continuum (and beyond) to determine that, in fact, there is no God; which would actually, then, only determine such a one to be self-contradicting – that one being God by definition. For only God could do such a thing. Therefore, that which an Atheist offers is only an opinion, which carries with it no evidence (scientific or otherwise). Likewise, secondly, if all the material evidence in the world could be studied, it would not prove or disprove the existence of God. Even if the principles of Darwinism were true (which, as we have seen, they are not) they would neither prove nor disprove God. The study of material, obviously, does not consist of the study of the immaterial. One can study the physical world, but never stumble upon that which is beyond the physical.

Everything that is in existence exists because it necessarily had a “First Cause” which brought it into existence. There is no other possible logical conclusion. Such a First Cause could not have been created or otherwise have a beginning (or ending) point. It does not take faith to believe these facts, but only logic; logic is the tool used to study the evidence to deduce this conclusion. By faith I call this First Cause “God,” which is not a leap. I logically deduce that “God” has made Himself known through everything created, and that God has made Himself especially known through Jesus Christ (by raising Him from the dead, thus supporting everything Jesus said when He lived). You’re going to have to do something with that fact, too; for the evidence – historical, eye-witness, literary accounts – is clear.

There is no real scientific evidence for evolution; none, zero, zilch. There is not a single documented scientific proof on record, anywhere, from anytime, in existence. There is no evidence of evolution in any species at present. No one has ever at any point seen evolution happen. There are no known new species. No one has ever sited a new species or produced a new species by mechanisms of natural selection. There is no fossil evidence, and though there is no order in the fossils, a pattern has simply been imposed to which there is no record of evidence to support the assumption. In fact, there is no record that evolution is even possible.

In spite of the attempts, “horizontal variations” (for example, the difference in breeds of dogs) does not support the notion of evolution. The argument concerning “mutations,” likewise, as far as all known mutations are concerned, proves only that they are always (without exception) either neutral or harmful and never for the benefit of the species (as evolution insists).

In regards to astronomy (for example, the “Big Bang Theory”), the theory is riddled with contradictions to the Laws of Physics. In actuality, the evidence suggests that the material and its movement in the universe had an “outside source” from which it came.

The principles of chemistry demands that the notion of evolution has no rational basis, but again, only conjecture. In fact, its laws contradict the notion of random, accidental natural processes. That the building blocks of life were produced out of a chemical primordial soup is, logically (and practically) untenable. The specific sequence in a polymer chain, the synthesis of proteins and DNA/RNA requires necessary “control from an outside source.” Random chance is based not just on improbability, but on impossibility.

Furthermore, the Second Law of Thermodynamics contradicts the very premise of evolution. This law dictates (from all evidence, conversely) that the whole universe is running down into complete disorder. 

On the other hand, what does all the evidence in fact suggest? It suggests, first, that there was and is an “outside source” that brought everything into existence and, secondly, that outside source sustains everything in its function. Real science draws the conclusion that, logically speaking, a “First Cause” necessarily produced all the material and such a First Cause is necessarily separate and completely “other than” that material. This First Cause not only set these things in motion but also sustains the motion by Laws of Nature (Logic, Physics, Thermodynamics, and etc.) derived from a mindful design, due to their intricate and enormously completed function and/or existence. That First Cause I call “God” because He likes that!

The denial of the intelligent design (the mindful, purposed, organized creation) of the universe is not a new notion. That a self-aware Being (i.e. God) generated all that materially exists was challenged as early as Ancient Greece, where (so-called) scientists advocated an evolutionary hypothesis. Like the advocates of evolutionary (so-called) science today, their faulty logic ran counter to the fundamental laws of science. I refer to it as a “so-called” or “falsely so-called” science because it is only a philosophy (and not a logical one at that!). Real science starts with the material – the evidence, if you will – and either deduces or induces (through a series of tests, etc) objective conclusions based on said material or evidence. Evolutionary (so-called) science begins with presuppositions, either deduces or induces the material or evidence into the presuppositions, and then concludes with subjective conjecture and assumptions based on the presuppositions. Good philosophy can be a science, but bad science is the basis for an irrational philosophy.

Darwin himself recognized that his theory had many difficulties, and that if these difficulties were not rectified the theory would collapse under its own weight. In his writings he noted four such difficulties:

1)      The lack of transitional forms – No fossil evidence of the evolutionary process

2)      The incredible complexity of organs – the complexity of the eye, for example

3)      The development of instinct in animals – counterintuitive to the evolutionary process

4)      The sterility in the crossbreeding of species – crossbreeding negates survival

These difficulties (and many others) have not been rectified. The genetic aspect of the evolutionary theory has no practical or theoretical support. Logically speaking, it is an indefensible model. The theory has been shown to be invalid by objective geneticists and, practically, by the conclusive evidence. 

Good theology demands that God is the “intelligent designer” behind the universe, as logic insists. Material cannot decide to create itself then in fact create itself when it is, as of yet uncreated. There must be a source outside of the material that brings into existence that material. Otherwise, the material (like a “god”) has always been present. The Scriptures exclaim that God (the “source” outside of the material) brought everything into existence “ex nihilo” – “out of nothing” (Gen. 1:1). Only a conscious Being, outside of material, could bring into being that which has now come into being; it cannot come into being on its own (John 1:3). Furthermore, the Scriptures explain that God made both plant and animal kingdoms, fully grown, and all other subsequent plants and animals have been produced out of those first made by God (Gen. 1:11-31). The fossil records support this fact by giving evidence to a sudden onset or existence, with no evidence of “upward” evolutionary adaptation (but only horizontal; i.e. adapting to its surroundings). Again, the supporter of the evolutionary theory argues simply that we have not yet found that missing evidence. How convenient. But if we have not yet found the evolutionary evidence what, then, supports the theory?

February marks the birth month of Charles Darwin. To mark this occasion, I am offering a month-long blog series against Darwinism, the evolutionary hypothesis, and any other subsequent form of philosophical/religious, politically correct, nonsensical humanism. I aim for the common person to understand the arguments I will present, so I am consciously attempting to avoid the technical details of the debate. My desire is to awaken the church from its complacency and downright fear of that which is purposely confusing. I also wish to compel people to read, investigate, and research the material on their own. The only reason, in my opinion, that this “notion” (falsely so-called a science) called “Evolution” is extent is because we are ignorant of the facts (rather, the lack of facts on its part). Part One should rightly shake the foundations of any person with a conscience.

The original title of the book published in 1859 by Charles Darwin was, On Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Later printings and editions of the book would have the second half of the title (“the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”) removed. The term, “survival of the fittest” would later be coined in association with this book, but not by Darwin. This title alone should cause issue and hesitation for anyone who cares; especially in light of the fact that, not only is the month of February celebrated by Darwinists, but it is also Black History Month. Dedicating this month to the awareness of the struggles and injustices (as well as the great accomplishments and continuing battles) of a race should call into question any notion in Darwinian thought.

As the atrocities of the Nazis in WWII Europe are well documented, so is the Nazi adherence to Darwinian biology and medicine. Darwin himself promoted the medical practice of Eugenics, which the Nazis practiced. It is well know that Nazi Germany preferred to improve the overall quality of the human race (specifically the “German race”) by selectively breeding biologically “superior” people and forcibly eliminating genetic defects by sterilizing, aborting, and euthanizing “inferior” people. Not so well known, however, is that Darwin himself explained, “The civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world.”

It is this philosophical notion (falsely so-called “science”) termed “evolution” that claimed, not that long ago, that vestigial appendages, such as the appendix, the tail bone, and the tonsils are sorts of evolutionary leftovers, and useless. Yet now, through real science (which, by definition is “the study of” [processes], and not simply philosophical/religious conjecture) has found them useful in the human body and function. Today, Darwinism continues to place conjecture and assumptions before concrete evidence. Rather than studying a process objectively, the Darwinist comes with presuppositions, and when he/she cannot give evidence for his/her philosophical/religious beliefs he/she simply assumes it’s there but that we haven’t found it yet. How convenient.

God, the Creator and Sustainer of life, explicitly claims that every human being is “beautifully and wonderfully made.” He knows the plans that He has for each person; before they come out of the womb, He has plans of abundance and not lack. “For God loved creation generally, and humanity specifically, so much that He sent is only Son. He did not come to judge them, but to rescue them from perishing.”

As the paradigms continue to shift like the plates of the earth’s crust, more new ways of thinking and, thus, more new ideas are continuously and relentlessly crashing against the old established norms. Our political environment, worldwide, is a perfect example of this fact. Another example can be found in the church, where the understanding of the role of Sundays is to be (if it is not already) the next point of contention.

It is common knowledge that the accepted norm for previous generations concerning Sundays was that stores and business of all sorts were closed, and the church was open for business. The norm for the average family and/or individual was to be in church on Sunday. The norm for society was congregational, thus the church is where people congregated. Membership of the church, therefore, was calculated according to the Sunday Services attendance and the offering plates were piled high on this accepted, congregational day, norm.

For better or for worse (a conversation to be had at another time), this social mindset is no longer the accepted norm. Many stores and businesses are open for business on Sundays, thus, many folks work on Sundays, and many churches are closed for business because their business model no longer works. A bigger issue here, though, is that the congregational mindset is no longer the social norm. Concerning the church, many do not trust the institution and regard the establishment as corrupt (as can be seen, also, in the political environment). Not rejecting God, but rejecting the established institution, many in society are rejecting public, congregational worship and turning to smaller groups for spiritual enlightenment.

Thus, the organized church, if it is to survive (and I believe it is), must find ways to return to its roots – i.e., the primitive church of the first three centuries of Christian history. A time is coming when it will not be able to count membership only by Sunday Services attendance, but will have to take into account (as obvious as it sounds) the other six days of the week as well. It is going to have to think of new ways to pay its bills, pay for its missions, and pay for its ministries besides counting the coins in the offering plates.

Let me make this clear, the old church paradigm (which is not being replaced, but built upon by God) is an unsustainable system that is shuttering under its own weight. The new paradigm is streamlined for mobility. It is not erecting church buildings (and thus filling church pews), but making disciples for Jesus Christ (who, therewith, become the church wherever and whenever it is found). It is about building communities (not congregations) where the community is the church and the building is the place where things are offered within (not to or for) the community to meet the needs of the community. The new paradigm is calling forth a vision of identity and not a ministry for identification; it is calling out seven days a week, everywhere at anytime within everyone. Perhaps Sunday will be a common day, but it will not be the only day.

A “leader,” according to the old paradigm, can be defined as “the guardian of the institution.” By “institution” I mean, “a system of power and provision for those within itself.” Therefore, “a leader is one who exercises power over and controls provisions for those within the institution.” A common mistake for many is in thinking that, because the system has failed and leaders have come to resemble the power hungry busy-body lords of serfdom, we should rebel against the system (which is still old paradigm thinking). To understand the new paradigm, and transform (rather than rebel against) the broken system, we must necessarily redefine “the leader” and that over which he/she is “guardian.”

According to the new paradigm, the “leader” is “the guardian of the vision.” Since the leader is no longer guardian of the institution, he/she is no longer that which exercises power over and controls provision for anyone (including his/herself). The leader is called and equipped to be an agent of the vision which, therewith, is also an agent of change to the system. It is in the vision, not the institution, that one finds power and provision. The leader (simply) casts the vision. The vision is rooted in and is sent out from the mind of God.

For example: The church leader is no longer the guardian of the Christian Religion (not to be confused with the Faith of Christ, which would be the vision). He/she is, in the new paradigm, the guardian of the vision. The church leader, therefore, has no power to exercise over and no provision to control for the people in his/her care. The church leader has been called and equipped by God to cast the vision of God, which alone is the power and provision for the people as well as the leader. This necessitates “sola fida” (faith alone). Likewise, the “job” of the leader, then, is to cast the vision so that people can catch the vision. The leader is not the moral/ethical police; he/she does not tell people how to live, and he/she is not the source of power by which all provisions flow. The church leader casts the vision of God. The people catch the vision of God and know Jesus for themselves. They live according to the vision of God in Christ, who is the true source of power for all provision. In this sense, the leader casts the vision and the people enact and walk-out the vision as a way of life. To over-simplify: The church leader casts the vision and the people do the work of the vision. The leader is not responsible for the work, but casting the vision. If he/she does not cast the vision, then he/she is responsible for the people’s ineffectiveness.

God provides for God’s vision. If God has called the vision casters (visionary leaders) then God has also called the vision carriers (detail people to do the work). The leader is not the fund-raiser. He/she is the vision caster and God provides for God’s vision. And, thus, the Church does not make disciples for itself, but of Christ. God provides for God’s vision. The leader casts the vision; the people catch and follow the vision (not the leader), and God adds to the church as many as are being rescued – the transformed system.

I really like maps. I like the maps in the back of many Bibles (especially the ones outlining the journeys of the Apostle Paul). I have a pair of maps hanging on my wall, written in Latin, depicting the ancient world. When I was trucking, it was with the aid of maps that I could find just about anywhere I had to go (and sometimes exactly where I was!). The church has always used maps, as it were, to discover where it was and where it needed to go. But despite the use the church today finds itself in a place that is not on its favorite map. In fact, we find ourselves “…off the map. Here, there be monsters.”

Maps are a result of the work of surveyors and explorers. We, the users of maps, simply travel where others have already been, and usually in ways that others have deemed best. The map that the church has been reading for the past 1500+ years is worn out. Not only that but it no longer portrays, accurately, the landscape for the journey on which it now finds itself. Like the ancient maps written in Latin on my wall, they do not show the world as we now know it is. Meanwhile, the church inches farther and further; lost, with no means to locate it-self or where it is going. Regardless of how one turns the map, eschewing its markings, the actual landscape is unrecognizable and, apparently, unchartered.

Certainly the Apostle Paul had a map as he toured the landscapes of Asia Minor and Europe. Yet, at the same time he was pioneering the design of another map. The map he was drawing was a map for the spreading of the gospel, guided by the compass of the Holy Spirit. When one looks at the map in the back of many Bibles of Paul’s journeys one can see a map of the landscape, but also one sees the passage of the Good News across that landscape. We don’t look at the map of Paul’s journeys for the landscape, but the movement of the message he carried across it.

Understand, I do not think that the church finds itself in the wrong place. I think that the church is studying the wrong map. Our trusty map of Christendom has taken us as far as it was designed to take us. Our compass has taken us off the map. He has removed us to another place in need of another map; off of which we refuse to blow the dust, to unroll, and to gaze upon. This map, after all, is nearly 2,000 years old. It contains only a path less traveled (and not tread upon in 1500+ years). The original surveyor and explorer of this map was Jesus Christ. The pioneers who first utilized this map were the apostles, and the primitive and early church. This map has the landscape of the world as we now know it, and lacks only the continued charting of movement – the movement of the message of the Good News to the uncharted monsters. According to the compass we are precisely where we’re supposed to be. We simply need the right map to tell us where exactly we are.

Some friends of mine were vacationing not too long ago and thought of me when, on their journey, they found a refrigerator magnet that read, “Think! It’s not illegal yet.” I have the magnet, in fact, on my refrigerator today. I appreciate my friends thinking of me, but I am more thankful that my friends, upon seeing this magnet, did actually “think.” Certainly the magnet reminded them of me because (to the point of aggravation, of myself even) I continuously remind us about the gift – our ability to think – and the necessity of our use of this gift.

As a pastor, obviously, I am concerned about rescued souls. As a member of the Church, of course, I am interested in its healthy growth. Certainly I care about speaking the Good News into the life of humanity. But I believe that the most effective way to do these things is by insisting that humanity utilizes its God-given gift to think (exercising logic and reason, which are from the mind of God).

Case in point: The notion that perception is reality is, in fact, illogical and void of any kind of rational thought. I once spoke to a woman whose perception (her circumstances and feelings) told her that God did not love her (in reality). Emotions are relative, but logic (truth) is not. If God, by definition, loves humanity; and this woman, by definition, is human; then, God must necessarily love this woman. Her perception of reality does not change the fact of that reality (either way).

Incidentally, I often (and painstakingly) add the phrase “by definition” (which is a point of aggravation for some, including myself) because it draws attention to what was just actually stated and demands the importance of the logical meaning of words rather than the emotional baggage attached to them. For example, when I say “God, by definition,” I aim to rid us of the irrational, emotional baggage that we have “God” carry. I wish to drill-down to who “God” is in reality and not who we would have “God” be in our own perception. Further, by adding “by definition,” I insist that we “think” about what we are saying; balancing our feelings and emotions with logic and reason.

Operating out of our animal instinct (i.e. not thinking) is precisely that which lead to our separation from God and our subsequent altered perceptions of reality (Romans 1). Likewise, our religious nature (negatively speaking – Romans 1) is full of emotional insecurities, irrational fears, blind ignorance, and hypocritical actions precisely because we quit thinking. Thus, the Church is rightly being rejected by a generation that demands (whether they know it or not, the God-given) right to “think.” The Church has nothing to fear and everything to gain from people exercising thought. Our ability to “think” is presupposed by the mind of God.

Because God exists and is self-aware – i.e. God has (is) a mind of God’s own – we are able to think. We would not be able to “think” if there was not a self-aware God who has opened the mind of God to us. It is when we stop thinking that we stop expressing God. I am convinced that when human beings “think,” we have no other conclusions to draw but that without God (by definition) we are hopelessly lost, helplessly in need of God’s grace, and necessarily, therefore, in dire need of Jesus Christ (the only means to reconciliation and redemption, by definition; which in turn, places us in the community of the Church). Therewith, to not believe in God or the need of a God (by definition) or, therefore, the need of Jesus Christ to regain community, is to not “think” (by definition) at all.

Just as the notion of sameness perverts the idea of oneness, so the human ideology of (so-called) unity counterfeits divine community. At first glance sameness and oneness appear synonymous. Likewise, unity and community seem only a play on words. However, sameness and unity are simple attempts to alter perception in the effort to create a new reality. While oneness and community are a reality that takes on a new perception when properly understood.

Sameness and unity, simply, are politically correct ways of forwarding utopian nonsensical madness. By definition they are a denial of reason and reality. They are alienated and completely separated from sound logic and are, instead, based on emotion and feeling (while emotion and feeling in and of themselves are fine, to house an entire worldview in them is sheer insanity).

Oneness and community, on the other hand, accept things as they are. For example, an eye is an eye, a foot a foot, an ear an ear, and a hand a hand, etc (1Cor. 12:13-17). They do not attempt to deny that any of these are what they are, but instead they rightly identify them all as equally important parts of the body (1Cor. 12:18). If the parts were unitarily the same parts, then, they wouldn’t and couldn’t be parts of one body (1Cor. 12:19), but several parts of several bodies (Rom. 12:4).

Thus, oneness demands adversity (Rom. 12:5; 1Cor. 12:20) and, therefore, sameness is necessarily perverted pluralism. Likewise, community insists on many varying members to compile a whole (1Cor. 12:12), but unity consists of a denial of differences and, therewith, an invention of a body of a different sort. Oneness and community are the varying array of members which are fitted together as the Body of Christ (1Cor. 12:27). Sameness and unity are mutated (so-called) members which are sown together into the body of Frankenstein!

The fundamental difference in these two poles is one denies the reality that things are different for a pre-designed purpose, and the other truly accepts the differences as the manifold expression of the oneness of God’s community within Gods-self (1Cor. 12:22-25).

I think the church is conducting the wrong argument when it carries on about a so-called “Six-Day Creation.” Likewise, it insists on a literal 6,000 years for the history of the earth, while deriving that number by lifting certain texts out of context (Psalm 90:4; 2Pet. 3:8); converting days to years when it refers to the history of the planet, while insisting on literal days when it speaks about creation. Now, don’t get me wrong, I find no validity in the evolutionary hypothesis (and/or any of its confounding “big bangs” or the like). The six-days of Genesis Chapter one are not so much a “creation” as they are a “making out of material previously created.” It is possible that the earth is millions or billions of years old (not because the empiricist irrationally demands it) and, that the six-day account is historically accurate as well.

In the beginning God created the universe and the earth (Gen. 1:1). And the earth was chaotic and in ruins (Gen. 1:2). God does not create in chaos and ruin (or whatever two-word combination your translation may have). These two words, in the Hebrew, speak of judgment. God destroyed the verse one creation, by-the-way with a flood, in judgment. Incidentally, He then spoke forth light (Gen. 1:3), which is the Resurrection Life of Christ (John 1:4-5). The “light” counter-acts the darkness, which was never a part of God’s creation, but a result of that which God judged in the “gap” between verses one and two.

Notice, during the Six Days of Genesis 1:3-31 that God does not “create.” According to Gen. 2:4 this is the account of “heaven and earth” when they were “created” and “earth and heaven” when they were “made” (notice an initial creation and a secondary making out of that creation). Created and made are two completely different Hebrew words. One speaks of a creation ex-nihilo (out of nothing) and the other describes a making out of previously created material. God made Adam out of the clay of the soil (Gen. 2:7), which clay God had previously created (Gen. 1:1). Likewise, out of that which was previously created did God cause to grow every living thing on the earth (Gen. 2:5-14).

It is beyond the scope of this writing, but it could be argued that it is here, in this gap between Gen. 1:1 and Gen. 1:2, that the dinosaurs are found. It could also be that here, in this gap, is where one could argue for the fall of the evil one (the source of the uncreated darkness – Matt. 8:12; 22:13; 25:30; Luke 22:53; John 3:19; 8:12; 12:35, 46). The possibility of an old earth, however, is within this writing’s scope. It does not contradict the Scriptures (or itself) in any way to understand that God created the material (and the immaterial, for that matter) innumerable years ago and then, more recently, made out of that creation, in a literal six day time frame, the present universe and earth.

It would be easier to argue that humanity has only 6,000 years of existence than to argue it for all of creation. One could at least find more support for it in the Scriptures.