Note: I will be taking a little time off from writing the expository commentaries in order to work on a couple of other writing projects. In the meantime, I will post some other articles that I have not previously posted online. Hopefully, sometime in early January, we will return to the New Testament commentaries with the book of Ephesians.
Introduction – Out of the Driveway, Into the Game
Crash and burn; you’ll rarely see that phrase used in a positive manner in our society. No decent person likes to watch someone else crash and burn, especially a kid. Yet, I found myself in a position for eight years where I had to do just that. I knew it was coming every year and it was never pleasant. Nor did I ever really get used to it or hardened by it.
So, what was the position? It was that of a high school basketball coach at an inner city high school. Every year in the early fall, we began the process of forming that season’s basketball team. This was always a time of big dreams, high expectations, and big talk. Usually the biggest talk came from the new young players or the new kids who had transferred to our school.
As the process began, we would spend two weeks trying to get the kids to quit. We would run them more than most of them had ever run in their life. It was always fun to watch the returning players as they observed the code of silence on the first day of conditioning. They refused to tell the new players what we were about to do, but you could see the twinkle in their eyes. They knew what these new young bucks were in for. We took them to a very high and steep hill and had them run up and down the hill twenty-five times, and that was just on the first day. It got worse as the conditioning period went along. Some quit, most didn’t. Most of these new players were buoyed by the belief that they would be the next big star of the team.
Once the actual tryout and practice period began, shooting, dribbling and defensive drills were the order of the day. For a solid week we would run certain drills looking for good form and the hard workers. This is where an interesting phenomenon developed almost every single year. There were always several new players who would begin to shine during this time, but quite often, one of those players would look especially good. I am drawn to think of one year in particular and a player that we will call Nazir.
Nazir was a kid who spent his early years living in a very rough environment in the inner-city, passed from family member to family member. He had also spent time in foster care. The one person he had spent very little time with was his mother, and he didn’t even know his father. Then, at the age of ten, he moved to much nicer and quiet neighborhood with his grandmother. He began to struggle academically in his suburban schools and he missed the inner-city. He had lost any street credibility and wanted to get it back. So, he convinced his grandmother to send him to our school. Once here, he was going to be the next great player at our school.
As the drills began, Nazir looked incredible. His form was flawless, his concentration was impeccable. He was determined too. During conditioning, one of his shoes broke but rather than quitting, he took both shoes off and actually ran the hill another ten or twelve times in his socks. As the week wore on we were extremely impressed by this kid. When we began to participate in light scrimmage-like drills he looked even more impressive. He learned the offense quickly and could shoot like a budding star that he was sure he was. Even the older players were impressed and began to accept him as one of their own, which was very unusual that early in the process of forming a team.
At the end of practice on the second day of the week I told the team that the next day we would be having our first full-speed scrimmage. After practice, Nazir was extremely excited. This would be his chance to finally show off his entire game. It would be his time. We had a brief conversation, however, that began to deflate the balloon of high hopes that I was inflating about him. I asked him where he had played ball before this. He informed me that he had never really played in a league before this. There are no middle school sports in our town so that is not that unusual. What was unusual, though, was when I asked him what park he played at. He told me that his grandmother had not wanted him to go to any parks, especially not back in the inner-city. “Well, where did you play,” I asked him. This is when the vase fell off the shelf. He informed me that he had learned to play by shooting in his driveway. He spent hours every day shooting and dribbling next to his house, in the driveway, by himself. At those words, I wished him luck the next day, but in my heart I knew what was coming: crash and burn.
The scrimmage began and it went exactly as I had feared it would for Nazir. One of our senior guards, who wasn’t quite ready to step aside for this new, young, hotshot, arranged it so he could guard Nazir in the scrimmage. Everyone on Nazir’s team was confident, knowing how good he was. They knew all they had to do was get him the ball and he would carry them to victory. On the first play on his end, Nazir ran the offensive play beautifully, caught the ball and sent up a shot. This shot was different from his many other shots during the first week-and-a-half of practice. Rather than the perfect, eye-catching masterpieces he had been launching, this shot looked more like an injured Canadian goose trying desperately to keep up with the other birds. The shot didn’t even hit the rim; it unceremoniously banged off the bottom corner of the backboard. The senior defender smiled because he now knew what I had feared. Nazir was a driveway player.
The remainder of the practice season went for Nazir as it does for most of the players of this sort. He continued to fail in scrimmages and his confidence plummeted, despite our best efforts to encourage him. We put him on the team, hoping that his great potential might be realized at some point, but he never recovered. He limped through the season without ever making a contribution to the team and quit the team over the summer.
Nazir discovered what so many other hopeful young men had. Shooting in a driveway or a gym all by themselves is of some value, but it is of almost no value if they never learn how to play in real situations. Hitting a shot is one thing. Hitting it when you’re tired, sweaty, and have a determined defender hanging all over you is quite another thing. Nazir was completely ineffective when the real heat came. He looked great in the driveway, but he simply could not handle what a seasoned, gritty defender was going to do to him. It interrupted his flow, broke his concentration, and stifled everything he wanted to do. He simply didn’t know how to respond. Players that looked far inferior to Nazir passed him by in his scrimmages because they were calm and collected under the fire of a real game. Anyone can make basket after basket when they are by themselves in a driveway (My sincerest apologies to those who have tried and cannot yet master the fine art of putting the ball in the hoop), not everyone can do it when the pressure is on and the opponent is attacking.
So, what is the point of all of this? Simply this: this same phenomenon happens to teenagers every day on a spiritual level. There is a disturbing phenomenon that is far too common in the Christian world. Teenagers who were raised in a Christian home and seemingly begin to walk with Christ as His disciple, crash and burn right before the very eyes of their parents, youth workers, and spiritual family. How could this happen? Why does this happen so often? Kids who seem so spiritually mature and sound crash and burn during the test of the high school years and by college have completely walked away from their faith in Christ.
Is this just a normal phase of growing up or is this a problem that can be fixed? I am convinced that this all-too-common phenomenon is not just part of being a teen. It is a result of a well-thought-out plan of attack by Satan. Satan is a formidable adversary, yet he has already been defeated Christ. Anything Satan can throw at us, no matter how fierce it may be, can be overcome by following biblical principles.
What happened to Nazir is very similar to what far too many parents have done unwittingly to their children in the spiritual realm. We have not prepared them fully for what they will face in the world, yet we send them out there anyway. We have given them a false sense of security, mostly because we have a false sense of their security.
“Wait”, you might say. “That is not so. Most Christian parents in the churches of Christ do train their children according to wonderful biblical principles.” Whether that is entirely true or not is not to be considered in this book. Many parents are doing their very best to raise Christian children; children who love and obey God. Their kids can pray, they can rattle off memory scriptures, they sing with all their might, they hug fellow Christians, they volunteer their time, and they are the complete “disciple in training.” The problem is that they are shooting in the driveway. They are learning the art of Christianity in the safety of our churches and homes without the duress of the real world.
Parents are not aware that everyday their children walk out of our homes they are under attack. They are under siege on the way to school, at school, on the way home, while watching TV, while listening to the radio, while talking to their friends, just about everywhere. The world has declared war on our children. More accurately, Satan has declared war on our children and has enlisted the world as his minions.
What surprises most parents is not where the attack comes but from whom it comes. It would not shock many parents if I told them that one of the most dangerous spiritual environments for their children is at school. Most parents know all too well the dangers of peer pressure and bad influences. This is not, however the most dangerous aspect of a public education. The most dangerous spiritual aspect of a public education is the education itself.
Our kids are under a very intentional and specific attack that is aimed at their minds. Right under our noses, our Christian children are being sent to school and taught to think differently and view the world through anything but biblical lenses.
They are being taught that the idea of a creator God is an unnecessary and unscientific view that is little different from believing that the world rests on the back of a giant turtle. It is the same type of people, they are told, that believe in a Creator that once believed in things like the flat earth. Instead they are told that we are all here quite by accident. The blind forces of evolution are the real cause of life on earth. What one believes about the origins of the universe has an inestimable impact on the way one views the world.
With the belief that life is a mere accident, comes the moral relativity that is so common to the worldviews of secular humanism and post-modernism. I know of no Christian parents who would pack their kids a lunch and send them off to a Muslim or Mormon school everyday. If they were somehow in a situation where there was no other choice, they would be sure to do a great deal of work to discover what they were being taught. They would prepare them for it and do a great deal of teaching to counteract the worldview and beliefs that their children were being fed at school. What these same evangelical Christian parents don’t realize, however, is that they are, in fact, sending their children to schools that hold a religious view other than their own. Most public schools in America are firmly rooted in the religious worldview of secular humanism, post-modern secular humanism to be more exact.
Just as there are different aspects of Christianity such as Catholic, liberal mainline, evangelical, protestant, etc., so there are different aspects of secular humanism. The public schools in the United States of America have become temples of post-modern secular humanism.
The problem, however, is not so much the worldview taught in the schools. It is the fact that parents are largely unaware of this worldview training that their kids receive and so they leave them unprepared. The kids are taught a version of Christianity that will fail them in the face of the enemy that they are facing. Just as a basketball team must prepare specifically for the opponent that they are facing, Christian parents must prepare their kids for the test that lies before them.
Rather than preparing them for a world in which the real war is one of worldviews and the battlefield is in the mind, they are being spiritually trained in a way that will not properly prepare them for the real menace.
We, as a Christian community, are simply not preparing our kids for the pressure that the world will put on them. The world will tell them that everything they have grown up to believe is wrong. Sometimes this message will be obvious. All too often it is much more subtle and sinister. We are teaching them to be Christians, yes. But we are not doing so well when it comes to teaching them to be defenders of the faith.
The symptoms of this deficiency are clear. I see them in pre-teen, teen, and even campus ministries everywhere. The parents jump through all the hoops to ensure that their child will grow up to love God and be a disciple of Jesus. They pray without ceasing that their kids will not have to go through what they went through as non-Christian adults. And in fact it appears to work. Their kids sail through their childhood years. They are wonderful, respectful, God-fearing children. Then they hit the pre-teen years and cracks begin to appear. The parents see signs of disrespect, of poor attitudes, and even indifference. The parents shake it off telling themselves that these are just the normal struggles of a pre-teen.
The young teen years get a little tougher. Our kids are beginning to really exercise their autonomy. They have not yet chosen to be Christians, but that is okay we tell ourselves, because we don’t want to rush them. They will make that choice when they’re ready. (Or there are the ones that do become Christians at this age and slowly begin to exhibit these same symptoms. Usually this group shows the same symptoms a little further down the road.) The parents now begin to see signs of what we hope are merely growing up; their sense of clothing and style changes. They want to listen to different music. They begin to develop more friendships outside of church. That’s okay, the parents whisper to themselves, because at least they bring their friends to church.
By their teen years, the wheels have fallen off. The child is suddenly about to graduate from high school and they seemingly have no intentions of living a life for Christ. It’s not that they are bad kids, quite the contrary. They might be rebellious and the like but often they get along with their parents as well as any teen that is still committed to a life in Christ ever did. With each passing day, though, they become more worldly. You can see it in their clothes, music, friends, and attitude. The parents are in a complete quandary. How could this have happened? The parents taught their kids to fear God, to obey his commandments. How could they disrespect God like this?
I have also seen kids who sail through the pre-teen and teen years. They are incredible kids who love God with all of their heart. They show themselves to be leaders in their youth group and are great all-around role models. For many in this group the problems don’t begin to appear until they are in college. They go off to the university with God in their heart, but things quickly change while they are there. They face challenges in college from friends and professors for which they were not ready. Often these are intellectual challenges to their belief system that they are not prepared to handle.
While parents are diligently training their most precious gifts from God to be His servants, the world is working without ceasing. They are evangelizing our children into their own religion. Their evangelists work around the clock. They are relentless. They use an unbelievable potpourri of methods and techniques and they are everywhere.
What has happened? Our kids have been literally brainwashed to view the world and everything in it in a different way than the view prescribed by the Bible. They have been taught to think differently and so, everything we think we are teaching them at home is actually being processed in a much different way than we might hope. It has happened on our watch and we never really saw it coming.
The fact is way too many of our kids are walking away from the faith of their parents. Something is broken and we need to have courage to admit that and look for the solution.
If you are reading this right now as a parent and say to yourself, “this doesn’t sound like my child at all.” I would respond and say, “Great, I hope it never does describe your kid.” I would, however, remind you of a couple of things. Just because your child is not currently going through difficulties like these does not mean that they won’t in the future. I would also challenge you to look around. Maybe your child will never go through a time of walking away from the faith, but many kids are, and we are all in this together. We have to work together as a Christian community to help all of us and all of our children get to heaven.
I don’t know if you have ever noticed this but there are 27 books in the New Testament. You have your gospels of course: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Then you have the history of the development of the church recorded in the book of Acts. Those are pretty good books. In those first five books you have most of the information about the life of Jesus and the formation of His church. The last two verses of the book of Matthew, (28:19-20) are a command from Jesus to make disciples of the remaining population of the world. In other words, to help them get saved. Those words pretty much sum it up. My question is this. If we have the account of Jesus and the early church and it includes all the information necessary to know what our mission is after we have been saved, then why do we need the rest of the New Testament?
There are another whole 22 books. Some of them are encouraging like Philippians and Galatians, some of them are pretty heavy reading like Romans and Hebrews. Then we finish off with the mildly frightening book of Jude and the enigmatic Revelation. All 22 are definitely in the Bible, though. I have looked in several different editions and versions. But why are they there? If our goal on this earth is to get saved, become a disciple of Jesus and make more disciples, then are those 22 books really necessary?
Well, of course they are necessary, I have yet to meet a person who would argue that they are not. I do have to admit, however, that I have never met Martin Luther or Thomas Jefferson, both of whom seemed to think that a few of those books were unnecessary. Most people, though, see them as every bit as important as the first five books.
This is the conclusion to which I have come. Those books are there to teach us how to live our lives the way a true disciple should. They are preparing us to spend eternity with a holy God. In short, those books are teaching us to think like Jesus thought; to see the world through God’s eyes. Paul spends a large portion of his writings in entreating his readers to transform their minds and think about the world differently from everyone else around them. In a word this is called worldview.
Worldview is that strange little world that most of don’t even consider as we walk through the remainder of our lives. A few of us bandy it about from time to time but take very little time to ponder. Virtually none of us take the time to meditate on it and truly develop a well thought out, comprehensive worldview that is consistent with the Bible. Of the few that have taken the time and effort to do that, even fewer have a comprehensive plan of instilling a practical, effective, and thoroughly biblical worldview in our children.
Developing a truly Biblical worldview is a tricky concept. It is not something you study out for a few days or maybe a week, make a list, and then begin to master the concept of seeing the world as God sees it. No one this side of Jesus has ever maintained a thoroughly Biblical worldview. (And he did it without the New Testament; that’s impressive.)
It is my opinion that the concept of developing and living out an authentic, pervasive, Biblical worldview has been something that is very lacking in our current church culture. The life of a disciple goes well beyond the point of justification. In fact, everything that we do following our baptism should be centered on building a biblical worldview.
If we, as adults, have not focused enough on having a biblical worldview, then it only stands to reason that our children do not have a very solid one either. The thing that we must realize is that everyone has a worldview that determines how they act. What you believe determines how you act. If we are not intentionally training our children how to think biblically and instilling a thoroughly biblical worldview in them, they will still develop a worldview. From where they get this worldview and on what precepts it is built is a whole other issue.
I believe that addressing this situation with our children could be a very important key in assisting our young people to come to become baptized disciples in the churches of Christ, and just as importantly, to stay faithful. Too many of our children are floundering right now. They have never come to Christ or they have and have walked away from their faith. This is a sad situation, one that simply cannot be ignored. Nor is it a situation that we can afford to address incorrectly any longer.
I have talked to so many parents who are absolutely clueless as to what has gone wrong. They have tried everything within their power and still their children are not living the life of a committed disciple. For many kids, I believe that the answer is training them in a Biblical worldview from their earliest years. This is the topic of this book.
Keep in my mind as you read this book, I am not saying that the information presented is the only way to do it or the only thing that Christian parents need to do. This is intended to be a supplement to the wonderful things that most Christian parents are already doing. A hole in a screen, however, can let in a whole lot of bugs. You do not need a whole new screen most of the time, though; you just need to patch the hole. View this book as just that – a patch. I believe that most parents in our fellowship are doing a very good job raising their children. If that is forgotten as you read, the tone of this book might seem condemning and condescending, which it is not intended at all to be. You may have a wonderful front door, but if there is a hole in the screen, it needs fixing. To talk about how wonderful the door is will not fix the hole in the screen. Neither is being truthful about the tear and the need to fix in any way condemning the worth of the door. So pointing out the need for a patch in the screen of our collective parenting is not a broad condemnation of us as a fellowship.
Let me also warn you that this book is not an exhaustive resource on developing a Christian worldview. Nor will it serve as a curriculum for training children to have a Christian worldview. I would not even call this book a handbook to helping kids develop a Biblical worldview. Think of this book as a primer. It is really an introduction to the concept of worldview for the parents and youth workers of our particular tradition in the churches of Christ. It is to get us thinking and maybe start a few discussions.
I also realize that the ideas presented here will not apply to all kids in every situation. I firmly believe, though, that if discussed, developed, and applied, the ideas in this book will help many families, youth groups, and churches.
Chapter 1 – From Goo-to-Zoo-to You?
At the tiny Rhea County Courthouse in Dayton, Tennessee on July 25th, 1925, the United States of America changed drastically. What took place in that courtroom did not seem like such a major event at the time but the happenings during the summer of ’25 have left a lasting legacy on American education, culture, and society. The event that had such a profound impact on American culture and society was nothing other than the trial of John Scopes for the crime of teaching evolution in the classroom. This case is more commonly come to be known as the Scopes monkey trial.
In March 1925, the state of Tennessee passed the Butler Act which made it illegal to teach the theory of evolution in public schools. According to the law it was “unlawful for any teacher in any of the … public schools of the state … to teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals.” Almost immediately, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) jumped into action. Their goal was to find a test case that they could argue in court in order to challenge this law. In fact, they began to advertise in papers around the country, looking for teachers who would be willing to take part in a challenge of this law. George Rappleyea, a resident of Dayton, Tennessee, saw one of their ads and quickly hatched a plan. His idea was to find a teacher in Dayton to take up the case in order to draw publicity to the tiny and struggling town. He believed that the trial would attract media attention which would eventually translate into new businesses and industries coming to Dayton.
A meeting of town leaders was held in a local café, and it was quickly determined that Rappleyea was on to something. After a bit of searching, the town leaders came upon a young physical education teacher and coach named John Scopes. Scopes, in fact, was not a biology teacher. He had substitute taught in a biology class for the last few weeks of the school year, and had apparently never taught any evolution at all. It was determined, however, that while preparing for class he may have used a textbook which did contain evolutionary ideas in it. With that as the basis for the case, the town leaders, with the blessing and cooperation of Scopes, filed charges against him for the crime of teaching evolution, and the Scopes trial began.
Assisting the prosecution would be former presidential candidate and professing Christian, William Jennings Bryan. Leading the defense was the famous defense lawyer, Clarence Darrow. The town turned the events around the trial into more of a carnival-type atmosphere than an actual trial in a court of law.
The case should have been a simple matter of whether or not Scopes had taught evolution. Darrow, however, had different plans. He brought in a litany of scientists and theologians to argue the case for evolution. Darrow had no actual interest in defending Scopes; it was already accepted that he would be found guilty. Darrow and his ACLU backers would, instead, put the very idea of a Creator God on trial. Their argument was that evolution was true and the law itself should be struck down. They knew ultimately, that the real battle was being fought in the hearts and minds of Americans listening to the trial on the radio and following it in the newspapers. The outcome of the case in this particular courtroom was incidental.
Darrow’s so-called expert witnesses hammered away at the concept of a creator, as they argued for the veracity of the theory of evolution. Darrow then, in a brilliant move, called Bryan to the stand as an expert witness on the Bible. Bryan, who was no fundamentalist, was hammered with questions of apparent contradictions and scientific inaccuracies in the Bible. Thousands of Americans listened as Darrow ripped holes in Bryan’s biblical credibility. He asked questions that Bryan couldn’t answer, such as “where did Cain get his wife”. While Bryan stumbled on questions that any modern apologist could answer in their sleep, the minds of Americans were turning.
Bryan’s plan was to turn the tables on Darrow and call him to the stand so that he could be grilled on the problems of the evolutionary theory. Before he could do that, and before any experts could be called to refute the testimony of the evolutionary experts, Darrow had Scopes plead guilty, which ended the trial. Scopes was fined $100. This was later overturned on the technicality that the judge had passed down the fine amount rather than being set by the jury.
On the 75th anniversary of the Scopes trial, Doug Linder, a professor of law the University of Missouri, stated in an interview on CNN, “The trial probably had its greatest effect in the success of Darrow in turning the trial into a national biology lesson through the prepared statements of scientific experts, which were distributed to the press, and he succeeded in reversing momentum toward bans on teaching evolution.”
It should be noted that nearly every argument used in Darrow’s biology lesson to the nation has been discredited as inaccurate or untrue and has since been thrown out by evolutionists themselves. The message from the many theologians called by Darrow was that the Bible was merely a human work of religious beliefs. It was the scientists, they said, that would provide the facts about the past. Many of the theologians of the day refused to accept the Word of God as their ultimate authority, and instead accepted the word of the scientists of their day as their ultimate authority.
The damage had been done on two fronts. In the mind of many Americans, evolution was now accepted as fact. The focus of science education quickly changed from a discovery of God’s creation to a search for proof of evolution. Over the course of the next generation, evolution became the teaching norm in schools and creation was pushed out.
The second outfall from the trial was in the damage that was done to the mind of evangelical Christians. Embarrassed by the happenings at the trial and shaken in their ability to answer the questions of the world and the criticisms of the Bible, the conservative Christian community as a whole slipped quietly into the background. Without a fight the arenas of science and education were turned over to the secular evolutionists. Christians quietly exited stage left in the marketplace of ideas and retreated into the safe confines of the church building. It would not be until the late 1960’s that Christians would once again begin to stir and take up the issue of science and the Bible. Even then it would be another twenty years after that before the issue of evolution would be seriously challenged by the Bible-believing community.
Does it really matter whether creation or evolution is taught in schools? Apparently it does matter. Following the Scopes trial, it took a generation or so for evolution to make its way into the textbooks and schools. By the 1960’s evolutionists had taken root in nearly every university and high school science room. Since that time, American has descended into a downward spiral of moral values. We have experienced moral decay and decline like no other time in American history. If children are taught for long enough that they are merely animals, here by chance, it won’t be too long before they begin acting that way. Sex is natural, violence is caused by genetic predisposition, and all standards are relative according to the worldview of the evolutionist. Ideas matter. What we believe determines how we will act.
The issue of creation and evolution is so vital that it cannot be overlooked. We can no longer afford to follow the example of the Christian movement of the 1920’s, 1930’s, 1940’s, and 1950’s and be content to teach our children Bible stories while ignoring the issue of creation except for the occasional reference to the fact that God created everything. These Christians who abandoned science and left it to the world, somehow, assumed that you could separate the Bible from other areas of knowledge and learning. Secular Humanists were quick to capitalize on this. They realized that if you train entire generations into believing evolution and discounting creation, then those generations would eventually reject the Bible as relevant to the real world. If the science of the Bible is not accurate, then why bother reading, let alone believing, the rest of it? Let’s be very clear on that. If the book of Genesis is wrong, and God did not create the universe as the book claims, then there is little point in bothering with the rest of the book. Many kids have already figured that out, while far too many adults are walking around diminishing the importance of the belief in the Genesis creation story.
It is not enough to occasionally reference God as the creator. Charles Potter, a leader in the Humanist movement and devout evolutionist said, “What can theistic Sunday Schools, meeting for an hour once a week, and teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teaching?”1 We will not be able to compete with the constant influx of evolution and evolution influenced ideologies unless we properly arm our children.
The belief in evolution allows people to discard God and develop their own theology. Evolution is not good science; it is a Gnostic myth. Yet, Humanists have managed to slowly change our cultural beliefs because they have eroded public belief in our Godly origins, all the while passing evolution off as good science. Unless we rebuild this foundation, we will have a hard time convincing anyone, including our own children, to listen to the Bible.
I have met many teens that simply did not want to listen to anything to do with the Bible because it was not relevant in their eyes. As one put it, “I believe in evolution, so I don’t have to believe in God. And I don’t need anyone telling me to live my life in a certain way because that’s the way God said to do it.”
It may be necessary to first answer questions for people about this subject of creation and evolution before a serious presentation of God’s law and the gospel can take place. Most parents and youth workers don’t see this as an important issue at all. In an informal survey of area youth ministers, not one had ever addressed the issue of creation with their group. What is frightening is that in an unscientific survey given to fifty area Christian teens, 80% of them answered that they weren’t sure if God had created the universe or not. Of that 80%, nearly 90% stated that this affected how they viewed God and responded to the message of the Bible. Unfortunately, parents and youth workers are often out of touch with this reality.
One youth minister recently told me, “All that matters is Christ, crucified. It’s a matter of the heart and how people respond to the gospel. It makes no difference in what they believe about creation. It all has to do with their heart to obey the Word of God.” This opinion, however, is completely out of touch with reality. If people don’t believe in the existence of a creator, they will have no time for His supposed Word. If Genesis is myth, so is the rest of the Bible. You cannot take the first eleven chapters out of the Bible and still have a book worth reading, believing, or following.
If a teenager believes in creation, he believes in God, moral truth, etc. He will be open to the message of God’s law and the gospel. The message of the cross will be a mere stumbling block. (I Corinthians 1:23) A teenager who believes in evolution will reject God, moral absolutes, etc. He will not be open to the message of God’s law and the gospel. The message of the cross will be complete foolishness. (I Corinthians 1:23) Do we want our children to believe that we came from God or from a goo-to-zoo-to-you evolutionary process?
Most of the ideas presented later in this book in helping teens to come to a biblical worldview will not be effective if they do not have a good grip on this subject. It is very dangerous, however, to assume that because your child is 14 and believes in creation that he will always stay that way. The hardcore attacks are yet to come. When my older son was just five years old I began teaching him about creation and evolution. I have prepared him for what he will be taught. I want him to be able to reject poor information and recognize it when it is being presented to him. This is a process that will continue until he becomes an adult.
Evolution did not rise out of good science. It came about as an excuse to explain away God. The evidence for evolution is virtually non-existent, yet the theory persists. It is outside of the scope of this book to completely examine this topic. I will, however, attempt to give parents a few building blocks on which to start. Below, you will find three devastating objections to evolution, which they have failed to answer in any convincing manner. After reading this it is easy to see that rather than being fact, evolution is a theory in trouble. The very mechanisms that are necessary for evolution to take place simply do not and cannot exist.
Irreducible Complexity
Irreducible complexity is a big term. It has been developed by Lehigh University professor of biochemistry, Michael Behe, in his book Darwin’s Black Box. To put it as simply as possible, irreducible complexity means that something cannot get any simpler than it is and still work. Behe’s classic example is that of a mousetrap. A mousetrap, he argues, cannot be put together a piece at a time and still work. You either have the whole thing working together as one unit or you have a bunch of spare parts that do nothing. You cannot take a piece of wood and catch a few mice, add a spring and get a few more, add a metal bar and get even more, continuing to add on with each addition making the device more effective. To even get one mouse, you must have the entire contraption. It does not work until all of its parts are present and working together.
Every year the high school at which I taught competed in the national Rube Goldberg competition. It is a science contest in which teams must build a contraption that contains at least twenty steps. Each year the teams are given a task to complete and then they begin to build their machines. A few years ago the task was to build a machine that would select and peel an apple. Our school built a pretty cool machine that had over twenty steps and sure enough at the end, it selected and peeled an apple. It was actually pretty amazing to watch.
I went to the competition that year and watched all of the machines compete against one another. They were all very creative and extremely different from one another. There was one thing, though, that they all had in common. If you took out any one of the steps from any of those machines, the whole thing became worthless. They were beautiful, working examples of irreducible complexity.
Darwin’s theory of evolution runs counter to this idea. Natural selection works slowly as new features and organs slowly develop over millions of years. These changes eventually add up and a new type of organism is manufactured. When applied to the real world, however, this slow change theory just does not add up.
Francis Schaeffer developed an example of this that is pretty easy to understand. Imagine that a fish were to evolve lungs. That would be an amazing feat all by itself, but then what? Is this an advantage for the fish? Absolutely not, the fish would drown immediately.
There is no evidence that living things can be thrown together piece by piece. They are incredibly complex systems with parts that are interrelated. The only way a fish could develop into a land animal is to do it all at once. Slow development would simply not work. If a fish did develop lungs, (admittedly this is a simplistic example, but it still makes the point quite well) natural selection would immediately ferret out that characteristic as inferior.
Darwin, himself, addressed this problem, saying, “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.”2 Well, I hate to tell you this Uncle Charlie, but . . .
Charles Colson in How Now Shall We Live gives another example of this in the form of a bat.
Evolutionists propose that the bat evolved from a small, mouse like creature whose forelimbs (the ‘front toes’) developed into wings by gradual steps. But picture the steps: As the “front toes” grow longer and the skin begins to grow between them, the animal can no longer run without stumbling over them; and yet the forelimbs are not long enough to function as wings. And so, during most of its hypothetical transitional stages, the poor creature would have limbs too long for running and too short for flying. It would flop along helplessly and soon become extinct. There is no conceivable pathway for bat wings to be formed in gradual stages. And the fossil record confirms this conclusion, where we find no transitional fossils leading up to bats. The first time bats appear in the fossil record, they are already fully formed and virtually identical to modern bats.3
Another example of irreducible complexity is the eye. An eye is useless unless the entire structure is fully formed. Even the slightest of changes to the structure of the eye destroys it as a functional device. Even Darwin admitted that he could not explain the formation of the eye.
Behe explains, “Evolution can’t produce an irreducibly complex biological machine suddenly, all at once, because it’s much too complicated. The odds against it would be prohibitive. And you can’t produce it directly by numerous, successive, slight, modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor system would be missing a part and consequently couldn’t function. There would be no reason for it to exist. And natural selection chooses systems that are already working.”4 Behe goes on to say that, “The only force known to be able to make irreducibly complex machines is intelligent design. [God] So scientists are in the curious position of ignoring something they know to be capable of explaining what they see in biology, in favor of phantom or totally unproven explanations. Why ignore intelligent design when it’s a good match to the data?”5
There are many more examples of irreducible complexity. In fact, they are seemingly endless. For example, blood clotting, cilium, bacterial flagellum, knee joints, the intra-cellular transport system; the list goes on and on.
Michael Denton confirms this saying:
And as far as the individual defining characteristics are concerned, one could continue citing almost ad infinitum complex defining characteristics of particular classes or organisms which are without analogy or precedent in any other part of the living kingdom and are not led up to in any way through a series of transitional structures. Such a list would include structures as diverse as the vertebral column of vertebrates, the jumping apparatus of the click beetle, . . . the wing of a bat, . . . the neck of the giraffe, the male reproductive organs of the dragonfly, and so on until one had practically named every significant characteristic of every living thing on earth. 6
Scientist Allan Sandage sums up the point when he says:
The world is too complicated in all its parts and interconnections to be due to chance alone. I am convinced that the existence of life with all its order in each of its organisms is simply too well put together. Each part of a living thing depends on all its other parts to function. How does each part know? How is each part specified at conception? The more one learns of biochemistry the more unbelievable it becomes . . . 7
Information Theory
One of the more amazing and mysterious things in our universe is when a message gets sent. Imagine a scene in which Jim and Nicole are sitting next to each other at a baseball game. Jim has decided that he wants to ask Nicole to marry him. He whispers a message to his friend Pete sitting on his other side. The message has begun as spoken words which is really just a series of air compressions. Pete then writes it down in paper with ink so that he does not forget it. Pete goes to a more discreet location and sends a text message over his phone to his friend Bill who works at the stadium. Bill then faxes it to Sandra who runs the scoreboard. The phone and the fax machine have transferred the message through a pattern of electrical impulses. Sandra types the message into the scoreboard. Nicole looks up and reads the message on the scoreboard which reads, “Nicole, will you marry me, love Jim?” This is the exact message that was intended for her. Fans around the country also see the message while watching the game on TV. Nothing physical (not one atom or molecule of substance) has been transmitted or has traveled from the stadium to fans around the country, yet it is clear that something traveled all that way.
So, what is it that traveled all that way? The answer is information. Information is not a material thing; no matter was transferred. Yet it seems to need matter to carry it on its journey. The matter on which information travels can change without the information changing one bit.
Evolutionists argue that life is nothing more than matter obeying the laws of physics and chemistry. Information, however, is the thing that differentiates life from dead matter. Quite frankly, evolutionists have no answer for the problem of explaining information. Life is more than just physics and chemistry; all living things carry unbelievable amounts of information. Evolutionists cannot explain where all of this information comes from.
Dead matter does not write information, only minds do. Imagine a pen and paper writing a message without a mind directing it. My younger son’s alphabet blocks do not constitute information until they are put into a specific sequence. That’s an important concept to understand. A string of letters next to each other is not information. Only when the letters are arranged in such a way that they are organized and actually mean something to the person or thing decoding it is it actually information. A mind is an essential component to deriving information.
The information for life is carried on a molecule called DNA. DNA is the matter that information rides on. It directs information from one generation to the next and ensures that you will have human children rather than a wombat. DNA is similar to a couple of long ropes or strings of beads tightly wound inside the center of every cell in your body. It carries the programs of life. It houses the information which is transmitted from one generation to the next.
DNA is a dead molecule, it is not living. It can’t copy itself – it takes a living cell to copy the DNA molecule. DNA is not the information; it is the “paper” on which the information is written. Just as my son’s alphabet blocks are not information until a mind from the outside orders them into a message; unless DNA is aligned in the proper sequence, no useable message will be available, even though it is still DNA.
My older son used to attend a French Immersion school. For the life of me, I could not read his homework. It made no sense to me at all. The work made perfect sense to him and to my wife who could read French, but it was not information to me because I could not decipher it. To read a message, you must have a pre-existing language code or convention, as well as the ability to translate it. This language and the ability to translate it, exists in the cell. Cells do not arise by themselves from raw material anymore than a pile of spare parts would arrange themselves into a functioning automobile. If you throw raw ingredients for life together, nothing will happen without organized information. Information has never been observed to come about by unaided, raw matter with a healthy dose of time and chance thrown in. It simply does not happen.
When living things reproduce, they transfer information to the next generation. This information which is hitching a ride on the DNA is the information which tells the machinery of the cell how to construct the new living organism from the raw materials.
The storage capacity of DNA is about a million, million times more efficient than a videotape. The DNA code stores enough information to fill up 100 complete 30 volume encyclopedia sets. And this is probably a conservative estimate. Even more amazing is the fact that all the information required to specify the exact make-up of every unique human being on Earth could be stored in a volume of DNA no bigger than a couple of aspirin tablets. If unraveled and stretched out, the DNA from one single cell in your body would be over two yards in length. Take into account that there are 75 to 100 trillion cells in the body. If the DNA of one human was stretched out end to end it would span the distance of around 94 billion miles or enough to go around the equator of the earth, three-and-a-half million times.
To make a long story short, information is an amazing thing that comes straight from the mind of God. Try as they might, evolutionist have no credible theory to answer the mystery of information.
Anthropic Principle
The word Anthropic comes from the Greek word for man. The Anthropic Principle simply states that the various systems of the universe are so precise that it is ridiculous to assume that they got that way by chance. The universe is simply too complex and too perfectly designed for life. It becomes little more than nonsense to claim that it does not have a designer.
Author Robin Collins, PHD, gives an example of the Anthropic Principle:
I like to use the analogy of astronauts landing on Mars and finding an enclosed biosphere, sort of like the domed structure that was built in Arizona a few years ago. At the control panel they find that all the dials for its environment are set just right for life. The oxygen ratio is perfect; the temperature is seventy degrees; the humidity is fifty percent; there’s a system for replenishing the air; there are systems for producing food, generating energy, and disposing of wastes. Each dial has a huge range of possible settings, and you can see if you were to adjust one or more of them just a little bit, the environment would go out of whack and life would be impossible. What conclusion would you draw from that?8
The obvious conclusion is that someone of great intelligence carefully designed it and built it. Collins goes on to say that “Over the past thirty years or so, scientists have discovered that just about everything about the basic structure of the universe is balanced on a razor’s edge for life to exist . . . The dials are set too precisely to have been a random incident.”9
Another example of the Anthropic Principle is the structure of the atom. Everything in the universe is made up of atoms. Inside of the atom, the neutron is just slightly larger than the proton, which means that free neutrons decay and turn into protons. If the proton was larger and had a tendency to decay, the entire structure of the universe would be impossible. A free proton is simply a hydrogen atom. If free protons were likely to decay, then everything made of hydrogen would decay. The sun, which is composed of hydrogen, would melt away. Water could not exist. In fact the universe itself, which is over 70 percent hydrogen, could not exist. There is no known reason for the neutron to be larger than the proton. It simply is that way.
According to Colson, “It turns out that the slightest tinkering with the values of the fundamental forces of physics – gravity, electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces – would have resulted in a universe where life was utterly impossible. The Anthropic Principle states that in our universe, all these seemingly arbitrary and unrelated values in physics have one strange thing in common: They are precisely the values needed to get a universe capable of supporting life.”10
Collins gives another example of the Anthropic Principle that has to do with gravity:
Imagine a ruler, or one of those old-fashioned linear radio dials, that goes all the way across the universe. It would be broken down into one-inch increments, which means there would be billions upon billions upon billions of inches. The entire dial represents the range of force strengths in nature, with gravity being the weakest force and the strong nuclear force that binds protons and neutrons together in the nuclei being the strongest, a whopping ten thousand billion billion billion billion times stronger than gravity. The range of possible settings for the force of gravity can plausibly be taken to be at least as large as the total range of force strengths. Now, let’s imagine that you want to move the dial from where it’s currently set. Even if you were to move it by only one inch, the impact on life in the universe would be catastrophic. That small adjustment of the dial would increase gravity by a billion-fold . . . human beings would be crushed.11
The examples could go on and on, but we will stop there. Think about it like this though. I cannot imagine a scientist who would drive to Mt. Rushmore and argue that the figures carved in stone got there by accident. No scientist would conclude that natural forces of wind, rain, erosion, and chance combined to form the faces of the four presidents. Yet, these same scientists would conclude that the men that are depicted on this mountain did get here by random chance. They seem unfazed by the fact that the men are infinitely more complex than the carvings in the side of the mountain. The universe is so obviously fine tuned for life that it is incalculable.
Vera Kistiakowski, professor of physics emerita at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology agreed in summarizing the evidence: “The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine.”12
Patrick Glynn, a former atheist, after examining the evidence for the Anthropic Principle, concluded that it “ . . . does offer as strong an indication as reason and science alone could be expected to provide that God exists . . . Ironically, the picture of the universe bequeathed to us by the most advanced twentieth-century science is closer in spirit to the vision presented in the Book of Genesis than anything offered by science since Copernicus.”13
The more the complexity and wonder of the universe is examined and discovered the more the words of Paul in the first chapter of Romans ring true. We truly do not have an excuse to deny that God exists based on what He has made.
Lies, Myths, and Half-Truths: The Symbols of Evolution
Why do so many people believe in evolution if it is such a shaky theory? Students are constantly bombarded with statements that all scientists believe in evolution, that evolution is no longer a theory but a fact, or that evolution is based on empirical science. Textbooks are full of so-called evidence that has convinced countless millions of the veracity of evolution and has corroded their faith in God. Nearly every example, however, that is given to bolster or prove evolution turns out to be faked, a fraud, an exaggeration, or just a flat out lie.
This is nothing new for the disciples of evolution. It seems that each generation of evolutionary indoctrination has had its symbols that convinced the students of the time that evolution was a plausible theory. One by one, though, virtually every piece of information that has been put forth as evidence for evolution has been proven false or misleading. A generation ago it was Piltdown Man, Peking Man, and Java Man.
Jonathan Wells, in his book, Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?, systematically destroys the ten most currently cherished symbols of evolution. In each case, the icon that he presents is taught in fact in most high school and college textbooks. In the high school in which I taught, we had three different biology textbooks that were used at one time or another as the biology textbooks of choice in the school system of the city in which I taught. That means that every one of the tens of thousands of high school students in this city used these textbooks at least once before they finish school. Each of the ten icons described by Wells, were in at least one of the three textbooks. Below I will give a brief synopsis of four of the ten. All four of these examples were extensively discussed in all three of the textbooks that were used in my former school.
Haeckel’s Embryos
One of the oldest arguments given to support evolution is that of embryonic capitulation. That simply means that every embryo goes through the various evolutionary stages while still in the womb. This includes things like having gills like a fish and a tail like a monkey. Modern science has shown this to be completely invalid. It just does not happen.
There is much more nefarious goings on, I am afraid, than this just being a case of bad or mistaken science that has since been corrected.
Ernst Haeckel first published the original drawings of this theory in 1868. Within months of their release, other science professors showed that Haeckel’s drawings were fraudulent. Haeckel had fraudulently changed drawings of embryos to give them an appearance of similarity. In some cases he made rather dramatic changes. In some cases he used the same woodcuts and claimed that they were different species.
Yet, somehow, the belief in these drawings and this theory still exist. I have seen them in textbooks that were printed as late as 2001. Do not miss the point here. They were proven to be faked over 130 years ago and are still being used today to convince kids of the truth of evolution.
It is particularly amazing to me to think that this is still being printed as truth in textbooks. The 1998 textbook, Evolutionary Biology included Haeckel’s drawings and a section on embryonic capitulation. The author, Professor Douglas Futuyma, responded to criticism from creationists by admitting that he had not been aware of Haeckel’s dishonesty. Think of how many students over the last 130 years have been swayed by these drawings.
Dr. Michael Richardson has also been an outspoken critic of the Haeckel drawings. The Times (London) quotes him as saying, “This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud. It’s shocking to find that somebody everyone thought was a great scientist was deliberately misleading. It makes me angry. What he [Haeckel] did was to take a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig and all the others looked the same at the same stage of development. They don’t. These are fakes.”14
This lie of evolution would be bad enough by itself, but the list goes on.
Peppered Moths
One of the most famous of examples used to prove evolution for the past several decades has been the peppered moths of England. As the story goes, most peppered moths were white in the early 1800’s. The birds could easily pick off the dark colored moths on the white tree trunks. This kept the black moth population to a minimum. With the onset of the Industrial Revolution came pollution. As a result of the pollution discoloring the tree trunks, the population of the moths shifted. Now it was the dark colored moths that were predominant.
Bernard Kettlewell published this example of evolution in the 1950’s. There are several problems with this being used as an example to prove natural selection and subsequently evolution. The experiments do not explain where the alternate colors come from. An intelligent designer seems as likely an explanation as chance mutation and natural selection. Nor does it in any way explain how a moth evolved from a non-moth. This example just does not hold water yet it is still used as one of the primary examples of evolution in action.
What has recently been revealed, though, is far more disturbing than just bad conclusions. It has been found that the photographs that Kettlewell used were faked including the practice of gluing dead moths onto the trees. Further study of these peppered moths showed that left to their own devices they almost never land on tree trunks they stay in the tree canopy.
In one recent instance I gave an article to a biology teacher at my former high school that showed how the evidence for the peppered moth story had been faked. She had just finished doing the day before a lesson on the peppered moth. I gave her the article thinking she would be thrilled to know that the textbook was inaccurate. If I had been put in similar circumstances with a history book, I would be excited to share with my students the truths I had learned. I would use it as an example of critical thinking and searching for the truth. Her response was somewhat disappointing. She said that it did not bother her to continue using this example because it illustrated the greater truth of evolution even if the specific example was not accurate.
This is a perfect example of how these lies of evolution keep getting passed from generation to generation. Evolutionists are so committed to their faith that they will not let it go even if presented with evidence to the contrary.
Homology in vertebrate limbs
Homology in vertebrate limbs simply means that different species have limbs that are similar in structure and function. This, the evolutionists claim, is due to their common ancestry. Textbooks define homology as similarity due to common ancestry. Then they turn around and claim that homology is evidence for common ancestry. In other words they use circular reasoning to convince kids that the only reason that limbs are similar is due to common ancestry. The truth is it would be just as legitimate to claim a common designer as the reason for homology.
Had these commonalities arisen from common ancestry, the biological information responsible for these phenomena should show a discernible pattern. This turns out to not be the case as Gavin DeBeer, quoted by Dr. Wells, points out:
The fact is that correspondence between homologous structures cannot be pressed back to similarity of position of the cells in the embryo, or of the parts of the egg out of which the structures are ultimately composed, or of developmental mechanisms by which they are formed . . . In salamanders, development of the digits proceeds in the opposite direction, from head to tail. The difference is so striking that some biologists have argued that the evolutionary history of salamanders must have been different from all other vertebrates, including frogs . . . Because homology implies community of descent from . . . a common ancestor it might be thought that genetics would provide the key to the problem of homology. This is where the worst shock of all is encountered . . . [because] characters controlled by identical genes are not necessarily homologous . . . [and] homologous structures need not be controlled by identical genes.15
From Ape to Human
For over four decades evolutionists, to prove the long, slow descent from ape-like creatures down to modern human beings, used the Piltdown Man. As it turned out, it was a fraud. The skull belonged to a human and the jaw was from an orangutan. The teeth had been filed down and the jaw treated chemically so that they would be more convincing. It is difficult to believe that it took that long to discover this fraud, but when people really want to believe in something they can be slow in coming to the truth.
Evolutionists constantly trot out so-called transitional forms between apes and humans and claim that they are proof for evolution. This could not be farther from the truth. Most of these transitional forms are pure fantasy. The vast majority of these finds include only a couple of bone fragments. The rest of the creature is built based solely on the imagination of the scientists. They then put these pictures in magazines and in museums and claim them to be fact.
This point is illustrated by a case in which four different artists were asked by National Geographic to give a rendering of a female homo habilis figure from casts of seven fossil bones. The four different pictures were all significantly different. They ran the whole gamut of the ape-to-human sequence. The pictures of “early man” are purely imagination and fiction based on very little fact.
This is true for other allegedly transitional forms. How these “ape-men” are interpreted is highly subjective and prone to the great bias of most pro-evolution scientists.
Beyond being a religious belief, though, evolution means big money. This is another motivating factor in it being defended so aggressively. In his book, Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Wells describes the fact that billions of American’s tax dollars are spent every year to finance evolutionary origins research. Organizations like NASA, the National Institute of Health, and the National Science Foundation continually fund research projects that are committed to developing and proving the evolutionary worldview. The resulting work that comes from these projects helps professors to gain notoriety and tenures at their universities. Students buy evolution-oriented textbooks and attend schools and universities where evolution is taught exclusively and presented as fact. Bluntly stated, evolution means big money for the scientists involved.
The reality of the ape-to-human descent process is that there is no proof of it at all. Ironically, there are less accepted possible transitional models today than there were in Darwin’s time. Evolutionists have no answer to this lack of evidence. They have at best merely a handful of highly disputed fossils that they can even claim are transitional. Most of them have been shown to be either fully ape or monkey, or fully human.
Just the Tip of the Iceberg
The above problems for evolution are, indeed, devastating but they are just the tip of the iceberg. An honest look at evolution will show that neither the necessary mechanisms for macroevolution or the evidence of it happening actually exist. They are many more problems with the theory of evolution, which will be briefly discussed below.
In his work on the many icons in the evolution community, Wells goes on to destroy the rest of the prize horses in the evolutionary stable such as: The Miller-Urey experiment, Darwin’s tree of life, Darwin’s finches, four-winged fruit flies, etc. Once these so-called evidences of evolution are rightly removed, the textbooks are left with scarcely anything to support their cherished myth.
I have met with hundreds of teens either individually or in large groups and simply gone through their biology textbooks with them showing them the myths, errors, and lies throughout the pages of the evolution section. The response has been tremendous. Kids are incredibly relieved to know that there are answers to the onslaught of evolution. Just knowing that there are answers available greatly increases the faith of young people in the Creator God described in the pages of Genesis.
The troubles for evolutionists go far beyond just the issues of Irreducible Complexity, Information Theory, the Anthropic Principle, and the Icons of Evolution. One of the things that evolutionists won’t discuss very often is that there are six different types of evolution. The first is cosmological, which has to do with the beginning of time, space, and matter. This is usually explained through the theory of the Big Bang. The second type is stellar evolution. This involves the development of individual stars, planets, etc. The third type is that of chemical evolution. Before life can happen, all of the chemicals and elements present in the universe must have evolved into separate entities. The fourth type of evolution is that of organic evolution. This is the development of life, which is usually explained by evolutionists by some sort of pre-biotic soup in which life developed from non-life. The fifth type is that of microevolution. Microevolution can also be called variation. It involves the minor changes that organisms undergo as a result of genetic variation. The final type is that of macroevolution. This is the supposed process through which one type of species undergoes so many microevolution changes that it becomes a new species. It is important to understand that of the above mentioned six types of evolution, only the fifth entry, microevolution, should be considered actual operational science. None of the other five types can be observed or reproduced, and thus, should not by definition be considered scientific disciplines. Evolutionists spend a great deal of time trying to argue biological evolution, but, for instance, say virtually nothing about chemical evolution. The reason is simple; not only is there virtually no evidence for chemical evolution, there are not really any plausible theories. The average biology textbook will have dozens, if not hundreds, of pages covering the theory of evolution, yet most chemistry textbooks will not have anything to say. This is a curious omission considering the truth that it is not even worth considering biological evolution if there is not chemical evolution first.
In order to believe evolution, astronomical odds must be overcome millions of times in each of the six areas. To be an evolutionist one must take thousands of leaps of faith in order to cling to their faith. For the Christian there is only one: That there is a God. Once one has taken that leap of faith and believes that there is a God, everything falls into place. It simply takes much more blind faith to be an evolutionist and a Humanist.
I believe that one day evolution will be looked upon as one of the most laughable frauds of all time. In today’s society, though, it cannot be underestimated. Our children must be trained to defend their way of thinking against it. It is also vital that they be taught to detect evolutionary thinking in any areas in which it might pop up. If we can protect our children from this line of Humanist attack, we will go a long way towards protecting them from some major worldview problems in the future.
Evolution: The Gateway Drug
Much has been said in the last 40 years concerning the belief that marijuana is so dangerous because it serves as a gateway to more intense and more dangerous drugs. Marijuana definitely has dangers inherent to itself, but the larger danger is that is lowers the defenses of the user. The argument goes that those who use marijuana are more likely to begin to use drugs that have a far more devastating effect physically and mentally.
In many ways, evolution is a gateway drug for worldviews. It doesn’t appear to be such a dangerous belief system in and of itself. After all, it’s just an alternative belief about how we all got here, isn’t it? The problem is that whatever you believe about your origins affects how you view everything else in the world. What a teenager is taught about the origins of life makes a huge difference in every other area of their life. What a teen accepts as the cause of the universe sets in motion a cavalcade of beliefs throughout every area of their life.
If there is a Creator God that made the universe and everything in it, then we are left with the conclusion that life is intentional and sacred. If the God of the Bible is the creator of the universe then we know that there is a moral lawgiver and a moral law that must be followed. Knowledge of the creator gives us a sense of purpose and a responsibility to our fellow man. The existence of a creator means that there is such a thing as absolute truth on which we can rely.
On the other hand, if evolution is true, all bets are off. There would be no need for God. There would be no moral law because there is no lawgiver. This means that relativism rules the day. You can do whatever you please because there is no responsibility to God or anyone else. Satanist Aleister Crowley’s famous saying, “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law,” becomes the guiding principle for our worldview. Whatever suits one’s fancy is just fine, because we are all here by pure dumb luck, we have no innate purpose, and we come to nothing when we die.
Holding to this belief of evolution, then, opens the door to much more dangerous views. It opens people up to other worldview like Secular Humanism (which will be discussed in detail in the next chapter). It can also be argued that a rejection of God is the cause of most, if not all, of the ills of our society. Since evolution is, at its core, a rejection of God, it opens the mind of the young person who believes it for a dangerous litany of beliefs.
Psalm 11:3 asks the question, “When the foundations are being destroyed, what can the righteous do?" Allow me to answer that question. If the foundations are destroyed the righteous will crash and burn. In many respects your belief in origins is the foundation for everything else you believe in your life. It is ground zero. Parents and youth ministers can simply not afford to give this topic anything less than a great deal of attention.
Every Christian parent holds to the belief that God created the universe and nearly all of them communicate that to their children in some way. The problem is this has to go far beyond reading the creation story in the Bible and reminding our kids that God made everything in the world. Those are great things to do, especially when children are younger, but when kids get older, it is not enough. They will be attacked in middle- and high-school on a very sophisticated level. Evolution will be taught as fact. The ability of parents and youth ministers simply has to be able to match the level of sophistication of the evolutionary teaching. The most effective way to prepare our children for this topic is to arm them with answers before they are given the questions by their biology teachers. Suffice it to say that a child who is prepared for what evolution teaches and the values that are subsequent to those beliefs will help to inoculate them. There is an extremely important principle at work here that I will reference throughout this book: When you understand something, it loses its power over you. A teenager who is well aware of what the world believes, what it will teach, how it will teach it, and how it will attack their belief system, is a teenager who is far safer than their uniformed peers.
Taking up the challenge of thoroughly equipping our children with scientific reasons why creation rather than evolution is the much more plausible approach to science can seem daunting to most parents. It is not the easiest of topics for many people to comprehend and then feel confident in explaining to children. The problem, however is that is too important of a topic to be ignored. If parents do not feel capable of tackling this topic, then I offer two solutions. The first is to educate yourself on the topic. Read as much as you can. It will build your faith and do an incredible amount of good for the faith of child. If that seems like too daunting a task, then I would recommend that at the very least parents of the local church pool together and find someone who is knowledgeable about the issue and who is capable of explaining it to teenagers. This person should be allowed to teach regularly to the teens on the topic and be accessible for questions from kids as they go through various science classes. Just knowing that someone has answers provides a great deal of security and comfort to teen who is wrestling with these ideas.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 1
1 Potter, Humanizing Religion, p.3.
2 Charles Darwin, The Origin of the Species (New York: New York University Press, 1988), p. 154.
3 Colson and Pearcey, How Now Shall We Live, p. 89.
4 Lee Stroebel, The Case For a Creator (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), p. 198.
5 Ibid., p. 214.
6 Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, MD: Adler and Adler, 1986), p. 107.
7 Allan Sandage, “A Scientist Reflects on Religious Belief,” Truth: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Christian Thought, Volume 1 (1985).
8 Stroebel, The Case For a Creator, p. 130.
9 Ibid., p. 131.
10 Colson and Pearcey, How Now Shall We Live, p. 64.
11 Stroebel, The Case For a Creator, p. 132.
12 Vera Kistiakowsky, “The Exquisite Order of the Physical World Calls for the Divine,” In Henry Margenau and Roy Abraham Varghese, Cosmos, Bios, Theos (Chicago, IL: Open Court, 1992), p. 52.
13 Patrick Glynn, God: The Evidence (Rocklin, CA: Forum, 1997), p. 55, 26.
14 N. Hawkes, The Times (London), August 11, 1997. p. 14.
15 Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of what we teach about evolution is wrong (Washington: Regenery Publishing, 2000), p. 73.
No comments:
Post a Comment