There was a recent article in USA Today that highlights the importance of the concept of origins because how one views their origins will determine how they live their life. The article to which I refer is an opinion piece by Henry G. Brinton, who is pastor of Fairfax Presbyterian Church in Virginia, and the title of the article is “How to Honor Religion and Science.” In this piece he says he’s “a fan of Darwin”. [1] Now this is problematic on so many levels.
It’s one thing to say that he believes in evolution, as he does in the article, it’s another thing to say I’m a great fan of Charles Darwin. Darwin was a racist! Darwin said, “The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.” [2] In other words, evolution is not about equality it is about inequality. Evolution by definition is about inequality. The only reason that an evolutionist can say today that men are created equal is the power and presence of a lobby group. It’s popular to say that, but it’s not based on biblical principles. Biblical principles say everyone is created equal, evolutionary principles say that there is no such thing as equality.
Evolution at its root is based on inequality. That is why Darwin can say that he is sexist in so many words. In his book The Descent of Man under the subheading “Difference in the Mental Powers of the Two Sexes,” he attempts to persuade his followers that “the chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shewn [sic] by man’s attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can woman.” [3] Again inequality!
At least Darwin was being consistent with his own ethic and telling us flat out what he thinks, but in the 21st century to have a Presbyterian pastor say, I’m a big fan of Darwin is to say in essence “I’m a big fan of philosophical naturalism,” or at least “methodological naturalism.” More consequences for society hinge on the cosmogenic myth of evolution than any other.
This Presbyterian pastor went on to say, “Science is truly godless.” [4] In other words, according to Brinton, everything is directed by purely natural processes reducible to physics and chemistry. In other words, you can’t appeal to God to explain the information in the genetic code or to explain irreducible complexity in biochemical systems, or for that matter consciousness itself, or even for the origin of life from non-life.
He then says, “Science answers the questions of how life has evolved on earth, while religion answers the questions of why there is life.” [5] This, at its root, is a false dichotomy. Science and religion are overlapping interlocking domains. Christianity makes factual claims about the universe and so does science. For example, we say God created the universe ex nihilo or out of nothing. 19th century science says the universe always existed. The question now becomes what is true truth? Was the 19th century idea really true? Well, today we know on the basis of science, as well as Scripture, that this is patently absurd not just false. Christianity says living things reproduce after their own kinds; evolution says kinds produce other kinds. In other words, cows turn into whales, and dinosaurs evolve in birds. All you need is a lot of time. Scales, if you give it enough time, eventually become feathers.
Now it is absolutely mind boggling that a Presbyterian pastor living in the 21st century would be as benighted as to think such a thing. I can only imagine that when he was writing this article he lost his brains in the narthex of his church and forgot to reinsert them. Christianity says non-life cannot produce life. Evolution says life came from non-life and the life that came from non-life produced morals. Christianity says nothing comes from nothing and nothing ever could. Philosophical naturalism the worldview that under girds evolution says nothing created everything.
Brinton wants Obama to now use his “considerable rhetorical skills” to advance one of the goals of his inaugural speech: “to restore science to its rightful place.” [6] And what is that according to Brinton? At its base, this would be the elimination of Intelligent Design and the elevation of God — however you define him — who guided unguided natural processes. This is as silly as saying that God can create a squared circle. God can do anything that is logically possible, but God cannot create a triangle with two sides or squared circle. That’s not logically possible.
It is high time that Christians, particularly Christians sitting in the pews of pastors that are making these kinds of false dichotomies, were equipped to say, “Wait a minute pastor, don’t we live in an age of scientific enlightenment?” “Why makes this false dichotomy between science and scripture based on 19th century science?” “Why be a fan of Charles Darwin?” I think it would be better to be a fan of Abraham Lincoln who was born in the same day.
In order to help you equip yourself, I talked about this and many other things with my guests Dr. Jay Richards, Dr. Jonathan Wells, and Dr. Stephen Meyer on the February 12th and 13th editions of the Bible Answer Man broadcast, which you can access off our Website at www.equip.org. I also recommend the following resources which can be purchased as a package at our Website or by 1-888-700-0274, these resources are
USA Today, (http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/02/post-1.html). Accessed February 17, 2009.
Graham, 3 July 1881, Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, vol. 1, 316, quoted in Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (London: Chatto and Windus, 1959), 343, quoted in Henry M. Morris, Scientific Creationism, public school edition (San Diego: C.L.P. Publishers 1981), 179; emphasis added.
