IDEAS CAN COST: THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION

Ideas come with a price-tag; so too, theories. Darwinism came at the cost of many lives. How? At its core, it is inseparable from racism. The original title of Darwin’s class gives us some indication of its costs: The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. This understanding served to legitimate war and racism. In it Darwin wrote:

·       At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races through the world…

This was more than Darwin’s prediction, but his hope:

·       The anthropomorphous apes [man-like apes], as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies [the man-like apes] will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope… (521)

This “hope” then became a strategy among evolutionists. In Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution, evolutionist and former co-head of the Biologos Foundation, Karl Giberson, explained that:

·       [Evolutionist] Ernst Haeckel nudged the racism of the Third Reich along its malignant road by suggesting that …”You must draw [a line] between the most highly developed civilized people on the one hand and the crudest primitive people on the other and unite the latter with animals.” (76)

For the evolutionist, some humans were closer to apes and should be regarded as such. This “hope” then became an actuality. Giberson admitted:

·       “How shocking it is today to acknowledge that virtually every educated person in the Western culture at the time…shared Haeckel’s ideas. Countless atrocities around the globe were rationalized by the belief that superior races were improving the planet by exterminating defective elements…there can be little doubt that such viewpoints muted voices that would otherwise have been raised in protest.”

Nevertheless, today evolutionists attempt to distance themselves from anything that smacks of racism and their racist past. However, racism is endemic to their theory no matter how much they might deny this. If we had evolved from ape-like pre-humans, it is inevitable that some humans will be more evolved than others and others will be closer to their pre-human ancestors.

Meanwhile, the Bible never regards humanity as a part of the animal kingdom, merely separated from other animals by degree. Instead, we are created in the likeness of God, totally distinct from the animal kingdom, all part of the one family of man.

The theory of evolution (TOE) also has other costs. Because of TOEs belief that we have many leftover and useless (vestigial) organs from our pre-human past, they have argued that these leftovers could be eliminated without cost. In Have You Considered, Bruce Malone wrote:

·       In misguided preventive measures, infants were exposed to x-rays in order to reduce the size of this “unnecessary evolutionary leftover” [the thymus gland] from the past. Follow-up studies found that infants who received the radiation treatment had abnormal growth and higher rates of infections…resulting in the death of many of these children from thyroid cancer some 10-15 years later.

Meanwhile, the many organs that had once been considered leftovers are now regarded as functional and necessary. However, the costs remain.

Nevertheless, many evolutionists will argue that “TOE is not a question of costs but of truth.” But does it represent truth? Malone claims that Sir Julian Huxley, who had been known as the “ambassador for evolution,” conjectured why TOE caught on so quickly:

·       [I suppose the reason] we all jumped at Origins [TOE] was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores.

…if the truth be told.

MY WIFE, MY FRIEND AND HELPER

Before I married Anita, the pastor offered me a warning that I've never forgotten:

·       Your wife is not your enemy. Even when you are tempted to think this way, you must remember that she is not your enemy but instead, your best friend.

This bit of wisdom has become very important to me. Why? Because it sometimes feels as if she is my enemy, and our feelings can be a stubborn misquito.

What then do we do when our feelings are speaking persuasively? We meditate on something that is even more persuasive - the very words of God. I have found that only these words are capable of silencing the demands of my feelings. Take these precious verses:

·       In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body.(Ephesians 5:28-30 ESV)

What a blessed reminder. My wife is not my enemy but my appendage, a part of me. When I get upset with her, it's like getting upset with my own leg for not performing according to my expectations. How foolish and unproductive! I don't berate or beat my leg.

Instead, if it doesn't perform up to expectation, I accept my leg anyway, knowing that my Lord even has a purpose for my bum knee. I don't spend my day thinking, "How I resent you, my leg."

Instead, I "nourish and cherish it." How much more must I do so with my wife! I must love and cherish her as Christ does for His Body, the Church, even to the point of sacrificing Himself for His bride.

When I fail to love my own bride in this manner, I despise the grace of Christ who died for me while I was his enemy (Romans 5:8-10). However, my wife is not my enemy but a friend and a blessed gift and flower to nourish.

GREEK PHILOSOPHY AND THE NEW TESTAMENT

It is commonly charged that the Bible, especially the New Testament, had been influenced by Greek thought. Most often, John's (1:1) "logos" is cited as evidence, where Jesus is identified as the “logos” or the "Word." In Greek thought, the “logos” was the creative power from which the world emerged.

However, rather than being influenced by Greek thought, John had merely co-opted the term, not the philosophy, to argue that Jesus was the creative power through which the world had been created.

If the critic is truly serious about the wellsprings of the NT, he should observe that the NT quotes or alludes to the OT perhaps on 1000 occasions. It is therefore clear from where its inspiration and worldview arise.

UNDERSTANDING JESUS’ ARGUMENTATION

Unless I am talking to someone who might be receptive to the Gospel, I usually start by showing them the problems with their own hopes and beliefs. Why? They will not be receptive to the Good News unless they first know that they need it.

Let me use an example to illustrate this principle. Today, the vast majority believe in moral relativism. According to this belief, morality is just something we make up to serve us and our society. Morality doesn’t have an independent existence. It depends on what we decide to live by and how we were raised.

Consequently, we lack any objective or absolute moral standard by which we can judge others. Therefore, we cannot judge a Hitler or an Osama Bin Laden, since there is nothing that makes our moral judgments any more valid than theirs. Besides, I might attempt to teach my children that they shouldn’t steal or bully. However, I cannot teach them these principles on the basis of right and wrong, just or unjust, since these concepts are just ideas that we created. Instead, I am forced to appeal to self-interest:

·       Johnny, do not steal because your self-esteem will suffer. Do not bully, because someone will bully you.

In other words, I try to show the moral relativist the inadequacies or fallacies of their beliefs in hope they then might become receptive to better beliefs – a morality from above!

This was often the strategy of Jesus. He would ask His opponents to state the source of their hope and beliefs and then take them for a trial run to demonstrate how they failed.

A lawyer tested Jesus with the question: “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” Instead of telling the lawyer to believe in Him, Jesus asked him to state his thoughts on the subject, something the lawyer was very happy to do:

·       He [Jesus] said to him, “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” And he said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.” (Luke 10:26-28)

The lawyer had little understanding of grace. He was convinced that he could earn his way to heaven through law-keeping. He, therefore, believed he was entitled to heaven and had little need for the mercy of God, the hope that Jesus had come to offer. Therefore, he was content to merely test Jesus.

Since Jesus perceived that the lawyer was not amenable to the Good News, He had to first demonstrate that the lawyer’s hope was baseless. He did this through His parable about the Good Samaritan. If the lawyer expected to earn eternal life, he would have to live as sacrificially as the Good Samaritan. However, even before Jesus related this parable, the lawyer became defensive, even in regards to his own answer, and the parable reinforced the fact that the lawyer’s hope was a false one. He could never be good enough.

Admittedly, we tend to stumble over Jesus’ words. It seems that He had actually endorsed the lawyer’s worldview, affirming salvation-by-law-keeping: “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.” (Luke 10:28). Then He concluded His parable with the admonition to “Go and do likewise” (verse 37).

Instead, we should understand Jesus’ final words to mean “Go and do likewise, since you believe that you can earn eternal life in this manner.” Of course, we should all do as the Good Samaritan had done, but we will never earn eternal life in this manner. Instead, by attempting to do so, it should soon become evident that we are spiritual failures who cannot earn any blessing from God. Instead, we are blessed by grace and not be merit.

If we fail to understand how Jesus argued, we will be confused about many of His teachings. They will contradict many of the things He had taught about salvation by grace through faith (John 3:16; 5:24; 6:29; 8:24).

Jesus had literally called a Syrophoenician Gentile woman a “dog,” who was ineligible to receive any of the blessings of God:

·       He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” And he answered, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” (Matthew 15:24-26)

This seems to contradict Jesus’ other teachings and actions. Clearly, Jesus had regarded the Gentiles as just as eligible as Jews. He even announced that this Gentile’s faith was great, something He had never said to His own Apostles or to any other Jew (Matthew 15:28; also 8:10).

Besides, when Jesus issued His Apostles His Grand Commission, He sent them out into the world of the Gentiles (Matthew 28:19-20). This seeming contradiction had led one “theologian” to call Jesus a “recovering racist.” However, there is another way to understand this account, which is more in keeping with the teachings of Scripture.

In this case, Jesus’ own disciples were His opponents. They were the racists who looked down on Gentiles as “dogs” and not deserving of anything from God. He, therefore, wanted to show them the fallacy of their beliefs and purposely took them on a trip to Gentle Phoenicia. They had wanted Jesus to send this Gentle woman away because they regarded her as a nuisance, and so Jesus played along with them and didn’t answer her a word. Then, He called her a “dog.” However, she proved that she had more wisdom, understanding, and faith than the bunch of them, showing them that their worldview was mistaken.

Elsewhere, when the religious leadership criticized Jesus for hanging out with sinners, Jesus answered them according to their own beliefs:

·       And Jesus answered them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.” (Luke 5:31-32)

From this, we might be tempted to think that Jesus regarded the scribes and Pharisees as “righteous.” However, in view of the rest of His teachings, it is clear that He did not. He was merely showing them the fallacies of their beliefs. If these disdained sinners are truly sick, as the leadership regarded them, isn’t it appropriate that Doctor Jesus should tend to them? Of course! Therefore, the leadership had no reason to criticize Jesus in this regard.

It seems that they would often bring this charge against Jesus:

·       And the Pharisees and the scribes grumbled, saying, “This man receives sinners and eats with them.” (Luke 15:2)

Once again, to illustrate that their beliefs were baseless and even anti-Scriptural, He told the parables of the lost coin and the lost sheep, concluding:

·       “Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.” (Luke 15:7, 9-10)

Did Jesus believe that there are righteous who did not need repentance? Of course not! However, His opponents believed this way, and it was they whom Jesus had been addressing to show them that their opinion of sinners didn’t comport with God’s. Clearly, Jesus believed that all needed to repent (Luke 13:1-5; 24:47)

It is important that we do not take Jesus’ teachings out of context. If we do, as in this case, we might tragically conclude that some are above repentance. This illustrates that we must interpret any one verse by the light shed from other verses.

One final example – A rich young man came to Jesus to ask Him about the way to eternal life:

·       And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.’” (Mark 10:17-19)

Although this man had seriously inquired about eternal life, it became clear that he too believed that he could earn it. In fact, he believed that he was entitled because he had kept all the commandments since youth. However, he was in denial about his true status before God. Instead, Jesus had taught that the Commandment against murder also pertained to what was going on in the mind and heart, as well as the Commandment against adultery (Matthew 5).

Perceiving this, Jesus understood that he wasn’t yet ready to hear the Gospel. He had to first be shown that his hope in law-keeping was an illusory hope. He too needed the mercy of God. Therefore, Jesus had to bring this man back to the law to show him that he was unable to keep it:

·       And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” (Mark 10:21)

Could this final command bring the young man to eternal life? Of course, not by itself! However, it brought this man to despair and one step closer to the Gospel and his need for the mercy of God. Jesus used the man’s unfounded hope to bring him to despair and, hopefully, to an openness to the one true Hope.

If we fail to fully comprehend Jesus’ strategy, we will wrongly conclude that He was teaching a salvation by law-keeping in opposition to Jesus’ other teachings and the teachings of the rest of the New Testament (Romans 3:10-23; Galatians 2:16).

In light of this, I must admit that interpretation can sometimes be demanding. It is for this reason that God has given us pastors and teachers to lead us to a true knowledge of God through His Word (Ephesians 4:11-14).