I have been reading a book written by Ken Ham in 1987 called The Lie: Evolution. It is interesting to read the current documentation by Answers in Genesis and see the basis for their current publications in this book. The chapter I want to mention today is called "Evolution is Religion". One of the tenets for the book is that every person who looks at supposed evidence in our world today either for evolution or creation has a worldview that is biasing their interpretation of the evidence. The Christian bases his worldview on the foundation of the Bible being the infallible Word of God. The Evolutionist bases his worldview on the assumption that evolution - in the sense of time, chance and the struggle for survival - rather than the God of the Bible is responsible for life.1
There is a difference between science of the present and science of the past. Stick with me to see the difference. Any explanation of events in the past that we cannot observe happening today is called historical science. An explanation of events we observe happening in the present is called observational science. True science is an observation about what is happening that can be described by an experiment that is repeatable. (Please note that I am not attempting to approach this subject from a technical aspect, but from a layman's perspective. I am not a scientist.) Therefore, ANY theory about the origin of the world is not provable through a repeatable scientific experiment. There was no human witness to the beginning of the world. (There is however an eyewitness account, the description of creation in Genesis.) All the evidence any scientist has only exists in the present! Evolution is a belief system about the past based on the words of men who were not there, but who are trying to explain how all the evidence of the present ... originated.2 Religion can be defined as something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience.3 Certainly this qualifies evolution as a religion, for it is a belief system about the past.
When someone looks at a fossil deposit, what does he see? Can any inferences be drawn from the fossils that are grouped together? Some people would say they lived at the same time, they lived close to each other, or other things about them. However, the only conclusion that can be known for certain is that those fossils were buried together. The point is that you cannot define an ecology based on the fossils that have been deposited in the same place, as some evolutionary artists are want to do.
Models of science are subject to change for both creationists and evolutionists. But, the beliefs that these models are built on are not. The problem is that most scientists do not realize that it is the belief (or religion) of evolution that is the basis for the scientific models (the interpretations, or stories) used to attempt an explanation of the present. Evolutionists are not prepared to change their actual belief that all life can be explained by natural processes and that no God is involved (or even needed). Evolution is the religion to which they are committed. Christians need to wake up to this. Evolution is a religion; it is not science!4 [Emphasis in original.]
To me, the point of the whole chapter is that we are not dealing with two differing sciences. What we are dealing with is the disagreement of two differing religions. What does that mean? Remember in your dealings with people around you that we all deal with the same evidence, it is just our interpretation of it that is different. When we deal with the underlying assumptions of our worldviews, then it leads to the understanding of man needing a saviour, specifically Jesus Christ.
This article is a summary of chapter 2 in Ken Ham's book The Lie: Evolution. All page references are from the hardcover edition of the nineteenth printing. I recommend you get the book for yourself to read.
Check out the poll below or make a comment about this post so I know how everyone responds.
Endnotes
1. Ken Ham, The Lie: Evolution (Master Books, 1987) pg 31 (back)
2. IBID. pg 33 (back)
3. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion def 6 (back)
4. Ken Ham, The Lie: Evolution (Master Books, 1987) pg 37 (back)
2 comments:
I don't know if I would call evolution a religion, but I can certainly see how the evidence points to that. I will have to do some further research to give a more detailed response. Great post :)
At least you are thinking about it. The design of the article is to get people thinking about what they have proved, and what they are assuming. Every evidence for an old earth HAS to assume something. Every evidence for a young earth age also HAS to assume something. My assumptions for a young earth are based on a fundamental interpretation of the Bible. Any person who makes assumptions for an old earth bases them on the starting point of the earth being old.
Post a Comment