While Mr. Bryant led a very fascinating life, he is most known nowadays for his battle in a courtroom against the equally famous Clarence Darrow. The trial he participated in was what we call "the Scopes Monkey Trial". In it, a teacher had been arrested in Tennessee for teaching evolution, and while he was convicted of that offense by a jury, it is generally believed that Clarence Darrow won by proving Genesis false.
A popular play was wrote about it, which has been made into a movie twice. "Inherit the Wind". In it, it shows an old and rather foolish seeming William Jennings Bryant character (they changed the names) being cross examined by a very savvy Clarence Darrow character on the literalness of Genesis and basically looking like a fool for believing in creationism.
I can't speak for now, but in my youth, the book was required reading, taught in class and carried in the library. Just another way public schools try to keep children from believing in the faith of their fathers.
Forgot - or never learned - is that just as Clarence was not really "the" science guy of the 20th century, nor was William Jennings Bryant "the" religious guy of the 20th century. That battle, as far reaching as the consequences were, was media staged from start to finish, the first radio broadcast court drama, an OJ or Casey Anthony drama before televisions were a thing.
William Jennings Bryant had been characterized by his peers of the day as a river a mile wide and two feet deep. Yes, he had great breadth, but the depths were entirely lacking. His spirit was always willing, but his intellect, sad to say, was a bit weak. Truth is, if Clarence had grilled me, Clarence would have lost - and that's no boast, I know dozens of church people who could say the same thing.
But ever since then, evolution in the eyes of the public has been regarded as "proved". Not due to the public looking at the science, but from that one trial nearly 100 years ago that many of them have probably never even read the play of. That trial, and the play and the movies, manipulated by the media and schools, simply jammed it into the public consciousness that evolution was forever proved.
 |
| In evolutionary theory, the first full human had to breed with the near humans around him. Yes, really. That's the theory. |
And yet it was not. And it's sad how many Christians believe in evolution now. In fact, so many of them do that more Christians now believe in evolution than Genesis. The Catholic church has come out in favor of evolution. All the mainline and mainstream Protestant churches believe in evolution. Any liberal church (in theology and/or politics) believes in evolution.
Churches that still believe in creationism are regarded as "fundamentalist" where that word has come to mean "stupid", "backwoods" and "yee-ha". Those in such churches are supposed to live in trailers and beat their wives. Yes, our media is very good at their agenda, and that's exactly what folks think of fundamentalist Christians, if they aren't thinking out and out "Amish".
I ran into this the other day, speaking with a Catholic who believes in evolution. Now generally, and unlike my brash youth, I don't get into these kind of debates offline. Who needs the grief? Trying to teach any adult over 25 is like trying to teach dancing to a cat. It fails, and it annoys the cat.
I made the mistake though of an off hand comment that directly implied that Genesis was literally true. Having some reputation for being reasonably educated and savvy myself, I was instantly attacked. "You seriously don't believe in evolution?"
Questions phrased like that are always in the category of "argument from intimidation". By the wording and the tone the hearer is to know that if they answer "yes" then they must be a dullard. Not wishing to look like that, they now can then walk it back and try to avoid trouble. Well, I know I'm not a dullard, so that kind of intimidation fails.
"No, I don't believe in evolution, because never minding the lousy science, I'm a Christian."
I got the inevitable reply of "I'm Christian, too, but even the Pope says that evolution is true!"
I thought to myself, yes he does, damn him. And that kind of endorsement harms at least one billion Catholics out of the gate, never minding the all the Protestants who still tend to take their lead from Rome. But I said, "Well, I'm sorry for the Pope. I wonder what he thinks Jesus died for."
"What?"
"I said, 'I wonder what the Pope thinks Jesus died for'. I wonder what you think Jesus died for?"
"What's that have to do with anything?"
"Jesus died for mankind's sins, sins that entered the world when Adam and Eve fell. If there were no Adam and Eve, if we just evolved, then why did Jesus need to come down and die for us? Why didn't he just visit instead, chat a bit and go home? What possible reason was there for him dying?"
That didn't go over well. "I'm not going to get into this with you." was the answer I got. But I was riled, so instead of leaving it at that I said, "You cannot take the position of 'Science' and then decline to answer even the simplest of questions."
This is not then where the other said, "Oh, you're right, sorry, let me answer your question now and then you ask me a series of other questions that will gently lead me to the truth of your position." No, it's where I learned - again - that you still can't teach cats to dance. But on the upside, there is at least one Christian evolutionist who now knows that "fundie" don't mean "dumb"!
Know this, though - that one question is THE question to ask any Christian who believes in evolution. It has no value against an atheist who is an evolutionist, but it's very pertinent to any Christian who does.
Had the person I argued with been willing to play the foil, I'd have gone on to say, "The point of Christ dying was to atone for our sins and spare us the death penalty we received in Genesis. It even says in the New Testament in Romans 5:12-21 that as death and sin entered the world because of Adam, so the cleansing of those sins and the removal of the death penalty comes from one, Jesus."
In Romans, and also in 1 Corinthians 15:21, they were explaining why the Son of God had to die. Which if you think about, does kind of need an explanation, doesn't it? But if Adam and Eve made a free will choice to sin, then it is obvious that if God did not want us to die that it would make sense to send His son down to atone for us.
But in the theory of evolution, this would have God doing what? Kicking off the evolution of life, so that it would "evolve" from non-sinning amoebas into non-sinning animals into deliberately sinning humans? Why? So that He could then enjoy sending His own son to die for God's own error? In what world does that make sense?
And where did sin come in, evolutionarily speaking? Viruses kill, and that's no sin. Lions kill, and that's no sin. Primates kill and that's no sin - or is it? Is it 98% a sin, as some primates are 98% our DNA? Are they 98% hell bound later? With 2% of the time in paradise?
Hammer this one, folks. Hammer it hard. Because it's the best and truest point you'll ever make. Christ's atonement is pointless torture and death by His cruel and error prone Father if evolution is true. Christ's atonement is an act of pure love of He and His Father for our mistakes and sins, if evolution is not true.
A Christian who believes in evolution has truly never thought out the logical consequences. For instance - how can any of us be punished, since we "evolved" this way and have no say in it? How can we be said to have "free will" if everything is set in stone from the first amoeba? Is God even really our God, or is He - having waited billions of years while we went from slime to fish to reptile to monkey to man - waiting for us to evolve further to some unknown being of another billion years from now?
Maybe He's the God of that future race, and we're just an intermediate hairless monkey species who uses tools better than some. And if evolution is true, that would make perfect sense, and again, entirely negate Jesus needing to die!
Fortunately, we can know that "Science" is as much in error on evolution as it was on phrenology. We can know this because we have God's word in the Bible to let us know this. It's called "Genesis". It's quite clear. And if you believe the Bible is God's word, you should believe in Genesis.
Don't let the Christian evolutionist duck behind, "But Science says...!" "Science" says nothing, it's not a person, it's a concept. "Science" is nothing but valid as far as I'm concerned, but those who speak in it's name? Not so much. Certainly not always. Dr. Mengele was a "scientist", what of it?
Scientists, like any other humans, have weaknesses, agendas, foibles, illusions and such. It would be odd indeed if in every other field of human endeavor there were errors and idiocy, but somehow evolutionary biologists are perfect?
Also point out the obvious - it is a bit bizarre for a Christian to say, "I cannot believe in Genesis, as it goes against what Science knows is true about how we evolved!" Me, I'm like, "Really? And what does this 'Science' have to say about arising from the dead? Walking on water? Healing at a touch?"
It's a theological buffet then, and incredibly UN-Scientific. Why? Because to the extent that believing that Jesus arose from the dead makes sense, it does so only for a person having a testimony that the Bible is itself a true witness, a true testimony. If they knew not that the Bible was true, they would be foolish for believing He rose from the dead!
I can hear someone say, "I don't believe in the Bible, thus do not believe in Jesus rising from the dead." and say, "Okay, you're being consistent."
Or I can hear someone say, "I do believe in the Bible and therefore believe that Jesus rose from the dead." and also say, "Okay, you're being consistent."
But what I can NOT do is hear someone say, "I don't think the Bible is always true, but the Jesus part is cool, so I'm good with that, at least where He rose from the dead, probably not the Adam and Eve part, but maybe the Revelations part, because, lol, I don't know, I just do!"
That makes no logical or scientific sense. It also makes no theological sense as it has the person citing a Holy Book as proof of miracles but then saying, "But not this miracle or that one either, just this one and that one!" What, are they higher than God that they get to pick which of His works they'll believe in?
The Bible IS a witness, a testimony. Picking and choosing like that is like being a juror and saying, "I'll convict this man, because the witness said he saw the man kill another. True, the witness was caught lying about everything else, but I believe that last part." Really? You'd convict a man on the testimony of a mostly false witness?
But thus is the Christian Evolutionist who claims a belief in Jesus arising from the dead while disbelieving everything that would have such make sense. And disbelieving everything else from the exact same source!
"But...but...", I hear it sputtered, "Dean you can't really believe that God stopped the Sun in the sky, that would mean the Sun went around the Earth!" or "Dean, can you explain how Noah had all those animals in the ark when the modern measurements of it have it only holding...." or "Dean, do you really think that Jonah was in a whale for three days when we know that would suffocate a man?" or "Dean, where did Cain get his wife?"
Yeah, I hear that stuff sputtered. I've been asked all that before in real life, so I can sure hear some out there reading this sputtering it now. And the answers are, "He stopped the Sun from moving further in the sky - by stopping the Earth from spinning while making sure that no geological disturbances took place, because, oh yeah, He's God, and the creator gets to do as He pleases with His creation!"
And, "The God who created the Heavens and the Earth and all the dimensions of it made sure that all the animals that needed to fit on the ark fitted on the ark and He made sure none of them ate each other and that the hay bales and Purina Zebra Chow never ran out, because, oh yeah, He's God, and the creator gets to do as He pleases with His creation!"
And, "You believe Jesus can raise a man from the dead but His Father in Heaven can't keep Jonah alive for three days in a great fish? Really?"
Though of course, the answer is just another form of the answer that always works, which is, "Oh yeah, He's God, and the creator gets to do as He pleases with His creation!".
And as to Cain, wow, really? Evolutionary theory would have all of humankind coming from the one full human born of an ape like hominid and breeding with his three quarter human sister and proceeding from there. Some how that makes perfect sense - but Cain marrying a cousin or sister does not. In any case - and say it with me, folks - "Oh, yeah, He's God, and the creator gets to do as He pleases with His creation!" Including help Cain find a wife!
Evolution is false.
We can know this as it contradicts Genesis, and without Genesis the death of Christ is meaningless and without Christ, where is the point of calling oneself a Christ-ian? The Bible as a whole must be believed to be true, because to not believe the foundation of Genesis makes it unsustainable to believe the structure of the whole New Testament that was built upon the foundation of the Old Testament!
You can be a Christian. You can be an evolutionist. You cannot, with any logic, be a Christian Evolutionist. This doesn't mean you can't call yourself one, you can call yourself a Jewish Nazi if it pleases you - it just means it is not biblical, or logical.
No comments:
Post a Comment