Imagine you’re shopping at a local retail store. You’re looking for something very particular. You’ve wanted it for a really long time. You can’t seem to find it so you ask a sales clerk for assistance. You explain that you’re after this specific name brand item but the clerk says he doesn’t carry it. However, being a good clerk he doesn’t want to lose a sale so he tries to talk you into buying something he does have. You express dissatisfaction, explaining what he has just isn’t what you’re looking for and you start to depart the store.
The clerk, instead of being gracious, maybe advising you on where you might find that special item, or even inviting you to re-visit his store soon in the future begins to insult you. He questions your intelligence, and vows to call his competitors to tell them that you’re a terrible person and how they shouldn’t allow you inside their stores.
Doesn’t sound like a nice experience that would lead you to want to return to that store does it? Well, that’s what’s happening today in the on-going debate between those who say that the physical world around us happened by evolution and those who believe God is behind it all.
Can you imagine a preacher, pastor, or priest going into the same kind of behavior to someone who questions the existence of an all mighty, all intelligent creator? After getting over the initial shock of witnessing the event wouldn’t you have to ask yourself why all the insults when the evidence should speak for itself?
Why do so many in academia, media, government, politics and scientific research fields become unhinged whenever the theory of evolution is questioned? If we indeed live in a free society wouldn’t someone confident in their point of view about any subject allow you to question his supporting evidence, or examine that which might refute his point of view? Wouldn’t someone who is really your friend allow you to check out all points of view and not persecute you over it?
In 1859, when Charles Darwin’s famous The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, was published, it had many devoted advocates. One of the most effective was a man named Thomas Henry Huxley. He did so much to promote and defend the Darwinian belief system that he earned the nickname of “Darwin’s Bulldog.” Well, even bulldogs die but before Huxley passed on he had two grandsons.
One of them, Sir Julian Huxley, was also an energetic defender of the Darwinist way of looking at the world. He once commented on why so many scientists adopted Darwin’s theory of evolution.
Did his explanation go something like this – “Well, the evidence was so overwhelming and compelling. Anyone disagreeing from 1859, right up to the present, were allowed to examine the evidence and peer review it but it just couldn’t be refuted it so the entire scientific community had to accept it.” One would expect such a statement since so many millions of public school and college students and our society at large are constantly taught and reminded that evolution is based on scientific facts, and only facts. So certainly Sir Julian’s explanation was something like that, right?
Wrong. Sir Julian Huxley, widely respected scientist, who you should know became the first director of UNESCO (the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization) said this:
“Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the Creator of organisms from the sphere of rational discussion. Darwin pointed out that no supernatural designer was needed; since natural selection could account for any new form of life, there is no room for a supernatural agency in its evolution.”—Julian Huxley, “At Random, A Television Preview,” in Evolution after Darwin (1960), p. 41.
In other words every evolutionary believer from Darwin’s day to Sir Julian Huxley’s, were biased against life’s origins as told by the Holy Bible simply because they wanted a plausible reason for erasing God from their day to day lives. In effect all of life, from the earth, the universe, and man himself were nothing special, nothing unique.
Sir Julian’s brother, Aldous, also once gave a very similar explanation:
“I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom.”—Aldous Huxley, “Confessions of a Professed Atheist,” Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June, 1966, p. 19. [Grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential writers and philosophers of the 20th century.]
George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984), paleontologist, and Darwinist advocate who was even on the staff of the prestigious American Museum of Natural History once said:
“In the world of Darwin, man has no special status other than his definition as a distinct species of animal. He is in the fullest sense a part of nature and not apart from it. He is akin, not figuratively but literally, to every living thing, be it an amoeba, a tape worm, a flea, a seaweed, an oak tree, or a monkey—even though the degrees of relationship are different and we may feel less empathy for forty-second cousins like the tapeworms than for, comparatively speaking, brothers like the monkeys.”—George Gaylord Simpson, “The World into Which Darwin Led Us,” Science, 131 (1960), p. 970.
Is it any wonder then that we hear so much bad news not only here in America but all over the world? If people are taught to regard themselves as inconsequential, or they evolved from animals, or need to be “liberated” and do as they please, or want an existence from a creator won’t they be more likely to lie, cheat, steal, or commit terrible crimes?
Then there are those in the scientific community who just want to find the truth about life’s origin who in real life, are treated just like you were by the hypothetical rude sales clerk. They come from all fields of research such as astronomy, biology, and paleontology. Just to give you a sense of the unjust treatment of these professionals check out this video, then read some of the other articles in this blog and keep asking yourself “What are evolutionists so afraid of?”