Creationist Wisdom #649: Evolution Is Faith

Today’s second letter-to-the-editor appears at the website of the Christian Post, which describes itself as “the nation’s most comprehensive Christian news website.” Their intriguing headline is Does Evolution Require More Faith Than Christianity?, and they have a comments feature. It’s actually a column from one of their regular contributors, but because of its quality, we’ll treat it as if it were a letter.

Unless the letter-writer is a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name, but this time we’ve got a preacher. It’s Dan Delzell, pastor of the Wellspring Lutheran Church in Papillion, Nebraska. Excerpts from the rev’s letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

“Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” (Heb. 11:1) Most people recognize this text of Scripture. Christianity, however, isn’t the only worldview which requires faith.

Jeepers, what other worldview requires faith? The rev tells us:

Christianity relies upon a written record given to man over a period of about 1500 years. The theory of evolution, on the other hand, calls for blind faith in something that supposedly happened over billions of years.

Egad! We got it all wrong when we wrote Faith-Based and Evidence-Based Thinking. Now, thanks to the rev, we can correct our erroneous thinking. Let’s read on:

Christianity relies upon fulfilled prophecies as evidence that the Bible must have come from God. Evolution relies upon various experts who trust their version of what they think happened over a long period of time. Christianity relies upon Scripture which states that God created Adam and Eve as the first human beings. Evolution requires blind faith in the theory that man evolved from apes, which evolved from bacteria, which came from nothing.

[*Begin Drool Mode*] Ooooooooooooh! [*End Drool Mode*] The rev continues:

The only thing we find in nature is adaptation, or microevolution. Macroevolution, on the other hand, is not supported by scientific evidence. It’s mere fantasy and wishful thinking on the part of those who want it to be true. Christianity teaches that man is accountable to our Creator. Evolution leads many to assume that man is accountable only to himself. Christianity teaches that God defines “right” and “wrong.” Evolution leads many to assume that each person gets to define “right” and “wrong” according to whatever feels right at any particular moment.

Wow — it’s not only the micro-macro mambo, but also the lack of moral teachings in evolution. The rev knows his stuff! Then he gives us another great argument:

How convinced were the apostles concerning the truth of Christianity? Well, after seeing the risen Christ, they went out preaching repentance and salvation even though it cost most of them their lives. They became convinced of Christ’s resurrection from the dead once they saw and touched the risen Savior.

Now that’s solid proof! As it was for the Japanese Kamikaze pilots, and for today’s suicide bombers. Here’s more:

Meanwhile, evolution cannot produce evidence today of one kind of animal changing into another kind of animal. Therefore, this elaborate theory can only be accepted through blind faith. One kind does not change into another, either in the fossil record, or in observations of living organisms.

He’s right. No one has ever seen a crocoduck. Moving along:

Christianity does not teach the theory of evolution, and evolution knows nothing about eternal salvation in paradise through faith in the sacrificial death of the Son of God.

The letter goes on and on, but it gets repetitive. Here’s one more excerpt:

As for me, I am going to stick with Scripture. This too requires faith, but not the blind faith that evolution requires.

So there you are, dear reader. It seems that the choice is clear.

Copyright © 2016. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

15 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #649: Evolution Is Faith

  1. Delzell: “Christianity does not teach the theory of evolution, and evolution knows nothing about eternal salvation in paradise through faith in the sacrificial death of the Son of God.”

    An accurate sentence in anything written by a creationist is hard to come by. But this passes, surprisingly.

  2. Curmy, you’ve got a typo in the 2nd paragraph, 2nd line. I assume you meant “but” not “vut.” Feel free to delete this comment after you see it.

    [*Voice from above*] It’s fixed, and your comment remains. The Curmudgeon doesn’t conceal his errors.

  3. Christianity does not teach the theory of heliocentrism (or plumbing, or algebra, etc.) and heliocentrism knows nothing about eternal salvation.

    BTW, as regards martyrdom, there is little in the Bible which tells us of the death of prophets and apostles. Stephen is one who is mentioned as being killed. Mostly, we must rely on mere human history for stories of martyrdom.

    As far as fossils not changing from one kind to another. It cannot be denied that fossils do not do much of anything.

  4. Christianity does not teach the theory of evolution, and evolution knows nothing about eternal salvation in paradise through faith in the sacrificial death of the Son of God.

    So there!
    Christianity does not teach the theory of relativity either, or quantum mechanics, or even the germ theory of contagious diseases. Considering that all three are indispensable to modern civilization, I can only wonder why God left them out of that record “given to man.”

    Seriously, all of Louis’s prior arguments can be dispensed with, since when you come right down to it, all that matters is that eeeevolution contradicts the Bible.

  5. Dimwit Dan here may live in Nebraska, but he doesn’t know much about his own state. Hey Danny Boy – ever heard of Ashfall Fossil Beds State Park? It has nice mammal fossils buried in Miocene volcanic ash from the Yellowstone Hotspot Volcano (then in Idaho). None of the fossils there are living today. Why? Evolution. They’ve changed.

    Hey Danny Doofus – ever heard of Agate Fossil Beds National Monument? There lots of nice mammal fossils there of Miocene age, including “Devil’s Corkscrews”, which weren’t made by the fictional Satan. They are fantastic fossil beaver burrows – terrestrial beavers. Terrestrial beavers aren’t around today. Why? Evolution – they’ve changed.

    C’mon rev – be a part of the First World in the 21st century. It’s kinda nice in many ways!

  6. @Eric Lipps
    Evolution is not mentioned in the Bible. The concepts didn’t exist at the time. One can argue that the Bible doesn’t allow enough time, but otherwse, the Bible doesn’t discuss species, genetics, etc. etc.

  7. How convinced were the apostles concerning the truth of Christianity? Well, after seeing the risen Christ, they went out preaching repentance and salvation even though it cost most of them their lives.

    Makes T.H. Huxley look kinda pathetic, doesn’t it?

  8. As Mark Twain wrote (in the voice of one of his characters) “Faith is believing what you know ain’t so.”

    Pretty much the best definition I know of.

  9. Dave Luckett

    TomS: The martyrdom of Peter by crucifixion is also mentioned at John 21:18-19, as a prophecy given by the risen Christ. But in general, you’re completely right, except that the martyrdoms of the original disciples are more in the nature of traditions than history. Even that of Paul, said to have been beheaded by the sword outside the gates of Rome, is attested only by fourth or fifth hand hearsay. It’s a mystery why the Acts of the Apostles cuts off so early, when it is believed to have been composed not earlier than the eighties or so of the first century, unless it is unfinished, or a palimpsest. It ends very abruptly, with Paul being well treated and prosyletising without hindrance, and with no foreshadowing of his martyrdom, nor a hint of a formal conclusion.

    But as to the Rev’s letter:

    I find it extraordinary that the Rev could pack so much ignorance and denial into a few short sentences. Why, it’s as though he had spent much of his life deliberately avoiding and perverting the evidence, and the rest of his time fabricating lurid fantasies about what the theory actually says.

    Such discourse requires more than ignorance. It requires malevolence. It requires that he attribute actual fraud, actual fakery, actual deception, to people who have spent their lives finding and studying the evidence – and then using their hard-won knowledge to improve human life in ways he uses every day, in every bite he eats, every medical treatment he accesses, every erg of energy he uses. He is calling them all – all! – fools at best, actual con-artists more likely.

    The projection would be awesome, were it possible to use that word to describe dishonesty on this scale. The theory of evolution, he tells us, says that bacteria came from nothing. No, Rev. That’s what your holy book says. That’s what you say. That’s what ex nihilo means.

    Jesus disliked slanderers. He said that it was not what a man put in his mouth that defiled him, but what came out. He said that you should get the log out of your own eye before you attend to the mote in another’s. The Rev’s log is more in the nature of an entire forest, planted thick not only with ignorance, but with deliberately cultivated falsehood. It’s a truly ugly growth, dark, rank, impassible – and dangerous. Already we know that it bears evil fruit – a malign willingness to traduce others.

    Jesus said what is to be done with such trees, too.

  10. “Christianity relies upon a written record given to man over a period of about 1500 years.”

    But science (and evolution) rely upon the ‘written record’ as recorded in the earth’s 4.5 billion year history.

  11. The whole truth

    Speaking of religious morals, or lack thereof:

    Religious decline does not equal moral decline, says researcher:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160113101117.htm

    Religious upbringing linked to less altruism, study of children suggests:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151105121916.htm

  12. Hate to break it to “Mr. Wisdom” but many others who mindlessly parrot the “Evolution takes more faith…” line have very different answers to “more faith than WHAT?”

  13. DavidK: “But science (and evolution) rely upon the ‘written record’ as recorded in the earth’s 4.5 billion year history.”

    Which is why Christians who know a little science, and take “thou shalt not bear false witness” seriously, overwhelmingly accept that record, evolution and all.

    One reason that fence-sitters overwhelmingly sympathize with scriptural literalists is that almost no one on either side takes time to mention that the 1500 year human-authored record contains what were at the time reasonable hypotheses of origins, given the minimal available evidence. Whether intended as such, or merely as allegorical, they ought to be respected. If only to give the benefit of the doubt to authors who are no longer here to defend themselves. Instead those origins stories are almost always either ridiculed or “loved to death.”

  14. @Frank J
    almost no one on either side takes time to mention that the 1500 year human-authored record contains what were at the time reasonable hypotheses of origins, given the minimal available evidence

    It’s subjective, of course, but my impression is that most thinking anti-creationists do acknowledge this, and some go out of their way to stress the point.

  15. Among the problems facing the “literalists” is that the Bible, interpreted literally, does not have anything to say about evolutionary biology. Except for the time scale. But things like baraminology are purely made up with no scriptural basis. (BTW, literalism itself has no scriptural basis. And it is not the sort of product that we would expect of a culture of the Ancient Near East.)
    On the other hand, something like geocentrism has scriptural backing.