by Jefferson David Tant
The above title is an old saying expressing complete surprise or amazement. While that saying has a humorous side, in another sense, it could be used by one claiming to be somebody’s great-great-great-uncle today from many ages ago. I like Carson’s response to the fellow who felt he was an ignoramus for believing in God.
This picture reminds me of something that is pretty universally true, which is that the theory of evolution is taught in many, if not most, of our public school systems. And I believe this is a contributing factor to so many young people losing their faith while in school, for when they become convinced that evolution is true, that pretty well means there is no God.
The problem? There is no evidence supporting Charles Darwin’s theory and published in On the Origin of Species.in 1859. By the 1870s, the scientific community and most of the “educated” public had accepted evolution as a fact. The real fact is that there is no evidence--not one shred!
If you believe in God, you are basically thought to be an ignoramus. Notice a few quotes to this effect.
“How Religion Originated. Among the non-scholarly populations of at least the civilized world, surely the most common idea is that religion, if it be true, has been divinely revealed. Divine revelation as an explanation of religious genesis has no place in this book, and under ordinary circumstances all theological interpretations of the origins of religion would be dismissed from consideration as irrelevant or prejudicial” [Richard Norbeck, Introduction to Religion].
You see, we are among the “non-scholarly” if we believe in God.
“This theory is an act of faith. The act of faith consists in assuming that the scientific view of the origin of life is correct, without having concrete evidence to support that belief” [Dr. Robert Jastrow, Until The Sun Dies, p. 63].
Yet they ridicule Christians for their “faith.”
“Considering the way the prebiotic soup is referred to in so many discussions of the origin of life as an already established reality, it comes as something of a shock to realize that there is absolutely no positive evidence for its existence.” [Dr. Michael Denton, molecular biologist, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, p. 261].
“We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports [the theory of gradual adaptive change, dc], all the while really knowing that it does not” [Niles Eldredge, Darwin On Trial].
Dr. Graeme Patterson, Officer of Paleontology, British Museum Of Natural History, in an address to the American Museum of Natural History, challenged the prestigious body of evolutionists to name one thing they knew to be true about evolution. No one did. When he posed the same question in Chicago, he got the same response until one person spoke up and said, “Yes, I do know one thing. It ought not to be taught in high school.”
Aldous Huxley wrote Brave New World and frankly admitted his anti-theistic views: “I had a motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that 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 concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves…For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political” [Ends and Means, p. 270 ff].
Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist, is a champion of neo-Darwinism, and a leader in evolutionary biology. “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a mad adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying …”
Why force what is not true, and come up with ideas no matter how wild? Why? Read on! “Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” [Richard Lewontin, Billions and Billions of Demons, p. 31].
Why try to keep the foot out of the door? Because if they allow the foot in, that will open the way for truth to prevail, which truth supports the idea that there is a creator God, and that one day we will have to answer to Him.
Is there any bias? “It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution,
that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).” [Richard Dawkins, Oxford Professor, New York Times book]. (I plead guilty! jdt - 😊 )
Professor Jerome Lejeune, at a lecture given in Paris: “We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain. I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it's good, we know it is bad, but because there isn’t any other. While waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact.”
Well, I guess if there is no God, then it’s OK to lie to your students? What’s the harm? The harm will be seen at Judgment Day when all nations shall be gathered before the throne of God as depicted in Matthew 25:31-45.