Empirical Evidences Show That
The Evolutionists Do Not Believe In Evolution
Some of you may think that this posting may be deviation from the original title of the thread. It is not. This is a continuation of the original intent and scope of this thread. It will become clear as we go.
The title may appear to many as self-contradictory. However, a closer examination will provide the fact of this statement. It all depends on who is an evolutionists and what they eagerly support to reform the society.
We are pursuing the modern day evolutionists in their agenda in social reforms. We have already known that the modern day scientists are accusing the believers who are not ashamed of the creation account in Genesis 1 and 2. The intent of this article is to further equip believers to face those who are making fun of our unwavering faith in God and His Word. Let us stand firm on God’s revelation and show to those who want to make fun of us about their folly by exposing their illogical and unscientific arguments. We are concentrating on the account of the creation of the Man and the Woman in Genesis 1 and 2 and we do this in connection with the evolutionists’ support of abortion, homosexuality, and transsexuality. Before we go into the Bible, we will pursue why the evolutionists do not believe in evolution.
The Evolutionists’ Worldview:
It is well known that the evolutionists, in general, support abortion of unborn babies, homosexuality, and transgender activities. They may make rhetorical questions to intimidate those who oppose them. At their rhetorical questions, many believers are intimidated and surrender their will and make compromising excuses. They may even say that the Bible is not a scientific book, therefore the creation account in Genesis should not be believed as a historical fact. This is one of the greatest travesties on behalf of the Devil who is walking as a roaring lion to devour whom he could. When are we going to stop this excuse-making-business for God? God is not in need of our excuses before this world because He rules the world and He knows all things. I am not asking to face their rhetorical question with another rhetorical question. I am asking the believers to stand up to them and ask them logically derived questions that are not rhetorical.
1. The Evolutionists’ Worldview on Abortion:
The often asked rhetorical question to a person who opposes abortion is about the health of the mother as the main reason for abortion. When faced with this rhetorical question about the health of the mother and the right of woman, many believers cow down before them. When are we going to stop doing this? Why we are not asking the logically derived questions that are not rhetorical in nature.
One of the logically derived questions could be as follows: If the theory of evolution is true as claimed by evolutionists, we should consider the underlying assumptions of evolution. The theory of evolution demands long periods of slow evolution to change one ‘kind’ of creature to another ‘kind.’ This theory also emphasizes the theory of fitness to survive—the survival of the fittest theory—as the fundamental reason to evolve.
It is also claimed as fact—though no one has seen any evidence of it—that there are many steps between one ‘kind’ of creature to another ‘kind.’ When some of these in-between steps are not observable, then the evolutionists call them missing links. According to their reasoning these missing links are essential and they are searching for the missing link between humans and their assumed predecessors. It is their responsibility to produce these missing links, if there are any. Instead, they are actively engaged in making of future missing links through abortion.
According to the theory of evolution, the process of evolution is a continuous process and it is still continuing for the human to pass into a new kind of a future ‘kind.’ In this process of improving itself by the actions of nature, the theory of the survival of the fittest also tells us that all babies do not possess this ability to be fittest to survive. The nature bestows that ability to be the fittest only on one, if not a few, in each generation. They in turn are supposed to pass it to the next generation. That is how the evolutionary chain or the ladder of evolution works.
This is where the problem with abortion should have been recognized and made to be the most important part of the evolutionists’ argument against abortion. Since, no one knows who is selected by the nature to be the carrier of the ‘fittest’ for the survival and the propagation of the necessary genes or something like that to the next generation; no one should destroy any embryos that are formed in the womb of a woman as part of the procreation. However, abortion destroys hundreds of thousands of embryos from each generation, if not every year. If we destroy the embryo that was selected by the nature to be on the next rung of the evolutionary ladder, then what happens to the evolution itself?
The whole evolution will come to a halt and the process of evolution has to start from the beginning. Realizing this fact, the evolutionists have successfully championed their cause of not killing or even destroying the habitats of certain creatures. However, they have not championed the cause of the highest and the foremost rung in the evolutionary ladder. If man is the highest of all creation in the evolutionary ladder, then by performing abortion by demand, man is cutting of the next rung in that ladder. Where are the evolutionists to complain about this willful act against the evolutionary process? If the evolution is a scientific fact and not a theory, then who should champion for it? Is it the responsibility of the creationists to care for evolution of man into the next rung of the evolutionary ladder? The answer is a resounding NO! On the other hand, is it the responsibility of the evolutionists to champion their cause?
I could say from an evolutionary point of view, without any doubt, that abortion is killing babies that could be the bridge to the next level of evolution—if the theory of evolution is right—and the evolutionists are should be actively pursuing to stop their evolution by supporting baby killing. On the contrary, the evolutionists are not only trying to stop the willful elimination of the next ladder of their evolutionary ladder, but also are championing for it. When I read about the support of the evolutionists for abortion and their action to intimidate the creationists by asking rhetorical question about the health and wealth of the mother, I could say that the evolutionists do not believe in evolution.
2. The Evolutionists’ Worldview on Homosexuality:
I have discussed about abortion from the worldview point, in the above section. On this section, I wish to discuss about homosexuality from the worldview point and not from the scriptural view point.
I assume that the readers are aware of what is meant by the word ‘homosexuality.’ The Homosexual activity that started in Sodom is known after that city—sodomy. This word, homosexuality, is used to indicate the sexual desire or activities for others of the same sex. Evolutionists in general are in support of this activity. It is not only the evolutionists, but most in the liberal news media are in support of it. Recently their support has become the manifestation of their heterophobia. You may be wondering about the meaning of this word ‘heterophobia.’
Heterosexual is used to designate people who are attracted to the opposite sexes and not of the same sexes. Similarly, ‘bisexuals’ are those who are attracted to opposite as well as same sexes. The proponents of homosexuality have coined a word ‘homophobia,’ ‘homophobic,’ etc. to intimidate heterosexuals who are opposed to them. Therefore, I am proposing the term ‘heterophobia,’ ‘heterophobic,’ etc. in talking about those who want to intimidate those who are determined to uphold the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman and not otherwise.
Some of the evolutionists in the academia published papers stating that homosexuality is in the genes that were inherited naturally from their parents. However, no one has examined the experimental design including their operational definition. In the absence of such a scientific inquiry into the study itself, the conclusions remains questionable and I leave such investigations as the responsibility of the scientific community.
Another reason to question the finding to justify homosexuality based of the genes is to ask them how they collected the data. We should ask the following questions: Did they examine the part of the brain that they are using as their proof, when the baby was born? Did they follow the growth of that baby’s brain portion through its adulthood? Did they analyze the difference between the brain parts of those who practiced heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality? Did they found that the difference is statistically significant? What were the sample sizes for each group? It should be equal, because they should have been starting with babies and not with people who are practicing one or the other. We are interested to know about a forward looking study and not a backward looking explanation. If they collected some data from dead people and made the conclusion, then that is similar to asking all the drivers to drive their cars by looking through the rear-view mirror.
When a person claims that he was born with the genes propelling him/her to a same sex marriage—homosexuality, then I usually ask that person some simple questions. Those questions are derived from the following reasoning. If the homosexuality was inherited as part of the evolutionary process, then they have an evolutionary responsibility to reproduce to continue the evolutionary process. If they refuse to marry a person of their opposite sex and reproduce, then the evolutionary process comes to a sudden stop as in a train wreck. They are standing on the last rung of the evolutionary ladder and do not do anything to continue that process. All the millions of years of evolution came to a sudden screeching halt. What a disaster that is to their darling theory of evolution! Do you know that the nature has to find this rebellious act of the person it evolved into the evolutionary ladder with the great expectation of producing the next rung in that ladder? All came to a sudden end!!
This sudden end is glorified by the supporters of evolution. What a contradiction! May be it is not a contradiction, but a planned expression of their lack of faith in a theory that they are holding and cherishing with nothing but hatred to destroy it. It is a sure thing for us to say that the evolutionists do not believe in evolution.
Another lack of logic in the part of homosexuals and the evolutionists are that they want those who oppose homosexuality to produce a future generation of homosexuals. When a homosexual marriage takes place, that action does not enable them to procreate any children. Only the heterosexuals could procreate children for them to indoctrinate and the evolutionists are betting their future on this fact. Before they encourage this act of the homosexuals, why don’t the evolutionists champion for the cause of heterosexual marriage as the only marriage to make sure that the evolutionary process will continue. The evolutionists should come out all against homosexual marriage for an uninterrupted continuity of the evolutionary process, if evolution is true. If they do not do that, then it is an admission that the evolutionists do not believe in evolution.
3. The Evolutionists’ Worldview on Transsexual Activities:
I have discussed about abortion and homosexuality from the worldview point, in the above sections. On this section, I wish to discuss about transsexuality from the worldview point and not from the scriptural view point.
Transsexuality is the third point in which the evolutionists demonstrate their unbelief in evolution. A transsexual is a person who is predisposed to become a member of the opposite sex. The American man, George William Jorgensen, became a transsexual and became known as a woman, Christine Jorgensen, by the assistance of surgeries. Such surgeries are becoming common in these days and we do not hear anything against it and its impact on the evolutionary process from the evolutionists.
What are the ramifications of such transsexual transformations from a man to a woman or vise-a-vis? First, when a man child is born, he usually has the ability to procreate as he becomes a man and a woman will have the ability to conceive and bear a child when she is of child bearing age. However, when the sex change surgeries are done, such capabilities are removed and the new woman cannot pass on to a next generation what the nature has bestowed upon her, before those surgeries. Similarly the woman who became a man also loses what the nature has bestowed on her for the continuation of the evolutionary process. A true and honest evolutionist must be appalled about this tinkering with the evolutionary process and makes future evolutionary development practically impossible, if not delayed by millions of years. Evolutionists must consider this as serious case of tampering with the natural process. A tampering could be defined as doing our best not knowing what we are doing. Such an action may seem good for a time, but on the long run it will end in disaster for the evolutionary process!
All those who have undergone the transsexual surgeries and changed their sex from one to the other have broken the link to the evolutionary process. In other words, they permanently stopped the building of the next rung of the evolutionary ladder. When the evolutionists are supporting such an action with their research works, then they are indubitably declaring to the world about their world view. That worldview is that they do not believe in evolution.
Summary on the Worldview of the Evolutionists on Evolution:
In this section, we discussed about three things and they are:
1. Abortion and its negative impact on evolution;
2. Homosexuality and its negative impact on evolution; and
3. Transsexuality and its negative impact on evolution.
These are the three witnesses that cry against the evolutionists and ask them to change their course of action from supporting those activities and encourage them to take corrective actions, if they believe in evolution. If they refuse to do so, then they are admitting that the evolutionists do not believe in evolution.
When we were discussing about abortion, homosexuality, and transsexuality, I strictly used the worldview and did not look into Scripture—the Bible—for forming my reasoning in finding the contradiction of thoughts in the evolutionists. Having done that, I wish to look into the same subjects from the scriptural-view.
[Note: This is not the final posting.]