How Scientific and Open-minded Are Darwinists?

Darwin’s followers claim to be scientific and the only ones who really are. They base evolution upon fact, reason, evidence and truth. They oppose falsehood, superstition, and ignorance. They claim the scientific method of controlled experiment and observation is the only sure way to gain knowledge. They claim to gather data and follow it wherever it leads. So science destroys belief in creation and in a Creator.

Is evolution the conclusion reached by honest, unbiased, factual investigation? It's claimed science proves creation wrong and no God exists. So religious believers should make their peace with it, admit its established scientific fact, and stop being obstinate. It's said that people who oppose evolution are superstitious, ignorant, closed-minded, prejudiced, imperialistic, outmoded, unscientific, stupid, dangerous--period.

But all that being true, as evolutionists claim, what is the problem with honest questioning and investigation? Isn’t that what science is supposed to be about? Aren’t scientists supposed to consider alternative theories? If all the facts are in and evolution confirmed, wouldn’t honest scrutiny further establish evolution? Everything must point to man having evolved by chance from molecules. There can be no fear of arguments dumb believers in God and creation might offer. So why try to suppress their free speech; exclude their arguments from science textbooks? Their ignorance and falsehoods can only confirm the truth.

Now let’s consider some of the ignorant questions of these dumb religious people.

Is the Scientific Method the Way to Discover God?

It’s a good method to learn about nature and its laws. It utilizes our senses of seeing, hearing, feeling, touching, and tasting. It gives knowledge of material observable objects. But some things in life are not observable and experimental. For example, human thoughts, our past experiences, historical events, ethics, human dignity, beauty, logic. Does that mean they don’t exist? Certainly, we live as though they exist. So scientific method is inadequate to know about even many immaterial but real and crucial things.

Now what experiment demonstrates molecules can arrange themselves into men? None! Furthermore, empirical method depends upon prior unproved factors such as logic, accuracy, strict control, and honesty of the experimenter. It’s difficult for me to see how scientific method can demonstrate evolution. But isn’t that what’s supposed to demonstrate fact in science?

Evolutionists claim that molecules by chance and over time arranged themselves into men. In order to show this scientifically they would have to produce undeniable specimens or fossils of each successful step in the process. That would be conclusive and put all doubts and objections to rest. Yes, we know many varieties of worms, dogs, birds exist, but we don’t know that one kind of life form can change into another kind. Microevolution is fact; macroevolution is not.

Evolutionists know some things to be fact but their dogmatic philosophy that nature is everything won’t allow them to admit that the facts point to creation and a Creator. They know life doesn’t spontaneously pop into existence from nonlife. They know life forms have genetic limitations. They know acquired characteristics and mutations are not methods sufficient to achieve macroevolution. They know unconscious molecules have no mind to arrange themselves into man. They know randomness results in chaos not order. They know living cells are enormously complex and compact, a literal city of machines demonstrating intelligent design worthy only of God and creation. Yet they have been deceiving people about such things for decades.

I recommend the book The Case For A Creator by Lee Strobel. Lee is a journalist and former atheist who interviewed today’s leading authorities in the scientific fields of cosmology, physics, astronomy, biochemistry, biological information, and consciousness asking the tough questions and getting definitive answers. He turned up mountains of detailed evidence to show chance evolution is simply not good factual science. No science disproves God and even Darwin spoke of creation many times. 

How Could We Know If A Creator God Exists?     

Now people reserve the word God to mean something much more than man or nature. If God is just nature itself, we can learn its laws and patterns, and try to benefit from them. But God generally means a Creator and Sustainer of the material universe. So we couldn’t experiment with God in a test tube, examine him under a microscope, or observe him through a telescope. Its unlikely God would obey our commands, cater to our whims, and tailor his actions for our convenience. Moreover, if there’s a Creator we could do some unexpected and supernatural things.

Are we correct to assume no Creator exists? Is this a genuine scientific attitude or a closed-mind prejudice? You can draw a huge circle representing universal knowledge. Let’s be honest--a microscopic dot would represent our part of that knowledge. Our severe limitations forbid us to assume that no God exists, nature tied his hands, or God doesn’t care for man, or can’t act in recognizable ways in his world. Isn’t human ignorance arrogant to assume any such things?

Evolutionists know some things to be fact but their dogmatic philosophy that nature is everything won’t allow them to admit that the facts point to creation and a Creator. They know life doesn’t spontaneously pop into existence from nonlife. They know life forms have genetic limitations. They know acquired characteristics and mutations are not methods sufficient to achieve evolution. They know unconscious molecules have no mind to arrange themselves into man. They know randomness results in chaos not order. They know living cells are enormously complex and compact, a literal city of machines demonstrating intelligent design worthy only of God and creation. All this shows design that point to God. Yet they claim science disproves God even though the sciences point to God. They assume naturalism-of-the-gaps. And they have been deceiving people about all this for decades.

But is there any visual objective evidence of a Creator? Wouldn’t a Creator have to do things outside the normal patterns of nature to get our attention? Suppose someone told us, ‘I’m an angel or a prophet of God the Creator.’ His word would mean nothing—anybody could say that. We would demand some kind of credentials or evidence its true. But suppose someone told us unimaginable detailed events impossible for men to know or guess that occurred centuries later. Wouldn’t that be real evidence an all-knowing God existed as the Bible claims? This is exactly what Christian’s claim Old Testament prophets predicted of their messiah and fulfilled in Jesus.  

“For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” Isaiah 9:6. 739-686 B.C. John 5:18; 10:30-33; 19:7.

“Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. Isa. 7:14;

 Matt. 1:21-23.

“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall come forth to Me the One to be Ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting.” Micah 5:2. 750-731 B.C. Matt. 2:1-6; Luke 2:4-7.

“The eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. Then the lame shall leap like a deer, and the tongue of the dumb sing. Isa. 35:5-6; John 3:2, 21:24-25.

“My righteous Servant shall justify many; For He shall bear their iniquities.” Isa. 53:11; 2 Cor. 5:21; Luke 19:10; 1 Pet. 3:24.

“For You will not leave my soul in Sheol, nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.” Ps. 16:10; 1000-975 B.C. Acts 2:31; Mark 16:6.

Evolutionist’s claim the paleontologist’s scattered bones demonstrate evolution. But Jesus’ miracles more closely meet scientific criteria. They were scrupulously observed, performed hundreds of times and rationally explained as evidence Jesus is our God, Creator, Savior and Judge. Jesus is no hoax but reasonable fact.

Here are specific unimaginable predictions Jewish prophets made of their future Messiah centuries before Christ. They predict Messiah as Mighty God, virgin born, God with us, in Bethlehem, would perform miracles, die to justify sinners, and arise from the dead. Such century’s earlier specific predictions would be impossible for limited man to guess or artificially fulfill. Jesus’ life depicted in the Gospels demonstrates he fulfillment all of them. No other religious literature contains fulfilled predictions. That’s objective evidence that shows people God is real. For only an all-knowing, God can tell us future details (Isa. 44:10).

Jesus gave visual objective evidence in his miracles. While the Gospels mention only 35, Jesus performed miracles to individuals and groups everywhere he went for more than three years. They were spontaneous upon request, in open daylight, and before hostile critics who couldn’t deny them even when he challenged them to do so. Jesus miracles demonstrated he is Lord over nature, demons, diseases and death. Believing nature’s set patterns as we do today, his disciples were always skeptical, astonished and often rebuked for lack of faith. Yet, his disciples became willing to experience horrible deaths because they knew Jesus was their Messiah and their risen God and Creator.
.
 No other religion can show such miracles. It’s not lack of evidence keeping us from trusting the Savior, it’s a sinful life and a rebellious will. Will you say: Lord, I’m a sinner deserving Hell, but I trust you now and forever as my Lord, Savior, and Guide? I know repentance is humbling but it's God's way we receive the Savior and eternal life. God loves us enough to tell us the truth.

.