Recently Andrew Brown, a blogger with the UK’s The Guardian, asked the question, “Why does creationism matter so much?” He claims that the creation/evolution debate is such an emotional topic because those who deny evolution are throwing away the knowledge that science has worked so hard to discover. He claims that, “When I examine my own revulsion from creationism I find it does have a moral component. It is the same horror I feel when people are ignorant of history.”
Brown opens his blog post by stating, “Why does creationism matter so much? Scientifically, of course, it’s nonsense. Evolution is actually true.” Over the course of his post—even though he repeatedly slams creation—he does not give one single reason (besides his own opinion) why creation is “scientific … nonsense.” Nor does he offer any evidence to support his assertion that “evolution is actually true.” He simply makes these statements and expects us to believe him. But what he fails to acknowledge is that evolution is a belief system. Evolution supposedly occurred in the past and, therefore, is not repeatable, testable, or observable. So how can Brown dogmatically say that evolution is true when it can’t even be classified as a proper scientific theory since it cannot be tested with the basis for doing science—the scientific method? You can’t, for example, subject a fossil to the scientific method to fully understand its past—you can only look at it in the present and try and determine what happened to the fossil in the past. This is why the worldview that you approach the evidence with is so foundational. I can look at a fossil and see evidence consistent with a catastrophic burial during the Flood of Noah’s day because my starting point is God’s Word. An evolutionist is going to pick up the very same fossil and see evidence of millions of years of evolution because his starting point is man’s beliefs about earth’s history.
Brown claims that creation gives him “the same horror [he] feels when people are ignorant of history.” But rejecting evolution is not the same thing as rejecting history. History—like supposed evolution—involves looking into the past to try and reconstruct what happened. But accurate history relies largely on eyewitness accounts that have been handed down. Now, of course, history involves speculation, and the fewer the written records you have the more the gaps are filled in by conjecture. So, sometimes, even the “facts” of history are subject to change when new evidence is uncovered. But, evolution doesn’t deal with any eyewitness accounts—it is based completely on the worldview of millions of years and naturalism, and this starting point determines the interpretation of the evidence. Biblical creation, however, does depend on an eyewitness account—the account of the Creator who was there and who never lies (Titus 1:2).
It comes down to trust. Will you trust man’s fallible opinions or God’s infallible Word?
Ultimately, the question of origins matters to people because those who chose to reject biblical creation in favor of naturalism and evolution are rejecting God in unrighteousness. Romans 1:18-20 reveals that every person knows there is a God, and thus is without excuse—but he suppresses this truth in unrighteousness. Naturalistic evolution is simply a feeble way of trying to explain life without God—it’s a religion. If there is no God, then man is the ultimate authority and man gets to set the rules. So, of course, this debate is often going to get heated and emotional—biblical creation challenges man’s position as the ultimate authority and makes him accountable to God for his actions.
Answering the question of why creation matters and why the debate gets so emotional is easy when you have a Book from the all-knowing God who plainly tells you why!
That’s why I took time during my debate with Bill Nye “the Science Guy” last February to clearly show that the creation/evolution question is really a clash of worldviews.
Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
This item was written with the assistance of AiG’s research team.