“Breakthrough” of the Year?

Would you be thrilled to discover that scientists at a leading magazine proclaimed 2005 as the year of a phenomenal “breakthrough,” one that will help people understand that:

• everything is meaningless “and you’d better live with it.”
• parents want to adopt children because of “a kind of genetic mistake.”
• when you die, there is no afterlife and “you’re going to rot in the ground”?

How’s that for a message of hope and meaningful existence?

Aren’t you now excited to help get schools to teach this “breakthrough” to students across the nation? In reality, students already are being taught this truth-alternative (read “lie”), as you’ll understand when you’ve finished this article.

Headlines appeared in many newspapers and at websites around the globe about a cover story in the reputable (albeit blatantly evolutionist) journal Science, where in its December 2005 issue, evolution was proclaimed the “breakthrough of the year.”

After nearly a century of being presented as fact in science journals, secular schools and mainstream media, evolution is now supposedly a breakthrough of some kind. For all these years, atheistic professors and scientists (the “high priests” of the evolution belief system) have been awaiting a breakthrough, while an unsuspecting public and generations of freshly minted teachers were confidently convinced by supposedly unbiased evolutionists that it had been proven.

Now, why was evolution called the “breakthrough of the year”? The magazine listed the supposed startling evidence for evolution—which is, in reality, much of the same old stuff we’ve been hearing for years (and we’ve been rebutting for years). Here it is:

• animals produce different species (e.g., birds called European blackcaps produce different species, but we point out, they are still European blackcaps; AiG has written many articles over the years to refute such things1).
• chimps and humans are supposedly 96% similar (AiG also has a number of excellent articles about this on our website2).
• viruses mutate or “evolve” (for refutations, AiG has a number of web articles dealing with such topics3).

In reality, none of these are “breakthroughs”—they are just the same old arguments used time and time again by evolutionists and refuted by AiG time and time again.

Be encouraged. Evolutionists are greatly concerned at the inroads the creation message is making in the culture (and national polls reflect that). You will only see a lot more of this sort of propaganda from the evolutionist community.

At the same time I read the Science article, I came across an interview4 conducted with atheist/evolutionist Dr. Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, probably the world’s most famous believer in evolution today.

Dr. Dawkins was asked questions about his belief system, and some of his answers follow. What should be eye-opening for everyone who reads his responses are the real-life consequences that occur when people believe in molecules-to-man evolution. And these beliefs are being taught to tens of millions of young people in public schools virtually every day.

Q: “The idea of evolution and natural selection makes some people feel that everything is meaningless—people’s individual lives and life in general.”

A: (Dawkins): “If it’s true that it causes people to feel despair, that’s tough. … If it’s true, it’s true, and you’d better live with it.”

Q: “What do you see as the problem with a terminally ill cancer patient believing in an afterlife?”

A: “No problem at all … If I could have a word with a would-be-suicide bomber who thinks he’s going to paradise, … I would say, ‘Don’t imagine for one second you’re going to paradise … You’re going to rot in the ground.’”

Q: “Is atheism the logical extension of believing evolution?”

A: “… My personal feeling is that understanding evolution led me to atheism.”

As alluded to earlier, Richard Dawkins even said that the reason parents want to adopt children could be understood in terms of a “genetic mistake”:

You could think of it [i.e., accepting a child that is not biologically yours] as a kind of genetic mistake, in that human adults have strong parental instincts which make them long for a child. If they can’t have a child of their own, they can then satisfy those parental instincts by adopting a child.

At least Dawkins is honest about his beliefs!

But there is good news. One real breakthrough for 2006, I believe, will be that AiG and its supporters will work to see that it will be a time in which to carry out AiG’s 2006 theme: “We’re taking them back!” This theme is a rallying cry to the fact that Christians need to take back from evolutionists the geological, astronomical and biological history of the world. We need to help people understand that the Bible’s history is true—and that its message of meaning, purpose and salvation is also true.

And … it is our prayer that the breakthrough for 2007 will be that “We’ve taken them back!” (using the past tense). The AiG Creation Museum will be opened, and a major new museum website will be launched—all so millions more can hear (and SEE) the creation/gospel message!

Share these vital “breakthroughs” regarding the authority of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation with everyone you can! And use the important AiG resources to spread the message of truth.