Can Evolution Meet the Real Challenges of the Day?
MAN has never faced greater challenges than those before him at this time. Says the former British editor Malcolm Muggeridge: “The whole Western civilization [is] coming to an end . . . The whole Western civilization is on its last legs. I see a breakdown coming. It’s happening now.”
Challenging problems like crime, sickness and poverty stare daringly, not just at “Western civilization,” but at all mankind. Will a belief in evolution aid men to meet these challenges? Will it aid you in your personal life?
It would be expected to do so. We say that because evolution is an integral part of virtually every endeavor of mankind. So its influence is extremely broad. Notes the work The Wonders of Life on Earth:
“Darwin’s most influential work was his theory of evolution. It revolutionized the science of botany, biology and medicine. It brought new ideas into the study of religion and astronomy, of history and psychology . . . [Those ideas] which Darwin perceived have affected every branch of science.”
But is evolution’s guidance leading men out of their morass of challenging problems? Or have the evolution-backing sciences misdirected man’s efforts? Consider an example:
Where has much scientific attention been directed in recent years? The space program. Why? A number of reasons are often cited, but Science magazine observes candidly:
“The search for carbon-containing material on the lunar surface is not only a component part of the study of the origin and history of the moon, but an important step in our understanding of the early stages of chemical evolution leading to the origin of life.”
Yes, one of the main reasons billions of dollars have been spent, it is indirectly admitted, is to prove true the evolution theory. But no evidence of evolving life has been found outside the earth.
Consider how that same money could have been spent. Says Hans Gaffron of Florida State University:
“Other choices for spending all these billions would have been to eliminate most pockets of poverty in this country . . . A program for a balanced population could have been vigorously put forward, and the age of ruthless power politics and unimaginably stupid wars would thereby have been brought nearer its end for the benefit of all the people.”
Further, with men concentrating their attention, not on “unimaginably stupid wars,” but on problems of health and disease, would not these, at least, have been reduced? A former director of America’s Center for Disease Control asserts that “two or three years of reasonable stability in international relations could bring the eradication of smallpox on this planet.” Even if such a prediction is exaggerated, it emphasizes that man’s resources, spent to search space for evidence of evolution, could have been used more wisely.
Another big challenge facing the world today is, not scientific, but moral in nature. British historian Arnold Toynbee notes: “It is tragic to think that we have been so successful in the technological field, whereas our record of moral failures is almost immeasurable.” Evolution has actually contributed to this problem.
One example is found in the field of child training. Many experts in the subject have advised against disciplining children. Their theory is evolution-backed. Says the book Pre-School Education Today when questioning this common view:
“Thus, whenever little Johnny does something ‘bad,’ the behavior [is] explained by noting that it is just a stage he is going through. Moreover, following [one evolutionist’s] parable of the tadpole’s tail—in which the hind legs fail to develop if the tail is amputated—Johnny’s unwanted behavior must not be hampered, else some desirable future characteristic will fail to appear.
But what has been the result of passively accepting “Johnny’s unwanted behavior” as just a “stage” he is going through? In 1971 the number of juvenile arrests in the United States increased more than 50 percent over its 1966 figure. Australia reports that crimes of violence by youths living in the state of Victoria rose over 187 percent since 1960; the youth population increased only 29.6 percent in the same period. The evolution-tarnished child-raising theories have not yielded good moral fruitage.
Of course, evolution has contributed to this moral breakdown in other ways: It has discouraged faith in God and the Bible. In turn, many persons have abandoned the Biblical moral code forbidding adultery and stealing. But is that not to be expected? For, according to evolutionary teaching, is not man really an animal? Why should he not be expected to behave accordingly?
That would be a logical conclusion. But evolutionists object, saying, ‘No! Man is more than an animal.’ Prominent evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson observes: “He has essential attributes other than those of animals . . . The essence of his unique nature lies precisely in those characteristics that are not shared with any other animal . . . Man is a moral animal.”
What a baffling dilemma man’s moral nature presents to the evolutionist! He would say man has evolved from animals. Yet he would also say man has moral qualities animals do not have! Where did man get these “essential attributes”? They must come from somewhere. Confesses one noted evolutionist: “Man cannot be a moral Melchisedec ‘without descent.’”
In attempting to cope with this problem, several years ago Sir John Arthur Thomson, an evolutionist, admitted: “Too often, in the things pertaining to man, the evolutionist relapses into creationism, trying to make faculties out of nothing.” Evolutionists will ‘bend over backwards’ to avoid bringing God into the picture as the explanation for man’s moral nature. The author of African Genesis illustrates this when he speaks of “the keeper of the kinds”:
“Who is he? We do not know. Nor shall we ever. He is a presence, and that is all . . . His presence is asserted in all things that ever were, and in all things that will ever be. And as his command is unanswerable, his identify is unknowable. But his most ancient concern is with order.”
Have not “keeper of the kinds” and similar vague expressions simply become substitutes for “God”? In refusing to acknowledge the Almighty’s hand in man’s physical and moral makeup the evolutionist has deified his own theory. But this evolutionary god, as we have seen, is a disappointing one.
Evolution has not successfully addressed itself to the real challenges of the day—social, technical or moral. In some cases, it has created or aggravated already existing problems. But what about the Bible—will it successfully aid you to meet the real challenges of our day?