Dear Darwinist friend,
You mean to say that the dazzling array of heart-stopping beauty all around us is the result of a huge cosmic accident? That sunsets, strawberries, butterflies, waterfalls, roses, and hummingbirds are simply the product of blind bits of stardust randomly bumping into each other? That all this astounding artistry has no artist, and is merely the result of fortuitous, unplanned, unsupervised collisions of inert matter?
Courageous faith, indeed.
You are aware of the fact that the mathematical probability of such a thing happening is so absurdly remote that it is practically nonexistent. To hang your belief on a thread so slender demonstrates an outrageously massive amount of faith. To replicate the Mona Lisa by dripping colors from cans of paint swinging randomly on strings would be child’s play in comparison. Your unshakeable confidence in Darwin’s theory is astonishing.
Many of us simply can’t muster up that much faith.
The religious fervor with which you cling to this most tenuous hypothesis is remarkable. How did you come up with such an intrepid, daring, gusty, devil may care faith? Your unflinching certainty in a theory that faces such absurdly preposterous odds is incredible.
How did you get there? Is there something other than science that bolsters your belief? Are there other factors giving traction to your conviction? A faith of such astronomic audacity is uncanny.
Could it be there is something out there you desperately want NOT to believe?
Or perhaps someone you desperately want to AVOID?
I have a hunch there is.
And I strongly suspect it is God.
“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened” (Romans 1:20,21 NIV).
-J. O. Schulz
A Chinese paleontologist lectures around the world saying that recent fossil finds in his country are inconsistent with the Darwinian theory of evolution. His reason: The major animal groups appear abruptly in the rocks over a relatively short time, rather than evolving gradually from a common ancestor as Darwin’s theory predicts. When this conclusion upsets American scientists, he wryly comments: “In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin.”
–Phillip E. Johnson
The Church of Darwin
If moral statements are about something, then the universe is not quite as science suggests it is, since physical theories, having said nothing about God, say nothing about right or wrong, good or bad. To admit this would force philosophers to confront the possibility that the physical sciences offer a grossly inadequate view of reality. And since philosophers very much wish to think of themselves as scientists, this would offer them an unattractive choice between changing their allegiances or accepting their irrelevance.
― David Berlinski,
The Devil’s Delusion:
Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions
One by one the great prophets of materialism have been shown to be false prophets and have fallen aside. Marx and Freud have lost their scientific standing. Now Darwin is on the block. Some of us saw a clip of Richard Dawkins being interviewed on public television about his reaction to Michael Behe’s book. You can see how insecure that man is behind his bluster, and how much he has to rely on not having Mike Behe on the program with him, or even a lesser figure like Phil Johnson. Darwinists have to rely on confining their critics in a stereotype. They have learned to keep their own philosophy on the stage with no rivals allowed, and now they have to rely almost exclusively on that cultural power.
–Phillip E. Johnson
How to Sink a Battleship: A call to separate
materialist philosophy from empirical science