Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
January 4, 1962
NUMBER 34, PAGE 2,11a

Why Some Believe In Evolution

Gordon Wilson, Culver City, California

Every so often we are presented with the following problem: If the theory that man has evolved from a lower form of life is a false one, why is it that so many educated men believe the theory? Why do the majority of scientific men accept the evolution idea if it is palpably a mistake? Could so many learned men be wrong? Many times these questions are put to us by college students who find it difficult not to be overwhelmed by the seemingly superior knowledge of professors who attempt to drive their theories into the student's mind by sheer force of their authoritative and dogmatic dictums.

A few observations on this problem may be helpful. First, to clear the air, it might be noted right away that not all educated people and certainly not all scientists do accept the evolution guess about the origin of man. The list of great scientists who reject that theory is a long one. And please see that I say great scientists, as opposed to certain college professors who only know their science from textbooks, and who are twenty years behind the times. Even the most recent books on scientific subjects are probably far in arrears of modern knowledge, for new scientific revelations make their appearance daily. And there are many of these working scientists, the ones who make the ever-new discoveries, who find it impossible to accept what the evolutionists tell them. But of course the majority of scientists are evolutionists. We are not going to gain anything by matching list against list of important names.

Let's face it: you cannot determine what is true by asking who believes it and who denies it. Majorities are sometimes wrong and so are minorities. I seem to recollect that the enemies of Gideon were in the lead so far as numbers go, but it turned out that they were on the wrong side for winning the war. Ananias and Sapphira were a minority, I think, in the early church but they were not right. I do not know whether or not this proves anything, but it does illustrate the point that we may as well forget all about who believes what on the question of evolution versus direct creation. We know who is in the majority, but perhaps we are not farsighted enough to say as yet who is going to win. In the long run each individual must decide this matter on the basis, not of what smart men think, but of the evidence.

Now, it so happens that there is no scientific evidence, none whatsoever, to support the theory of evolution. Do not take my word for it. Just ask one of those educated men to show you why he believes the theory. Do not let him prove it to you out of books, for heaven's sake! That will just get you back to the old fallacy of accepting what somebody thinks. Of course, if he has a book written by a scientist who has personally engaged in experiments, and who lists documentation for the outcome of his experiments, that will have its bearing. But do not just accept the ipse dixit of an author who says that evolution is true without proving it by the evidence. If you follow this rule of asking, not who said it, but what evidence has he for it, you will soon be convinced that the evidence is nil.

Naturally, your professor will tell you some things which he conceives to be evidence, and these things may dazzle a young person who does not yet know much about science. But before you get dazzled, be fair about it. Go to someone who has studied and rejected evolution and give him an opportunity to answer the supposed evidence. Whether or not he is able to show its fallacy will be an indicator as to whether the supposed evidence is logical and to the point. Believe me, you will find after all is said and done that there is not a particle of genuine proof to sustain the theory. To the contrary there is much evidence positively against it.

We still have not shown why so many smart men believe in evolution. Remember how you were almost dazzled and overwhelmed by the flat say-so's of your teacher in biology, geology, or sociology? As a matter of fact most of the other students in your class did accept his word with-out question; you woke up just in time. Well, when that professor was in college he faced exactly the same situation, but like most of the other students, he did not wake up. And he still has not awakened. He believed what his teacher told him and he is still preaching the same thing thirty years later, and he still has not checked the matter for himself. In fact, having repeated the thing over and over these many years, he believes it stronger than ever before and is likely to grow angry if a young man or woman dares to challenge him. In other words, he and thousands of other science teachers and scientific workers believe in evolution just because long ago someone they respected told them it is true.

It is just like some preachers who are preaching the same false doctrine that they learned in seminary half a century ago, and have never yet studied the matter for themselves. The longer they teach it the stronger they believe it, and the more logical and systematic the whole thing becomes in their own minds. And, understandably, the greater ability they have to make others believe it. Evolutionists sometimes laugh at religious folks and accuse them of believing in creation because they learned it in Sunday School or some such place. However, it looks like the creationist has a snicker or two of his own coming. For where did the evolutionist get his opinion? Certainly not from examining the non-existent evidence.

If a student flatly rejects evolution and insists that God created man fundamentally in his present form, he is certain to be accused of being a traditionalist, and will be said to be behind the times. He is laughed at for accepting what some old Hebrew prophet said against what modern scientists know about things. Do not let these divisive tactics upset you; it is the evolutionist who is guilty of traditionalism and of heeding outdated writers. Forget this: Darwinism and all of its later refinements is nothing but an attempt to put into scientific terms the rude philosophies of Thales, Anaximander, Heraclitus, and others who lived about six hundred years before Christ. Many other philosophers after their time improved somewhat upon their theories of evolution, though the best philosophers rejected the whole idea. The so-called modes evolutionary theory is just one more attempt to save these traditional views from disgrace. Most of the elements of evolution are borrowed directly from them; including the idea of the sea-origin of life. Thank you, but I believe I would a little rather accept the word of an honest old Hebrew prophet than the ignorant myths of ancient Greek philosophers! Now who calls who a traditionalist?

Another thing: the Bible actually predicts the attitude of the modern (?) evolutionist and warns against it. For example, in Colossians 2:8, we read, "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit." Evolution is nothing but a philosophy, and a deceitful philosophy at that, not being supported by the evidence. The word of God warns us to beware of that kind of thing. In 1 Tim. 6:20 is found this: "Avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called." Science falsely so called. Was there ever a better description of evolution than this? It goes under the guise of science, but it is pretended science and not true science at all. Remember that science calls for proof, of which the evolutionary guess offer none. It appears that the writers of the Bible had the number of the evolutionist in advance.

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools", is the description Paul gave of certain men. May I suggest that before we join them in their foolishness, or foolish wisdom, as the case may be, that we make it a point to check up? Just keep asking for the "proof, please."