The Psycology behind evolution defense
From: Exchanged Life Outreach [ExchangedLife@lb.bcentral.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 1:02 PM
To: List Member
Subject: The Psycology behind evolution defense
The Psychology behind the argument
One important thing that we should be aware of is the intimidation that precedes the evolution debate. The strength behind the argument for evolution is based solely on intimidation and creating shame in the minds of those who oppose it. What evolution lacks in facts, they more than make up for in psychology and manipulation. When an evolutionist enters into an argument where creation and evolution are in conflict, they frequently preceded the debate by laying the groundwork by defining the parameters in which you are allowed to think. You are allowed to think freely as long as you think inside the evolutionary box. This box is defined on the premise that evolutionary origins must be true and our current state is from that evolutionary origin. Thinking is encouraged as long as it does not take you outside of this box. The box is defined by two supposed facts: our evolutionary origin and our current evolutionary state.
If these two facts were true, then evolution would have a valid argument. The true debate is whether these two ‘facts’ are facts. It is taken by faith that these two must be true. Therefore, everything else must agree with these two true statements. Creation challenges these two statements. These are founded purely on faith and cannot be defended scientifically, therefore, evolution defenders turn to psychology – whether they realize it or not.
The psychology of the argument is a two-step process. One, intimidate critics; two, establish claims to authority.
Most of the critics of evolution are Bible believing Christians. Evolution arguments are presented with the knowledge that Christian scrutiny will follow. Because of this, evolutionists will almost always attempt to silence critics by discrediting the Bible, discrediting creation as non-science, and to discredit anyone who believes in either.
Discredit the Bible
Here is one example of attempting to make Bible believes ashamed of their held belief of the truth of scripture.
The people who transmitted the books of the Bible were, of course, not very honest people. They had an axe to grind. And so we see that the later the manuscripts, the more harmonious they become. But the earliest manuscripts show great contradiction.
This is a typical type of argument. Frank stated a fact without facts. In the debate I copied this from, he offered no sources to back his claim and the Bible defender did not challenge this claim. There is a wealth of information that supports the reliability of scripture. Critics of the Bible base their arguments on assumptions and those assumptions are stated as fact. For example, when Peter Jennings aired his documentary on ‘The Search for Jesus’, he only used liberal scholars that are known to openly denied the scriptures. They argued that the apostles were not reliable witnesses and Jesus didn’t rise from the dead but was eaten by dogs. They offered no evidence to support this contradiction of scripture and they did not even acknowledge (much less attempt to refute) the evidence that supports the resurrection. This evidence comes from both biblical and non-biblical sources. The eyewitnesses were not reliable and should not be believed, but liberal scholars who openly grind their axes and state their preconceived belief that no miracles are true or reliable are reliable. Something is wrong with this picture. Eyewitnesses are unreliable because they are 2,000 years ago, but men who are 2,000 years later and saw nothing are reliable?
What evidence is ever presented that gives credibility to the early church altering scriptures because they have an axe to grind? Only the testimonies of men in the 21st century who do have an axe to grind. It is the enemies of scripture that establish themselves as the authority that supposedly disproves the Bible. It is not a coincidence that almost every essay or argument presented to disprove creation focuses on attacking scripture and highlighting the failure of men who claim to be Christians and seldom addresses any of the real evidence that supports scripture. This is a favorite tactic against creation. If you discredit the Bible then the Genesis account by default becomes unreliable. Since they cannot find evidence, they establish themselves as authoritative and their speculation is counted as evidence.
When pitted fact against fact, evolution can’t stand up against creation. Therefore, the facts are bypassed for an easier target. A straw man is built and then pulverized. The easiest way to attack creation is to define it in terms that you can attack. Instead of rebutting the facts creation science presents, it is easier to just call it religion and put it into an ‘unscientific’ category and then ignore it. Here are some quotes to illustrate this point:
Anthony J. M. Garret:
"This debate is too often conducted as a scientific debate, which it is not. It is a theological debate".
George H. Smith
Faith is intellectually dishonest, and should be rejected by every person of integrity.
By faith, Smith means faith in the Bible. Faith in evolution is acceptable. Instead of answering the objections, evolutionists will just label it as a theological debate and then sweep it under the rug by attacking their concept of faith instead of the facts. There is a clear attempt at making creation believers feel intimidating by classifying their faith as unscientific or intellectual dishonesty. We should be aware of this strategy. The purpose behind it is to eliminate critical thinking by putting Christians on the defensive. When statements like these are issued, the focus is shifted away from the issue of the facts and put on theology which can be used to create smokescreens. It is important not to allow your mind to be sidetracked into the box they are shaping. Instead, we should cut through the red tape and put our focus on the actual argument for evolution or against creation. If we are sidetracked, we are less likely to point out the flaws in the evolution logic.
Discredit anyone who believes in either.
When the facts are obscured by the way evolutionists define the creation foundation, then they can attack the straw man they have created. If the Bible is a lie and creation is based on that lie, then the next logical step is to label anyone who believes in either as backwoods or archaic. William Edelen is a good example of this type of set-up and knock-down logic:
“I have often asked — When are Jews and Christians going to grow up, evolve spiritually, and let go of the archaic and primitive biblical concepts of ‘God’?”
“Anyone who believes today in the year 2000 that the bible is ‘reliable’ and ‘infallible,’ without error or contradiction, is approaching insanity.”
“They live in the 21st Century, parroting back a third century biblical mentality as though nothing had been learned, thought, or discovered in the last 1800 years.”
We as Christians should not be bothered by such statements. The psychology behind this is to put us on our heels. If we are busy defending ourselves, we can’t be critically thinking about the real issue at hand. If we are intimidated, we won’t speak out. A cowering Christian is the goal of this intimidation. Critical thinking is an enemy of evolution.
Often a debater will use reverse psychology. He will put himself on the defense to make criticism of evolution seem irrational. Here is an example from Mark I. Vuletic. He says that Christians say:
“Evolution teaches that there are no such things as souls, that the Bible is fraudulent, and that God does not exist. These charges, even if they were true, have nothing to do with the scientific validity of evolution. Such accusations reveal the true religious motivations of the creationists, and their eagerness to confuse scientific issues by the inappropriate discussion of metaphysics when a religious audience is around.”
Mark nobly defends evolution from the attacks of a straw man. In his hypothetical defense, he has manipulated the listener into thinking that Christians are trying to force theology into science. Do Christians really say creation is true because evolution teaches we don’t have souls, the Bible is false and all the other accusations of Vuletic? This is not even part of the debate. In reality, evolutionists are usually the ones who enter the Bible into the argument. It is true that Christian’s believe that all things point to our Creator, but that does not pit Christianity against science. In fact, the whole argument is that creation should be attributed to our God and not the god of evolution. As we will see later, evolution does have a god and it is clearly defined by the leading evolutionist. We as Christians do believe we are created by special design and we are created for a purpose. It is true that the teachings of evolution, if followed to their logical conclusions do teach that we have no purpose other than what we can do for ourselves. However, this is not what is at the heart of the debate. The debate is over truth. Does true science point to evolution and away from creation? Regardless of the worldview behind the debate, the ultimate purpose is truth. If evolution is true, then let it be proven. Defending evolution by shielding it from criticism is not evidence and is not truth.
If you listen closely you will notice that evolution debaters claim their authority based on their belief in evolution. They use circular reasoning to establish this claim to authority. Those who reason inside the box are intellectually elite and those outside the box are intellectually dishonest. They boldly assert that they are the only freethinkers while at the same time refusing to allow thinking that does not fall into the standard of the day. Anyone or any idea that falls outside of evolution is belittled.
Once an evolutionist establishes that they are within the box, they use that box as a stage to proclaim their own authority. It is ironic that Christians are scorned for standing on the foundation of scripture while critics stand on the foundationless box of evolution. What an evolutionist or atheist lacks in their foundation is more than made up for by bold assertions. Consider this quote from George H. Smith:
“And just in case there are a few religionists in the audience, I invite you to stay around and experience for an afternoon what it feels like to be part of an intellectual elite.”
Take note of the psychology behind this statement. It is clearly meant to intimidate by labeling non-atheist as falling short of their self-proclaimed standard of elite thinking. There is no quicker way to silence critics than to make them feel inferior. You see this strategy in every area of life – religion, science, politics, business, etc. With intimidation, you don’t have to prove your case. You only have to make your opponent feel threatened and ashamed to stand on their position.
Just because someone boldly asserts something does not make it true. By nature, we tend to believe those who speak with an heir of authority. David Koresh led dozens of people to their death by convincing them of his authority. Hitler manipulated an entire country to kill on his behalf by establishing his authority in their minds. Countless false religions and groups of people have been led astray by people who have no foundation but used psychology to manipulate people into following their ideas. Evolution and atheism use this same technique. They have established an intimidation zone with education and government that prevents critics from speaking out and research from presenting contradictory evidence. Any research that undermines evolution is labeled as religion and can then be attacked as the government supporting religion.
A good example of this was the research of Robert Gentry. His discovery of polonium haloes in granite stone landed him outside of the box of evolution. Because his findings left only one conclusion – the evolution model was wrong – he was rejected by the scientific community. His work did not mention God, religion or creation, but the only logical conclusion was creation, therefore he was labeled as promoting religion and his grant was revoked. When evolution can’t explain contradictory evidence, intimidation is the only solution.
Once they convince the listener that they are authoritative and that the evolutionary position is the only position of authority, they then present evolution as truth. It is true, not based on the facts, but based on the authority that they have established in the minds of others. When you surrender to them the authority they demand, they can then guide you through the facts they want you to see and away from the facts they don’t want you to see. This is the only way they can keep critics from unraveling the flawed evolution model and also allows them to make broad sweeping statements without being challenged. They want to persuade each person to believe what they present based solely on their authority with no questions asked. That is why evolutionist like Steven Schafersman, of Rice University's Department of Geology, can make bold claims like:
“I dispute Henry Morris's claim that thousands of scientists are creationists. No scientist today questions the past and present occurrence of evolution in the organic world. Those ‘thousands of creationists' with legitimate post-graduate degrees and other appropriate credentials are not scientists”
The psychology behind this statement is to lead people to believe that science has always been dominated by evolutionist and that anyone who is a creationist is not a credible scientist. This statement is very effective because it intimidates and most people will never challenge this claim. People are fed these lines without ever questioning. However, if we actually look at the truth you find that almost every area of scientific study was founded by creationists. This list shows the absurdity of Schafersman’s claim.
Prominent Creation Scientists
ANTISEPTIC SURGERY JOSEPH LISTER (1827-1912)
BACTERIOLOGY LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)
CALCULUS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
CELESTIAL MECHANICS JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
CHEMISTRY ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
COMPARATIVE ANATOMY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)
COMPUTER SCIENCE CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)
DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
DYNAMICS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
ELECTRONICS JOHN AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945)
ELECTRODYNAMICS JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
ELECTRO-MAGNETICS MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
ENERGETICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
ENTOMOLOGY OF LIVING INSECTS HENRI FABRE (1823-1915)
FIELD THEORY MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
FLUID MECHANICS GEORGE STOKES (1819-1903)
GALACTIC ASTRONOMY WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822)
GAS DYNAMICS ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
GENETICS GREGOR MENDEL (1822-1884)
GLACIAL GEOLOGY LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
GYNECOLOGY JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870)
HYDRAULICS LEONARDO DA VINCI (1452-1519)
HYDROGRAPHY MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
HYDROSTATICS BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662)
ICHTHYOLOGY LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
ISOTOPIC CHEMISTRY WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916)
MODEL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
NATURAL HISTORY JOHN RAY (1627-1705)
NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY BERNHARD RIEMANN (1826- 1866)
OCEANOGRAPHY MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
OPTICAL MINERALOGY DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868)
PALEONTOLOGY JOHN WOODWARD (1665-1728)
PATHOLOGY RUDOLPH VIRCHOW (1821-1902)
PHYSICAL ASTRONOMY JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
REVERSIBLE THERMODYNAMICS JAMES JOULE (1818-1889)
STATISTICAL THERMODYNAMICS JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
STRATIGRAPHY NICHOLAS STENO (1631-1686)
SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778)
THERMODYNAMICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
THERMOKINETICS HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829)
VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)
Creation is not attacked at the scientific level, but at the emotional level. Critics argue emotional pleas to manipulate hostility against views that don’t support evolution. Creation believing scientists have laid the foundation for our modern sciences. It is not the creationists that are departing from scientific method, but the evolutionist. There is a reason why creationist have been able to make such contributions to science: they are allowed to think outside the box. They can follow an idea wherever it may lead. They don’t have to fit the model, but are free to explore creation. After all, if God is the creator of all things, all things should ultimately lead to Him. Creation is always the logical conclusion unless there is something to restrict our exploration. If we are told to only abide within the parameters of evolution then we will never find where science will lead.
How much has yet to be discovered and will never be discovered because science does not allow its researchers to leave the evolution model? The most well funded research is not beneficial sciences and cure research, it is spent on trying to prove that a cell could spawn its own life without outside help. All of our forefathers of science advanced because they followed the trail wherever it led. Today we can only follow it to the evolutionary boundary imposed by the evolutionists themselves.
As Christians, we should not allow intimidation to drive us into silence or altering our beliefs. Many Christians take the ‘evidence’ for evolution at face value. They feel like they are stupid for taking the Bible literally, so they struggle to believe. Faith is not believing what is not true, but trusting God. That trust is founded upon evidence. There is nothing wrong with proving what is true, in fact, we are commanded to do so. We are told to test all things and hold to truth and keep ourselves from every form of evil (Thessalonians 5:21-24).
I have had Christians tell me that we can’t have faith and knowledge. If you have to know the facts, then you loose faith. This is a complete misconception of faith. Faith is trusting God, not denying facts. When God called for Israel’s faith, He reminded them that they had seen His mighty works. They saw how He delivered them from the bondage of Egypt; they saw how He fed them with manna; they saw how their shoes did not wear out in the desert for 40 years; they saw the cloud by day and fire by night; they saw God supply water from the rocks. Based on what they saw, God called them to have faith and trust Him as He sent them into a land to conquer a people stronger than they. Faith is based on knowledge. I know what God has done, I see His mighty works, therefore I have a rational foundation to choose to trust Him or not. I can have all the knowledge in the world, but that means little if I can’t trust God with my life. Faith is not founded on ignorance, but the fact that we have a God in control.
We are commanded to be ready to give an answer to the world for the reason for our faith. Look at 1 Peter 3:15
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear;
Be ready to give a defense? Where do Christians get the idea that our faith must be blind? We may not have all the answers, but every Christian should know enough to give a defense for their faith and have the meekness to answer in love. The ultimate purpose is to share our hope with those who are hopelessly lost in the deception of the world. When Christians are trying to believe when they feel like they are in error, they can’t walk by faith. We should have confidence in our faith and know what we believe and why we believe it. We should not be intimidated by the critics of the Bible. We know what is true and it is ok if someone lost in the darkness accuses me of living in the dark ages. The apostles were called ignorant, madmen, outlaws and pagans. Because they were confident in the truth, they rejoiced that they were counted worthy to suffer. If we are ready to give a defense, we can also be confident in the face of insults as well. It is ok to be called ignorant but not ok to live in ignorance. It is a sin to deny the word of God and then try to be ‘enlightened’ by incorporating the words of men (i.e. Darwin and evolution prophets) into Christianity. The prophet Elijah confronted the people of his day. They were trying to keep enough of the scriptures to feel justified but then following the pagan god, Baal. Elijah said, “How long will you falter between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him.” But the people answered him not a word. 1 Kings 18:21
We stand in the same place. How long will we stand between two opinions? The Bible says it is impossible to serve two masters. If evolution is god, follow evolution, but if God is the Lord, follow Him. You can’t mix the two. Once you mix truth with error, it all becomes error. Jesus said that to worship God we must come to Him in spirit and truth. We try to marry falsehood and spirit and God will not accept our worship. To choose evolution is a rejection of God whether we want to admit it or not. The god of Theistic Evolution is just as much a pagan god as Baal. Each of us must choose who we are to serve.
Next week is 'Critical Thinking'. Taking care to analyze the arguments so we are not intimidated by craftily worded arguments that have no real weight. If you would like to veiw this entire series or download it in Acrobat format, it is located at http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/thinking.htm
Powered by List Builder
To unsubscribe follow the link: