Sermon Tone Analysis

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.

Intimidate critics

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.

Frank Zindler

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.

Discredit creation

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.