What difference does any of this really have on daily living? I think much in every way. The very first implication of a belief in evolution is the natural determination we place on the value of human life. If evolution is true, human life has no greater value than that of an earthworm, a fish, cattle or a maple tree. According to the theory of evolution, all living things are the result of rare molecular events that accumulated over eons of time to form a self-replicating entity of some sort. Many more random events of this kind occurred, some of which were favored by environmental selection resulting in the diversity of life forms on Earth; whether preserved in the fossil record or living today. If this is the true history of life’s origin then beings like ourselves have only the appearance of something designed; a fortunate chemical accident existing and genetically related to every living being with no truly moral, ethical or unique value independent of that which we invent. Truth is relative, not real. We have no greater right to rule the planet let alone consume its resources than that of a parasitic tapeworm. Our culture, psychology, politics, and religions are by-products of evolutionary strategies to survive as a species. What we do with our conscious efforts individually or collectively are arbitrary fabrications of our genes. Goodness and morality have value only if we first invent them and then collectively recognize them as useful to our success at reproduction.
From this point, many evolutionists will and have argued that goodness and ethical behaviors are not determined by evolution or if they are they are a programmed reality that was selected for by the environment for our survival. Reaching the point of self-awareness is either a delusion that cannot be trusted or the natural outcome of the biology of having a big brain. Either way, the universe holds no meaning to human life since we are the product of a chemical struggle to survive; the result of survival of the fittest.
The natural inclination of this type of thinking was put to use in practical form in the politics of Nazism and communism resulting in the atrocities witnessed in the last 100 years. It should not be thought repulsive or frightening that a belief in biological evolution should give rise to an amoral social structure that finds a right, even an obligation to dominate and eliminate those of weaker status. The fittest should dominate and so survive to supersede its competition. This humanistic philosophy sees no problem in abortion, infanticide, eugenics (designer humans via controlled breeding), and genocide or on a lesser scale, racism, healthcare rationing, government control of human freedom, or killing as a form of entertainment.
In fact, this author would agree that if evolution were a fact then our specie must choose to designate leadership that will govern to protect individual rights to freedom or all is chaos for each person will do what is right in their own mind. Some hard decisions need to be made about the survival of the competition. Indeed, we may, like Hitler, see that some nations are so barbaric or primitive or pathological that we are obligated to wipe them from the human population like uncontrolled cancer in order to protect and assure that a healthy population continues to advance. What we do with the infirm, the aged, and all those who do not contribute to our collective social decisions must be dealt with to assure the advancement of the specie or at least protect the majority strength and access to natural resources and whatever we collectively decide is of value. Materialism becomes the goal of such a world. Unfortunately, if such is the case, I do not believe mankind capable of arriving at a moral consensus nor achieving a collective ‘value structure’ by which all come together in agreement. Who will give the law? Who will be the arbiter of that law? Who will judge that law? And who will carry out the penalty for breaking that law?
This author does not believe that evolution is a fact. It has no basis in science and is indeed only a poor philosophy; a fairytale for adults. It has no empirical evidence to support it let alone prove it did happen or is happening or could ever happen for that matter. Our best hard sciences like mathematics and statistics, biochemistry, molecular biology, biotechnology, ecology, geology, oceanography, astronomy, botany, cosmology, physiology, information science, paleontology, and engineering and many others do not support evolution as a fact. They do not support it as a theory or even as a feeble “best guess”.
These sciences endorse another idea, however, that accounts for our existence and the reality of all that is living in the world. It is a bigger idea that evolution and it imparts intrinsic value to every living thing; humanity being the pinnacle of its achievement. Goodness, ethics, and morality are real and meaningful concepts and this idea guarantees inalienable rights to the human individual regardless of race, mental faculty, income, contribution to society or athletic prowess.
I believe real objective science performed with critical thought proves the existence of an intelligence or intelligences that can be known, in part, from the order of our universe. Surprisingly, the evidence points to a level of this cognition that is beyond our access. It is not of a natural order yet the natural order reveals its existence. Our very best efforts show it to exist beyond carbon atoms and sunlight and water into the domain of something beyond the natural – the supernatural. I do not believe science can attain to the name or discern completely the character of this intelligence. Access is second-hand and derived from the facts of life, deduced from a simple logic, and in many cases a use of reverse engineering with the expectation that all things make sense for a reason. This intelligence or intelligences designed the universe and did so for a purpose. Amazingly, one of those purposes appears to be the deliberate intention to lead us to awe and wonder of the existence of that Great Awareness. We might, for practical purposes, name that intelligence “I Exist” or “We Are Here” or, and I think this most acceptable – the “I AM”.
That which can be known only leads to further inquiry as to who the designer is and this falls into the hands of philosophy and theology. The evidence from real science points to the one conclusion that we are here to find the “I AM”. All that is or can be known in this material reality is so deliberate in its existence, so finely tuned, it is as though humans, in particular, are here so that we would seek after further revelation of this intelligence and perhaps reach out and find that name, that affinity and possibly reach an admiration, if not an adoration of the genius that created what we can know. And yet, if we look closely, not superficially, but diligently, evolution as an answer will be found to be naked like the Emperor and the many of us who have adopted its absurdities will be found to be quite humiliated; having fallen for the farce. The truth, I believe, is clothed with much more glory, much greater purpose and such a truth accepted, indeed believed in, will be as one freed from the shackles of ignorance into a glorious liberty of an abundant life.
I hope in the months to come to present the case for design and to review the facts of science, comparing and contrasting evolution as an answer versus design theory. I will not excuse the failures of religion or its own prejudices. I will save this for a different series. But by a methodical review of the facts collected from our sciences I do believe an honest person armed with a basic understanding of what has been discovered from atomic synthesis to human life will come away convinced that there is a real need to seek for, and haply discover the ‘unknown God’.