Evidences Of God In Humanity

 

EVOLUTION SERIES No. 3

Baby girl in her first moments from birth

For thousands of years our Judeo/Christian heritage has assured us that we humans are very special and that we are made in the image of God.  In Genesis 1:27 we read: God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”  Psalm 8:5-6 expounds more upon this idea: You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor. You made him ruler over the works of your hands; you put everything under his feet.”

While we do not know all that this entails, we do know that each person has a genuine worth and uniqueness that is of great and incomprehensible value.  Since God is a holy God, we also know that each individual is called to be holy.  Each person also has a unique calling and purpose in God’s great order of things. The Psalmist sums it up with these words: I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well” (Psa. 139:14).

Of course, this whole concept radically clashes with the evolutionary and humanistic view of man.  Recently, Princeton professor and Darwinist, Peter Singer, expressed this view quite bluntly.  He asserted that humanity has no uniqueness and that newborn humans are even of less worth than of a pig, a dog or a chimpanzee.  Clearly, this reflects the great chasm that separates the Judeo/Christian and evolutionary viewpoints
regarding humankind.

In our society we are already beginning to reap a harvest from this cheapened view of humanity.  Because humans are no longer looked upon as unique and as made in God’s image, we are beginning to see them exploited, abused and disposed of on a massive scale and in ways that were unthinkable just a few generations ago.  In fact, the recent twentieth century was a sort of proving ground for these new humanistic and evolutionary viewpoints.  In the last century while Communism, Nazism and other godless “isms” sought to prove themselves on countless battlefields, hundreds of millions of innocent humans seriously harmed or lost their lives in the process.

CONTRADICTIONS IN THE MORAL SPHERE

If we all descended from slime as the evolutionists would have us believe, then it should not be at all unusual for us to be “slimy” in our personal lives and in our dealings with others.  Our brave new world is witnessing a lot of slime these days.

Obviously the evolutionists have no sure standard of morality and ethics since they do not believe or accept God, the Bible, or its moral code.  While many today would claim to be moral relativists, even this relativism presents them with many glaring contradictions.  For instance, while they may claim to be relativists, they would certainly not want their own spouses living as sexual relativists. 1   And again, consistent Darwinists cannot in any sense condemn even the grossest of crimes.  They may consider murder and rape as personal dislikes, but they cannot consider them as moral wrongs. 1

Strangely, while evolutionists say they do not believe in a moral standard they still expect to be treated by a moral standard.  Even the much talked about “tolerance” in today’s unbelieving society reveals the presence of a moral law, since tolerance is obviously
a moral principle. 1

We have to wonder that if somehow the tables were turned on today’s evolutionists, atheists, and abortionists they may find themselves singing a far different tune.  As Geisler & Turek remark, “Indeed, all pro-abortionists would become pro-life immediately if they found themselves back in the womb.” 1

It certainly makes us wonder if the whole belief in evolution and its relativism is some sort of moral cover up.  In fact, Julian Huxley, the great leader of the Darwinists was once interviewed on the Merv Griffin Show.  In this session he stated that the reason he accepted Darwinism without proof was because he didn’t want God to interfere with his sexual mores1

We might ask why does there continue to be an unwritten standard of morality – of right and wrong?  C.S. Lewis once remarked about this: “Human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it.” 1 Why does this standard of morality even appear in the thinking of relativists?  If we really descended from a tadpole wiggling in the slime, where would we ever get such ideas?  Shouldn’t we be more inclined just to devour one another unblinkingly and without a thought, just as a frog devours a bug?    

CONSCIOUSNESS AND THE SOUL’S EXISTENCE

Some very troubling things for humanists and evolutionists are the emerging tale-tale signs that humans may have an existence apart from the natural mind and body.  In an article presented to the California Institute of Technology in 2001, the results of a year-long British study were revealed.  This study declared that there remains an evidence of consciousness after the human brain has stopped functioning and after an individual has been declared clinically dead.2

When Roger Sperry and his team studied the differences between the brain’s right and left hemispheres, they made a surprising discovery.  It became clear that the mind has a power independent of the brain’s activities.  This discovery led Sperry to conclude that materialism was false.2

The eminent neurophysiologist and Nobel laureate, John C. Eccles states: “I am constrained…to believe that there is what we might call a supernatural origin of my unique self-conscious mind or my unique selfhood or soul.” 2

Sir Charles Sherrington, a Nobel winner who laid the foundations of knowledge concerning the functioning of the brain and spinal cord, declared just before his death: “For me now, the only reality is the human soul.” 2

So, how do we define human consciousness and how to we account for it?  J.P. Moreland, PHD and Professor Talbot School of Theology defines it this way: “In short, consciousness consists of sensations, thoughts, emotions, desires, beliefs, and free choices that make us alive and aware.” 2  Moreland goes on to tie consciousness to the soul’s existence, connecting the soul to the “I,” the “ego” and the “self” that contains consciousness.

The whole area of the soul and human consciousness is just too mysterious for science to unravel.  The laws of physics and chemistry simply cannot explain this realm. Physicist Steven Weinberg has said that scientists may have to bypass these problems entirely because “it may just be too hard for us.” 2

IDEAS OF SELF SACRIFICE AND PURPOSE

There are many other questions that must haunt evolutionary scientists today.  What explains the many instances of incredible self-sacrifice, self-denial and overwhelming love that have been displayed by human beings throughout the centuries?   What would make a person like the late Mother Theresa lay down her life for the poor of India? Even atheists, evolutionists, and humanists would certainly have to applaud many of these acts
of self-giving.

Then there is the matter of having a purpose in life.  Humans cannot really live without purpose.  Many in our postmodern era are trying to do so but are not succeeding very well.  This lack of purpose probably accounts for some of the rapidly rising suicide rates, even among young people.

When we look back to the Bible we see this purpose clearly spelled out.  Charles Colson reminds us of The Westminster Shorter Catechism in relation to humanity’s purpose.3  The catechism asks: “What is the chief end of man?”   The answer is this: “To glorify God and enjoy Him forever.”

                                                                                                                        -Jim Gerrish

 

Publication, 2005
Picture credit: Wikimedia Commons

1. Norman L. Geisler & Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist, (Wheaton IL, Crossway Books), 2004, pp 190, 174, 191, 181, 186, 163 & 192.
2. Lee Strobel, The Case For A Creator, (Grand Rapids, MI, Zondervan), 2004, pp. 250, 258, 250, 250, 254 & 269.
3. Charles Colson and Nancy Pearcey, How Now Shall We Live?, (Wheaton IL, Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.), 1999, p. 135.