Evolution Scientist Objects to God Creating Anything
The Museum of Natural History in Los Angeles, Calif., a temple to the religion of evolution, displayed a plaque that read as follows:
“The Nature Lab is a gift to Los Angeles to celebrate all of God’s creatures and enable NHM to broaden our understanding of the natural world through the process of scientific discovery.”
As expected some atheists got upset with the idea that God had something to do with the creation of the cosmos in general and the animal creation in particular. Of course, if you object to the idea that God created the animals, then you must also object that God created humans.
When Jerry Coyne, a professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago, heard about it, he sprung into action. How dare anyone intimate that God had anything to do with creating anything?
Those who signed their names to the Declaration of Independence took a different approach. They were aware of evolutionary theory going back to the Greeks. Anaximander (c. 611–546 BC) wrote the poem On Nature that includes a rather modern view of evolutionary theory. Following him, there was Xenophanes of Colophon, a disciple of Anaximander. “He observed fossil fishes and shells, and concluded that the land where they were found had been underwater at some time. Xenophanes taught that the world formed from the condensation of water and ‘primordial mud’; he was the first person known to have used fossils as evidence for a theory of the history of the Earth.”
Trending: The Danger of Privatized Christianity
This history did not stop our founders from declaring that we are endowed by our “Creator” with “certain unalienable rights.”
As a result, officials at the Museum of Natural History removed the plaque in honor of someone who had given a monetary gift to the museum. Dr. Coyne was indignant:
“I recognize that Museums are strapped for funding, and do think that Nature Lab is a good thing. But I don’t think it’s worth kowtowing to religious sentiments, and polluting the nature of science, simply to get money.
“The very existence of the sign, in fact, undercuts the mission of Nature Lab: to teach people how science is done. I needn’t remind you that science is done by ignoring God, and has never given the slightest bit of evidence for the intercession of God in the origin, evolution, and diversification of life.”
The very existence of the cosmos, planet earth, biological life, sentient beings, the ability to reason, love, show compassion, and the very idea of morality cannot be explained without God. (Atheists have theories, but not one of them has ever demonstrated their origin scientifically.) It’s Dr. Coyne who can’t give “the slightest bit of evidence” for the existence of matter, information, reason, or morality. Science can’t explain how chemicals became alive complete with DNA.
Even Richard Dawkins, the high priest of atheism and evolutionary theory, admits that science can’t explain these things:
“We have no evidence about what the first step in making life was, but we do know the kind of step it must have been. It must have been whatever it took to get natural selection started. Before that first step, the sorts of improvement that only natural selection can achieve were impossible. And that means the key step was the rising, by some process as yet unknown, of a self-replicating entity.”1
Barbara Reynolds, while not a scientist, does a great job explaining the consequences of a consistent belligerent atheistic evolutionary worldview:
“Prohibiting the teaching of creationism in favor of evolution creates an atheistic, belligerent tone that might explain why our kids sometimes perform like Godzilla instead of children made in the image of God. While evolution teaches that we are accidents or freaks of nature, creationism shows humankind as the offspring of a divine Creator. There are rules to follow which govern not only our time on Earth, but also our afterlife. . . . If evolution is forced on our kids, we shouldn’t be perplexed when they beat on their chests or, worse yet, beat on each other and their teachers.”2
Given the worldview assumptions of Dr. Coyne, there is no moral wrong in somebody knocking him to the ground and kicking his teeth down his throat since he is nothing more that a conglomeration of gooey atoms animated by an electrical charge. He’s no more significant than the cows we slaughter and eat for food.