Satan's Blog

Evolution.

Want to start an argument among Christians?  Just mention “evolution” in a crowd of two or more, and sit back and watch the show.  I watch it all the time, and I must say it never fails to amuse.

You know, atheists must believe in “evolution,” because they are constrained in their chosen belief system to only one interpretation of the evidence.  In a sense, atheists have it easy; they don’t have to really think about the evidence.  For atheists the answer to every question of origins must be answered in only one way. 

Atheists could wear T-shirts saying “Evolution is the answer, what’s the question?”

But Christians?  Those poor souls are in a quandary.  They are not mind-constrained to only one answer to the question “where do we come from?”  And because “science” demands one explanation and God another, Christians end up confused.

Many Christians lazily believe “science” over God.

It’s a beautiful sight.

And then I read in Forbes online today an article on this topic entitled, “Can Theology Evolve?”  In this piece author John Farrell explores:

. . .the recent Nature article on the increasing evidence that modern humans have inherited the genes of more than a few now-extinct relatives on the evolutionary tree, NPR hosted a short program on what this all means for one of the fundamental stories of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

I linked to this story from a link at RealClearReligion: The Vatican Has a Problem with Evolution.

Well, well, well. 

Problem?

Yes, Problem, with a capital “P”.

Because, as Farrell explores in his article, the bottom line is simple and stark: if “evolution” is true, then the Bible is not true.

If “evolution” is true, then Adam and Eve were not real people, I did not tempt Eve, and Adam was not the first sinner, and there is no original sin.

In fact, if “evolution” is true the entire tapestry of Christianity tatters and shreds into little pieces of thread to be trampled on the floor of history.

A beautiful sight, I must admit.

What are we, my servants, to make of this growing controversy?

First, the easy points: Of course theology can evolve.  Duh!  Why do you think there are so many various theologies out there?  I’m behind all but one.  And all but one have evolved to the place they are now.

And as for the Vatican, the RealClearReligion’s statement is misplaced.  The real issue is “God has a problem with evolution.”

Let me explain, my servants.  What I am about to share is highly confidential kingdom knowledge.  Please casually look around and make sure no one can see your computer.

Clear?

OK.  Pay attention.  I put “evolution” in quotes because one of my greatest lies on earth is to deceive many into hopeless confusion merely by confounding what the term evolution means.  I keep people confused, darkened, and generally theologically schizophrenic because people don’t understand how the word is used, and what it really means as understood by modern biologists.

The real meaning behind “evolution” as used by any modern biologist refers not to mere “change over time” (as your high school teacher would have you believe), but Darwinian “change by mindless, unguided, purposeless processes of nature.”

Don’t doubt me on this one, my friends.  I’m the one behind the nonsense of Darwinism.  Regardless of all wishful thinking that “evolution is true but God is behind it all,” the bottom line is that such thinking is hogwash; “science” demands a purely naturalistic definition, and a purely naturalistic definition is just that: no mind behind creation.

Keep in mind that “science” doesn’t say anything, scientists do.

And if a scientist is constrained (as they virtually all are in modern academia) to a naturalistic explanation of science, then that scientist will always, without exception, come to a Godless “scientific” explanation of our human origins.

It is my way.  Start with a lie, end with a lie.

Clearly an explanation for human origins (and indeed, the entire universe) that starts and ends with mindless, unguided, purposeless processes can not in any way be squared with the Bible’s explanation of creation.

Someone is lying.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Yes, someone is lying to you, my friends.

Either matter came from mind in a purposeful creative act, or mind came from matter in a purposeless, accidental act.

There are only two choices.

But I ensure you will never be faced with a choice, a real choice demanded by the scientific evidence, because I’ve structured all of academia to guard a constrained definition of “science” as requiring only naturalistic, materialistic explanations for all natural phenomena.  This means that unless you take it upon yourself to read the excellent literature on the topic of intelligent design, you will never know the truth.

Truth?

Whoops.  Now we are into highly confidential territory. 

You see, my servants, I’ve forced the public discussion of origins into a “science or religion” framework.  And what is lost is a common sense inquiry into what is true?

Consider: if one does like the scientists of old, and put aside forced constraints on potential theories, and let free thinking reign with the goal of knowing truth, then evolution will die like other scientific theories.

The evidence simply does not support the requirement of Darwinism that new, beneficial forms, organs, or other features of species differentiation came about by unguided, natural processes.

The evidence does not support Darwinism.  There is absolutely no evidence that an unguided, purposeless process can produce new, novel, beneficial features needed for speciation (as opposed to silly things like peppered moths (no speciation) and finch beaks (again, no speciation)).

The fact that you don’t believe me just goes to show how effective I am at perpetuating a lie.

Look it up yourself.

As I’ve engineered modern atheistic science (the only kind allowed any more in public schools), as soon as one starts inferring design by using the common sense scientific method, the explanation is immediately assigned to the “religious” category, never to see the darkness of my scientific night.

Of course, this constraint is placed on “science” only for origins science.  Other scientific fields depend entirely on making design inferrences.  The entire discipline of archeology is built on inferring design from artifacts for which there is no evidence of the original designer.

An archeologist finds a piece of pottery and wonders (without hesitation, and with no hope of an answer) ”who made this?”

A biologist finds reams of information coded into the cell like computer programs but is not allowed to ask “who” made it, but only “how” did “evolution” make it.

Evolution is the answer, what’s the question?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

I’m good, I’m really, really good.

In fact, when one removes the constraints of naturalism and materialism, and opens one’s mind to finding truth, regardless of its label as “science” or “religion”, one will find that science actually points to design.

Remember, this is our secret, right?

Good. Now close your mind and go evolve!