It’s been said, “We are what we eat.” If the choice of foods that we eat has an impact on our body, then you can be sure that what our mind ingests also has an impact on us. Just a little bit of alcohol can impair judgment and motor reflexes. What do you think happens to people when they consume unproven scientific claims, statements that denigrates human significance, and moral uncertainty? Proverbs 23:7 comes to mind: “For as he reckons in his soul, so he is.” Every day we are bombarded with a plateful of ideological claptrap that is affecting how people view themselves and others.
Stephen Hawking said the following in a 1988 interview for Der Spiegel:
We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the universe. That makes us something very special.
Newsweek magazine described Hawking’s comment about being “an advanced breed of monkeys” as an “Inspirational Quote.” Think about that for a moment. Is it any wonder that young people are having self-identity problems? Nancy R. Pearcey demonstrates that nihilistic Darwinian ideas have consequences:
Human life and sexuality have become the watershed moral issues of our age. Every day, the twenty-four-hour news cycle chronicles the advance of a secular moral revolution in areas such as such sexuality, abortion, assisted suicide, homosexuality, and transgenderism. The new secular orthodoxy is being imposed through virtually all the major social institutions: academia, media, public schools, Hollywood, private corporations, and the law.1
The hookup mentality comes out of a Darwinian worldview that treats the human being as nothing but a physical organism driven by physical impulses. No wonder it’s creating a trail of wounded people. They are trying to live out a worldview that does not fit who they truly are. There will not be a genuine turnaround unless we address the underlying worldview.2
As I pointed out in a previous article, Hawking believed that our evolved monkey brains are computers to be discarded in the ether of the impersonal cosmos when we die.
Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule in 1953 with James D. Watson, wrote: “The Astonishing Hypothesis is that my scientific conclusions that I write in this book are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.”3 What does this mean for evolved monkey-like humans? “‘You,’ your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased it: You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.”4
Stephen Barr offers a succinct summary of what the worldview end-game is for people like Crick, Dawkins, and Hawking:
To a materialist, we are just congeries [jumbles] of atoms; and atoms must go whithersoever they are driven by the laws of physics and blind chance…. There is no place for intellectual or moral freedom in a universe that is mere matter in motion…. In the materialist’s universe, however, all users are themselves just machines, and are therefore as much driven by physical necessity (or chance) as everything else is.5
The atheist ministers of a soulless cosmos are by their own admission at a disadvantage. Here’s what Carl Sagan said about the limits of human knowledge:
We know a great many things—a tiny fraction, to be sure, of the universe, a pitifully tiny fraction.6
Even so, Sagan assured his followers, “The universe is all that is or ever was or ever will be.”7 So, which is? Having only a tiny fraction of knowledge of the universe or certainty that the material universe is all that is or ever was or ever will be?
The Bible says that we are “fearfully and wonderfully made” (Ps. 139:14) The atheist says that stuff just happened and there is nothing special about us. Our bodies tell a different story in the billion characters of human DNA that make humans special by design. For the human body and mind to work the way they do, a particular order of DNA must be followed. Stephen Meyer, the author of The Signature in the Cell, explains “that no physical or chemical reaction mandates the arrangement of the genetic letters along the spine of your DNA. Physics and chemistry don’t determine the order of those genetic letters any more than physics and chemistry determine the English letters” in the sentences that tell a story in a novel or the works of Shakespeare. “Minds determine messages and codes; natural forces do not.”8
Darwinism became the new secular religion when there was no understanding of DNA and almost no knowledge of the structure of human cells. Jerry Bowyer makes the point:
[Michael Behe in his groundbreaking book Darwin’s Black Box] saw, probably sooner than anyone else, what cutting edge biochemical research was doing to challenge the fundamentalist Darwinian faith. You see, for Darwin, cells were just blobs of protoplasm. No disrespect to him, microscopes of his time were hopelessly unable to unlock the secrets of the cell. But modern electron microscopy changed all of that, and by adding to our knowledge, it turned out to add to the challenge of explaining the complexity of life by mere unguided, matter + energy, no mind allowed, mechanisms. The worlds which the electron microscope opened to us were shockingly complex. We didn’t find simply smaller blobs of protoplasm, we found that the deeper in we went, the more information we found. We found things which looked for all the world like incredibly complex machines. More than that, we found untold thousands of machines operating together in harmony, hauling, expelling, spinning, reproducing and even checking and correcting one another’s work like some vast robotic city of the future. That’s a cell. And each different kind of cell in each different kind of organ in each different kind of species is a different city, which also works together in a gigantically complex (but spatially minute) system. And then the cities integrate upwards into substructures of organs and those substructures of organs integrate upwards into organs which integrate upwards into systems (like the circulatory or nervous systems) which integrate upwards into a living creature, which (in the animal kingdom) integrate into a sexual pairing, which integrates into a social community, which integrates into an ecosystem. The levels of complexity are unimaginably vast.9
Here’s a “notable quote,” as the Washington Post, describes it, from Hawking:
For millions of years, mankind lived just like the animals. Then something happened which unleashed the power of our imagination. We learned to talk and we learned to listen. Speech has allowed the communication of ideas, enabling human beings to work together to build the impossible.
“Then something happened…” This is not a scientific statement. It’s storytelling. “Once upon a time, human beings lived just like other animals, then their imagination was unleashed, and they learned to talk.” Here’s the problem. Evolutionists have never been able to explain why humans can talk. Darwinian evolution cannot explain it even though supposedly “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,” as one die-hard evolution exclaimed. Neo-Darwinian scientists who have studied the origin of speech in humans concur that “there is nothing whatsoever like it in animal life…. Fossils and archeology tell us nothing. No one has been able to find any genetic roots of language. There are no empirical tests of any hypotheses.”10
If we are what these atheistic evolutionists say we are, then it should not surprise us that unborn babies are considered blobs of cells, that men can become women and women men, that homosexuality is rational sexual behavior, and number of other odd and peculiar acceptable lifestyle choices.
Nancy R. Pearcey, Love Thy Body: Answering Hard Questions about Life and Sexuality (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2018), 9. ↩
Francis Crick, The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search For The Soul (New York: Scribner, 1995), 3. ↩
Crick, The Astonishing Hypothesis, 1. ↩
Stephen M. Barr, “The Devil’s Chaplain Confounded,” First Things 145 (August-September 2004), 29. ↩
Carl Sagan, The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God (New York: Penguin Group, 2006), 230. ↩
Carl Sagan, Cosmos (New York: Random House, 1980), 4. ↩
From Frank Turek, Stealing from God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case (Carol Stream, IL: NavPress/Tyndale, 2014), 58. Based on Stephen C. Meyer, Signature in the Cell (New York: HarperCollins, 2009), chap. 15. ↩
Jerry Bowyer, “Newly Available Documentary Chronicles the Biochemical Revolution Against Materialism,” Forbes (March 19, 2018): https://goo.gl/93qFDY ↩
Tom Wolfe, The Kingdom of Speech (New York: Little, Brown and Co., 2016), 156-157. ↩