PDA

View Full Version : How to use the Word of God Part VII- Apologetics


Venom
10-26-2003, 01:43 PM
Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars the facts are all the same.

The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events. Everyone has a bias and we all look at the world through our bias.

These biases are pictured as lenses that we view the world though. For example:

1. Secular "lens"
This represents the beliefs that fallible humans use to try to explain how and why the universe exists. These beliefs cause us to "see" these facts in a particular way, to view them through the evolutionary account of history.
2. Biblical "lens"
A unique book, called the Bible, claims over 3,000 times that it is the Word of God written by an Infinite Being who used different people to write down what we need to know to understand the history and future of the universe. These beliefs cause us to "see" these facts in

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/overheads/images/oh20020809_131.jpg a particular way, to view them through the Biblical account of history.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/overheads/images/oh20020802_130.jpg

The below illustration shows people the importance for Christians to build all their thinking in every area on the Bible. Sadly, most Christians have been so secularized that they take the world's thinking to the Bible, instead of using the Bible as a history book that is foundational to their Christian worldview.

While the Bible is not a science textbook (science textbooks change every year), where it touches on science, or any subject, it is totally trustworthy. Thus the Bible, as a revelation of history from the beginning to the end of time, is the foundation that enables us to construct the big picture, and thus have the right approach in geology, biology, astronomy, morality, salvation, etc.

The book of Genesis, of course, is the foundational book to the rest of the Bible. Beginning with Genesis, and continuing through the rest of the Bible, the revelation of history through Creation, Corruption, Catastrophe, Confusion, Christ, Cross, and Consummation (the seven C's) should be used as the foundation for all our thinking.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/overheads/images/oh20010316_5.jpg

It's very important for Christians to have a foundation to defend their faith boldly, as we are told to do:

2 Timothy 1:6-14
6 Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands. 7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. 8 Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God;

Acts 4:23-31
23 And being let go, they went to their own company, and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said unto them. 24 And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is: 25 Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things? 26 The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. 27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, 28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. 29 And now, Lord, behold their threatenings: and grant unto thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word, 30 By stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus. 31 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.

2 Timothy 2:14-18
14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers. 15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. 17 And their word will eat as doth a canker

You need to know, and understand Gods word to be bold. And if you don't have the foundation of it, you've already lost!

The book of Genesis is foundational to the rest of the Bible.

If you ask people to name any Biblical doctrines of theology that are not directly or indirectly founded in the book of Genesis, they will not be able to find any! Every single Biblical doctrine is ultimately-directly or indirectly-founded in the book of Genesis, and particularly its first eleven chapters. In other words, Genesis 1-11 is the history that is foundational to the rest of the Bible, and thus all Christian doctrine.

Of course, this also means that if someone wants to destroy Christian doctrine, the best way is to try to attack the foundational book of beginnings. If people can relegate Genesis 1-11 to mythology or metaphor, then there is no real history upon which Christian doctrine can be founded.

Because the meaning of anything is dependent upon its origin, the meaning of any particular doctrine is also dependent upon its origin-i.e., its real history. Thus, Genesis is a very important book-it's vital to the whole of what Christianity is all about. One of the reasons that many people can't defend or explain their doctrine is because they don't believe and understand the book of Genesis, particularly the first eleven chapters. Believing and understanding the book of Genesis is prerequisite to an understanding of God and His relationship to man-and to all Christian doctrine.

Psalm 11:3 can be used as a verse to apply to this. If the foundation of a house is destroyed, then the structure collapses. Likewise, if the foundations of Christian doctrine in Genesis 1:11 are destroyed, then ultimately the entire structure will collapse. You can not defend your faith boldly, if you don't have a proper foundation.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/overheads/images/oh20010323_8.jpg

Here is a great diagram:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/overheads/images/oh20010316_6.jpg

This diagram helps to further illustrate the consequences of building your thinking on the Word of God or on man's fallible opinions. This illustrates the difference between believing that life came about as the Bible describes or it arose by natural processes without any supernatural involvement.

On the left-hand side, the block diagrams show that when you build your thinking on the Bible as real history, then there is a foundation for insisting on absolutes in morality. We know what is right and what is wrong (and what is good and what is bad) because the God who created us, and owns us, is the absolute authority and has a right to set the rules.

For example, we know that marriage is to be one man for one woman for life because the Bible's history is true concerning the creation of the first marriage, Adam and Eve. God made a man and a woman in history, not a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

Also, because of man's sin, God clothed Adam and Eve. Hence, there is a moral basis for clothing-thus there are standards.

The rightful place for sex is within marriage, one man for one woman. This is only true if the Bible's history concerning the Creation and thus the meaning of marriage is true.

There is purpose and meaning in life because there is a Creator who created us with purpose. Because humans are made in the image of God, they have a soul that will live forever. When the physical body dies, this is not the end, but the beginning of eternity, either with God or separated from God. Only those who have trusted in Christ as Savior and are born again as the Bible defines can spend eternity with God. The diagram on the left represents a Christian worldview that has a foundation in real history the history as written in Genesis 1-11.

On the right, the block diagram represents a different worldview that is founded in a different view of history. If you believe that life is a result of natural processes, and that there is no God who is the absolute authority, then a totally different worldview arises out of this foundation. All morality becomes relative. Therefore, right and wrong is what each individual decides for himself-if they can get away with it in the society in which they live.

Marriage could be a man and a man, a woman and a woman, or any combination one determines if, again, it fits with the norms of the culture at any particular time. Of course, in such a system, these norms can change and ultimately 'anything goes' depending on those who control the culture. Thus rules in regard to sex are also relative and dependent on what is decided by individuals within the culture.

Because humans are considered to be animals that have arisen by natural processes, then what develops in a woman's womb is also an animal. Therefore aborting a baby would be no different than killing an animal. Ultimately, in this system, there is no purpose and meaning in life except for what you want to make of it while you are alive. Ultimately, death is the end of a person's consciousness, and hence there is no future existence for that person.
These two block diagrams contrast two totally different worldviews based upon two different foundations of history one that is revealed by God through His Word or another in which man's views are based upon naturalism.

It should be noted that if Christians try to impose Christian morality on their children or anyone else in their culture without the foundation of history from the Bible (beginning in Genesis), then that structure will not stand. Sadly, many Christians have tried to impose the Christian worldview on the coming generation, but have allowed them to believe a foundation based in evolution. Ultimately, the Christian worldview would collapse and be replaced by the secular/evolutionary one.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/overheads/images/oh20010316_7.jpg

This illustration shows what happens when people reject the foundation of Biblical history beginning with Genesis and replace it with an evolutionary/millions of years foundation. The more a culture rejects the absolute authority of the Word of God beginning in Genesis, the more that the Christian worldview/structure built on this foundation will begin to disintegrate.

As a Biblical foundation is replaced with an evolutionary/millions of years foundation that basically teaches that man by himself determines truth, then one would expect to see an increase in abortion, homosexual behavior, lawlessness, euthanasia, suicide, collapse of the family, sexual perversion, etc. in the culture.

Please note that evolution is not the cause of these cultural evils. The more people reject that the Bible's history can be trusted beginning in Genesis, and accept man's view of history concerning millions of years (even if one doesn't believe in the evolutionary process per se), then the culture is being taught that man is the ultimate authority and man determines truth.

Even those Christians who believe in millions of years of history, regardless if they don't believe in the mechanism of evolution as such, are actually helping to undermine the authority of the Word of God and replace it with a foundation that teaches people that man by himself can determine truth.

In the end, this will result in generations of people reinterpreting Christian morality. After all, if you can use man's ideas such as millions of years to reinterpret the book of Genesis concerning the days of Creation, the age of the Earth and so on, then why not use man's ideas to reinterpret morality also?

In our Western world today we see a considerable decline in Christian morality and an increase in humanist philosophy. This is directly related to the change in our foundation from God's Word being the absolute authority, to one in which man's fallible word is the authority.

Past and present
We all exist in the present and the facts all exist in the present. When one is trying to understand how the evidence came about (Where did the animals come from? How did the fossil layers form? etc.), what we are actually trying to do is to connect the past to the present.

However, if we weren't there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so we could know for sure about past events.

Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a time machine. They have a book called the Bible, which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know.

On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present.

Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.

Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions.

In arguing this way, a Christian must have a foundation (the bible) than they can go, and see where the evidence is. Here are some tips for arguing:

1. Using biblical presuppositions to build a way of thinking to interpret the evidence.
2. Showing that the Bible and science go hand in hand.
3. Challenging the presuppositions of the other person (many are unaware they have these).
4. Forcing the debater to logically defend his position consistent with science and his own presuppositions (many will find that they cannot do this).
5. Honoring the Word of God that convicts the soul!
One can of course do this with numerous scientific examples, showing how the issue of sin and judgment, for example, is relevant to geology and fossil evidence. And how the Fall of man, with the subsequent Curse on creation, makes sense of the evidence of harmful mutations, violence and death.

Remember, it's no good convincing people to believe in creation, or the bible without also leading them to believe and trust in the Creator/Redeemer, Jesus Christ. God honours those who honour His Word. We need to use God-honouring ways of reaching people with the truth of what life is all about. So why refrute the pagan relegion of evolution for example? Or defend the faith at all? To remove stumbling blocks! And show the power, and accountability of Gods word. And this is in one accord with Gods word:

1 Corinthians 9:19-23
19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. 20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; 21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. 22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. 23 And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.

We need to be able to become all things to all men. If that means in order to get this person saved I need to get rid of the lie of evolution so be it! If this means, I have to show the bible is the most backed book of antiquity than fine.

What matters is that, can we save that one life? Because that's what we are sent to do, seeking to save that which was lost. Yet not us but the spirit within. Christ said he was the good Shepard, and he took care of his sheep, and went after even the lowest one. It was worth it to him to find that one lost sheep. He told peter to feed his sheep; we also must take care of the flock, and seek diligently to defend the faith.

Apologetics

We are told in Gods word to give an apology for our faith. No, not to say sorry, or ask for forgiveness. But to defend it!

The word defense (GK. Apologia) indicates "a defense of conduct and procedure." Wilbur Smith puts it this way: a verbal defense; a speech in defines of what one has done or of truth which on believes.

Apologia (the basic English translation is apology) was used predominantly in early times but it did not convey the idea of excuse palliation or making amends for some injury done. But to defend. Apologia translated by the English word defense is used 8 times in the New Testament. A perfect example is:

1 Peter 3:15
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense [in Greek this is called Apologia which is a defense] to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear.

Lets put this word into practice!

Apologetics (giving a defense) is a great way to build faith for believers, and show the truth to unbelievers. As did the early church, and as we are instructed to do in the bible.

Christian apologetics is the reasoned defense of the Christian faith against objections, but also includes the setting forth of positive grounds for Christianity.

The Lord Jesus Christ commanded: "Love the Lord your God... with all your mind" (Matthew 22:37)

The Apostle Peter commanded Christians: "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have" (1 Peter 3:15)

The Apostle Paul said: "We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ" (2 Corinthians 10:5).

1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in ****able heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

Apologetics is simply defending the faith!

But, there is a fine line between witnessing through apologetics and arguing with the devil.

We have to trust the Holy Spirit to tell us where the line is drawn, because often times we let our passions consume us. And if we're not careful this will give the devil victory in apologetics!

Why is that? Because the devil can use apologetics to distract us! When we ignore the Spirit, and cross the line from witnessing to arguing with the devil, we are distracted from other issues, and possibly other witnessing opportunities that would result in bringing someone to the Lord.

And of course arguing with the devil is useless.

He's spiritually dead, and the author of confusion and father of lies.

19 And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.

20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.

In fact the bible says he's underfoot, and I don't even want to look at the bottom of my foot to talk to him!

In other words, the Spirit will tell us when an apologetic debate has gone too far. When it is no longer fruitful to God, it's time to get out.

17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you

You can't force anyone to accept God. All we can do is show them the Truth.

3 And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;

4 And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up:

5 Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth:

6 And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away.

7 And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them:

8 But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.

9 Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

18 Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower.

19 When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.

20 But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it;

21 Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.

22 He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.

23 But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.

You see with apologetic witnessing we can plant the seeds (as shown in the parable from Christ), but the hearts of the hearers are the ones who decide the ground they are planted in.

Hebrews 3:7-19
7 Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice, 8 Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness: 9 When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years. 10 Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways. 11 So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.) 12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.

If you are reading this, and are an unbeliever, or watered down believer, as the parable with Christ. Do not harden your heart to the seeds from the word of God. Open yourself up to the most high. /forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif


Is the Bible a science book?

This common objection to believing the straightforward history of Genesis has, in one sense, a simple answer "No, it's not." Dr D. James Kennedy correctly says about the Bible, "It is not a scientific textbook. It is not a textbook on religion. It is not a textbook at all; it is a revelation from God!"

But it is a loaded question; most who ask it presume that a "no" answer means that the Bible's authority does not extend to matters related to science. This is of course illogical. A novel about apple orchards could refer to apples falling down (rather than up) in accordance with the known facts about gravity. It could be completely accurate scientifically without its purpose being to teach science.

One reason put forward for saying that Genesis is "non-scientific" is that the account is brief. But since when does brevity equal inaccuracy? As a minister friend says, "when we listen to statements about the weather, we expect them to be based on totally accurate scientific data, despite being brief. We don't expect lengthy scientific explanations with details on the force of gravity vs the humidity and wind speed to generate rain fall. We just want to know whether it is going to rain in our area. Yet we expect extensive scientific explanations in the Bible for it to be taken seriously. "

The Bible's prime purpose certainly concerns salvation, not scientific explanation. But to use this to evade the clear teaching of origins in the foundational book of Genesis is intellectually illegitimate, if not dishonest. What if that approach were consistently applied? The Bible isn't a mathematics textbook, either. But does that mean that if the Bible were to insist that ten divided by two equals six, it would make no difference to its "message of faith and salvation?" Of course it would, make a world of difference!

What sense would it make to trust it as the Word of the all-powerful Creator who never lies and to commit one's eternal destiny to its promises in "spiritual" areas? As Jesus said, "If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how shall you believe if I tell you heavenly things" (John 3:12)? We can check up on the things on earth, such as contradictions, and science. If this is a lie, why should we believe things we can't check up on, like salvation?

Even though the Bible's purpose is not to teach history as such, the history it teaches is true. It states that Jesus was crucified at a specific moment in real history via a specific person, Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea. It would be bizarre to claim that it didn't matter whether these events were true or not, "because the Bible's not a textbook."

The account of Jesus rising from the dead cannot be classified as only one form of truth; i.e. it cannot be a Christian or "religious" truth without at the same time being a historical truth (unless language loses all of its meaning); and it cannot be historically true unless it is also scientifically true.

The same applies to Genesis events e.g. the statement that God took a rib and made Eve. So the question of whether the Bible is a science textbook evades the real issues, which are to do with its claim to total truth and authority. It is meaningless to claim that scriptural authority applies only to "religious things," since the Christian Gospel is all about real things, the real origin, history and destiny of man and the universe. Remove its claim to authority in the realm of science, and you are actually removing it from any relevance to the real world. Sadly, this is exactly what compromise with evolutionism/long-ageism has done in many minds.

William Ustav
10-26-2003, 01:58 PM
Wow! Thanks, Venom! I'll read it tonight!!! I love that subject (apologetics)!!! /forum/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Tuf
10-26-2003, 05:42 PM
Really great study, Venom. /forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif Thanks!

bennyhanna1
10-26-2003, 05:57 PM
Man you guys really whip out these studies! thanks for all your hard work once again!

Venom
10-27-2003, 02:12 PM
No problem guys. /forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Qester
10-27-2003, 05:07 PM
Just a question but if god created us and made all the rules then why do we have homosexuals, scientifically it is shown that for males there is a codon on the X chromosome that determines it. Please dont go on the defensive with this question im just wondering if there is a biblical explination for it?

Venom
10-27-2003, 05:48 PM
Romans 1:19-32
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Read more in our bible studies.

Adam Knowlden
10-27-2003, 10:08 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Just a question but if god created us and made all the rules then why do we have homosexuals, scientifically it is shown that for males there is a codon on the X chromosome that determines it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have either been lied to or have a professor who has inhaled too much smoke from the bunsen burner. The description you gave of a "gay gene", is far from fact, in fact no legitimate researcher trust the original studies as later studies showed contradictory evidence.

But this type of evolutionary propoganda is typical when one is trying to suede young minds to accept a cultic world view.

I'll be nice and call him ignorant. I surely hope he's not intentionally lying to you kids. The gay gene, is not proven or even has any substantial evidence.

[ QUOTE ]
'Evolution made me do it!'
MAKING EXCUSES FOR SIN IS as old as Eden. The 1960s American comedian Flip Wilson satirized a common (especially in the past) excuse with his trademark quip, ‘The devil made me do it.’

Today, as the new fad of ‘evolutionary psychology’ takes root, Flip might be saying, ‘Evolution made me do it.’ Evolutionary explanations are highly fashionable for all manner of sin. Not long ago, Time magazine’s cover story proclaimed, ‘Infidelity? It’s in your genes.’ The story purported to give ‘reasons’ why our alleged evolutionary history has programmed us to cheat on our spouses.

But it’s not just adultery. Cheating at school, or ruthlessness in business, is easy to ‘explain’ in evolutionary terms — survival of the most cunning and merciless ape-man or hunter-gatherer cave-dweller. But the problem for evolution’s ‘true believers’ is, it’s just as easy to find a story to explain the opposite behaviour. ‘Caring and sharing’ ape-men enhance the whole group’s survival, and so such genes are more likely to be passed on, even if only in one’s siblings or cousins.

Homosexuality is another area in which the fad for evolutionary explanations has taken root. The research work suggesting a so-called ‘gay gene’ is now regarded as suspect by just about everyone. But when it was fashionable, homosexual tendencies were regarded as hard-wired into our DNA.1 In our evolutionized culture, this meant that an evolutionary explanation for homosexuality had to be sought, too.

Finding one was a real brain-teaser — perverting the reproductive act is hardly likely to get your genes passed on. But never underestimate the ingenious ways in which reality can be moulded to fit a world-view. Someone soon postulated that in caveman days, having homosexual uncles meant that there were more unattached adults around to help grandparents raise the kids while Dad was off wrestling sabre-toothed tigers with the ‘regular guys’. Thus, the genes in that whole group were more likely to get passed on, including any ‘homosexual genes’ carried by non-homosexual relatives.

As has often been pointed out, however, a theory which is so flexible that it can be used to ‘explain’ almost any outcome, in reality explains nothing. That’s why this ‘evolutionary psychology’ fad makes some psychiatrists remember when their profession, and society’s intelligentsia, were in the grip of Freudian2 explanations for virtually all behaviour. The symptoms are the same: refusing to be guided by the Word of God, people sought an alternative, all-encompassing explanation for the discordant feelings and behaviour shared by humanity since the Fall.

Freud’s framework seemed all-powerful, explaining everything about behaviour; till some started to realize that this was in fact its weakness. Today, Freudianism is widely regarded as an example of pseudoscience. Like evolution, everything ‘seemed to fit’ because of the ‘world-view glasses’ through which all the evidence was interpreted.3

RAPE IS THE LATEST and one of the most serious sins to be assigned an evolutionary explanation. Despite the protests of many (including definitely non-Christian objectors) the view that rape is ‘natural’ — to be avoided, certainly, but fully attributable to evolved instincts — is currently getting a strong world-wide hearing.

By undermining the idea of absolute standards for behaviour (nobody made us, so nobody owns us, thus nobody has a right to set any unchanging rules), evolutionary thinking has already had a devastating impact on our culture. Sadly, the rise of evolutionary psychology enhances this downward slide. What’s more, every time people see something ‘explained’ in evolutionary terms in a way that ‘makes sense’, they tend to see this as a further ‘proof’ for evolution itself. This becomes a powerfully self-reinforcing cycle of delusion.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps the most dangerous myth disseminated today by the pro-homosexuality movement is that modern science has proven that homosexuality is innate and immutable. That is, homosexuals are born gay, much like being born left-handed or with blue eyes. The inference, of course, is that if they are born that way, then homosexuality cannot be considered immoral or unnatural; the homosexual is just following his or her genes. However, as Congressman William Dennemeyer put it, "if homosexuality is a perversion of what is natural, then homosexuals must look at their own conduct in an entirely different light and explain it in less satisfying terms."21

It is well beyond the scope of this article to summarize all the findings concerning the genesis of homosexuality. However, the scientific evidences for its origins are usually classified in terms of either biological causes (i.e., genetic/hormonal) or environmental factors (e.g., psychological causes, volitional, and so forth).

(1) Biological Causes. The most recent research suggesting that homosexuality may be caused by biological factors came out in 1991 with the publication of some preliminary findings of Dr. Simon LeVay, a neuroscientist at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego. His research consisted of studying the brains of 41 cadavers, including 19 homosexual males. He found that "a tiny area believed to control sexual activity [the hypothalamus] was less than half the size in the gay men than in the heterosexuals."22

This study was seized upon by many as "irrefutable evidence" that homosexuals are born gay, something the homosexual community has been proclaiming for many years. However, "instead of resolving the debate," a Newsweek article suggests, "the studies may well have intensified it. Some scientists profess not to be surprised at all by LeVay's finding of brain differences. 'Of course it [sexual orientation] is in the brain,' says Johns Hopkins University psychologist John Money, sometimes called the dean of American sexologists. 'The real question is, when did it get there? Was it prenatal, neonatal, during childhood, puberty? That we do not know.'"23

Other problems with his findings include: (1) all 19 of the homosexual men had died of AIDS, something that many researchers believe could very well account for or contribute to the differences; (2) there was no way to know the sexual history of the "heterosexual" men; (3) there is no way to determine if the smaller hypothalamuses were the cause or the result of homosexuality; and (4) Dr. LeVay, a homosexual himself, admitted that his study was not entirely a dispassionate scientific endeavor.24

(2) Environmental Factors. There are probably just as many, if not more, psychiatrists and psychologists who believe that homosexuality arises from various environmental factors. The majority of these say that homosexuality's root causes are psychological, not biological. But these people are not cited nearly as often by the media as the others — perhaps a pro-homosexual bias by the media? And they are virtually never even acknowledged by the homosexual community, because most homosexuals want to believe that they were born that way and had no choice (conscious or subliminal) in the matter.

In any case, some of the most noteworthy and respected researchers and therapists in the world deny that homosexuality is determined by biological factors. For example, therapists helping homosexuals who are unhappy with their condition can cite one case history after another showing that negative early childhood experiences are the one common factor found in almost all their patients. The vital factor here is that these people were raised in a very unloving home environment, never knowing love or acceptance from their mother or their father, or in some cases both. According to these studies, the child's reaction to this rejection and lack of nurturing is formulated at a very early age, usually before five years old. The following references illustrate these findings.

William H. Masters (codirector of the Masters and Johnson Institute), Virginia E. Brown, and Robert C. Kolodny stated categorically in their 1982 work Human Sexuality: "The genetic theory of homosexuality has been generally discarded today."25

Robert Kronemeyer, in his work Overcoming Homosexuality, writes: "With rare exceptions, homosexuality is neither inherited nor the result of some glandular disturbance or the scrambling of genes or chromosomes. Homosexuals are made, not born 'that way.' I firmly believe that homosexuality is a learned response to early painful experiences and that it can be unlearned. For those homosexuals who are unhappy with their life and find effective therapy, it is 'curable.'"26

John DeCecco, professor of psychology at San Francisco State University and the editor of the 25-volume Journal of Homosexuality, expressed the same view in a 1989 USA Today article: "'The idea that people are born into one type of sexual behavior is entirely foolish,' says John DeCecco... Homosexuality, he says, is 'a behavior, not a condition,' and something that some people can and do change, just like they sometimes change other tastes and personality traits."27

One thing is clear: it is hardly an established scientific fact accepted by the entire medical field that homosexuality is solely or even primarily caused by biological factors. This brings us to the question just raised above: Can those who are homosexual change?



[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.equip.org/free/DH055-1.htm

William Ustav
10-28-2003, 03:43 AM
Good one, Adam! I'll remember that...

Venom
10-28-2003, 06:58 PM
Good post O.S /forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Digity
03-27-2005, 09:53 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just a question but if god created us and made all the rules then why do we have homosexuals, scientifically it is shown that for males there is a codon on the X chromosome that determines it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have either been lied to or have a professor who has inhaled too much smoke from the bunsen burner. The description you gave of a "gay gene", is far from fact, in fact no legitimate researcher trust the original studies as later studies showed contradictory evidence.

But this type of evolutionary propoganda is typical when one is trying to suede young minds to accept a cultic world view.

I'll be nice and call him ignorant. I surely hope he's not intentionally lying to you kids. The gay gene, is not proven or even has any substantial evidence.


[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.advocate.com/html/stories/935/935_penguins.asp

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, same-sex pairings in nature are common, said Marlene Zuk, a professor of biology at the University of California, Riverside, and the author of Sexual Selections: What We Can and Can’t Learn About Sex From Animals. Animals exhibit all kinds of sexual behaviors—([---]), hetero, monogamous, and nonmonogamous—even having sex to resolve conflicts, she said. “Sexuality in animals, just like sexuality in people, is about more than just making babies,” she said.

[/ QUOTE ]

Venom
03-27-2005, 10:01 PM
[ QUOTE ]
In fact, same-sex pairings in nature are common, said Marlene Zuk, a professor of biology at the University of California, Riverside, and the author of Sexual Selections: What We Can and Can’t Learn About Sex From Animals. Animals exhibit all kinds of sexual behaviors—([---]), hetero, monogamous, and nonmonogamous—even having sex to resolve conflicts, she said. “Sexuality in animals, just like sexuality in people, is about more than just making babies,” she said.


[/ QUOTE ]

Do you know the logic of this?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/CreationWise/Cartoons/ThinkethCW.gif

Essentially you are saying men can act like animals. If this is the case, we can justify all sorts of disgusting habits—including cannibalism!

This article will help, http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v9/i1/homosexual.asp

[ QUOTE ]
The common evolutionary biological argument to justify homosexuality runs as follows:

‘Homosexual behavior has been observed in most animal species studied, and the higher we climb on the taxonomic tree toward mammals, the more apparent homosexual behaviour we see.’4

Such claims are often made from a limited understanding of the natural world. For example, in response to the above common claim, Symons notes:

‘In Judeo-Christian theology, unlike evolutionary biology, there is no disjunction between ultimate and proximate; on the contrary, ultimate and proximate are intimately and immediately related. What one ought to do, for example, is a direct function of God’s will. Despite the absence of God in most scientific writing, the implicit belief that nature constitutes a moral order frequently persists. Thus writers with tolerant or positive views about homosexuality often begin their discussions by emphasizing the frequency with which non-human animals and preliterate peoples engage in homosexual activities, implying that homosexuality is natural and hence acceptable. Writers with less sanguine views of homosexuality point out that a great deal of mounting among non-human animals is not sexually motivated, that homosexual behavior is more frequent among captive than among free-ranging animals, and that exclusive homosexuality is rare among preliterate peoples, implying that homosexuality is unnatural and hence unacceptable.’5

Further, homosexual behaviour among animals is engaged in for a variety of reasons having nothing to do with sex. In many cases it is only a ‘ritualized form of aggression’.6

Although the full set of causes of homosexual behaviour is not yet understood, a creationist orientation provides a theoretical foundation to both understand and help persons with this problem. The present approach used to understand and help homosexuals adjust to a heterosexual life has obviously not been very fruitful; most studies show a very low ‘cure’ rate.7,8

The creationist viewpoint would also conclude that homosexuality is not due to normal biological factors that differentiate them from heterosexuals. The Creator-designed sexual orientation is heterosexual, and any deviation from this must be due to an aberration in either biological or psychological development. Importantly, this view can provide prevention advice and guidelines for child care so as to facilitate sexual adjustment. In fact, the common belief that one is ‘either a heterosexual or a homosexual’ and that physical or other clear reasons for this difference usually exist is not supported by research.9,10 The empirical research evidence indicates that for most people the sexual drive exists in a diffuse state in the early stages, solidifying only much later. Sexual development occurs primarily between the second year of life and the onset of puberty. During the first few years it is rather undefined and can develop through learning so that it can be stimulated, or at least influenced, by a wide variety of objects, although at first the primary stimulus is tactile stimulation of the genital area.11



[/ QUOTE ]

I’ll post more soon.

Digity
03-27-2005, 10:14 PM
No, you're putting words into my mouth. I'm just saying that if homosexuality is observed in nature than there's a good possiblity that humans (whom I believe are also animals) may also be born as homosexuals. See, animals don't really make conscious choices, but humans do. So, there's that element of 'choice' with humans...so it's not fair to just say humans are born gay without considering that they might have chosen it. Although, I don't think people would argue that the penguins chose to be gay.

*Edit: Actually, that isn't entirely accurate. Apes for instance have been known to make choices. Same with dolphins.

**DONOTDELETE**
03-27-2005, 10:29 PM

Digity
03-27-2005, 10:35 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, you're putting words into my mouth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Watch your tone.

And you didn't even say anything, just posted a link. That opened your motives up for interpretation.


[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, let me clarify. When he said:
[ QUOTE ]
Essentially you are saying men can act like animals. If this is the case, we can justify all sorts of disgusting habits—including cannibalism!

[/ QUOTE ]
I felt he was putting words into my mouth. That's exactly my point, I didn't say anything...I just posted a link.

**DONOTDELETE**
03-27-2005, 10:40 PM

Digity
03-27-2005, 10:43 PM
Good point! My bad.

*Edit: Actually, I don't see how Venom draws the conclusion that I condone cannabalism from the link I posted. Maybe I need that clarified.

Digity
03-27-2005, 10:47 PM
Just curious, but how do you explain people who don't follow the word of God, but are still lawful, have standards, are good people that have nothing against marriage, etc?

Adam Knowlden
03-27-2005, 10:56 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Just curious, but how do you explain people who don't follow the word of God, but are still lawful, have standards, are good people that have nothing against marriage, etc?

[/ QUOTE ]

Our opinion is not important. God's is:

<font color="red"> Romans 3:23
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
</font>

<font color="blue"> Psalm 14:3
They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
</font>

<font color="green"> Isaiah 64:6
But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; </font>

**DONOTDELETE**
03-27-2005, 10:58 PM

Digity
03-27-2005, 11:01 PM
I'm also curious about what you guys think about the Crusades and some of the bad stuff that was done in the name of religion.

In a lot of ways we've improved morality...for instance, we no longer have slavery and racism is less prevalent.

Adam Knowlden
03-27-2005, 11:05 PM
And Venom showed the flaw in that logic,

So now according to that logic I can steal food from weaker neighbours and members of my family. Kill anyone who steps on my property. Abandon my young. Kill my young. Be as adulterous as possible.

Give me a break. That does not even show evidence of a gay gene. Talk about desperation.

Digity
03-27-2005, 11:06 PM
There's a bit of a problem with the argument that Evolution is creating moral decay. When you make that argument what are you using as your 'moral yardstick'? The Bible. Therefore, saying that Evolution is creating moral decay is really just a claim that Evolution goes against the Bible. So, we haven't really said anything new.

Adam Knowlden
03-27-2005, 11:15 PM
[ QUOTE ]
There's a bit of a problem with the argument that Evolution is creating moral decay. When you make that argument what are you using as your 'moral yardstick'? The Bible. Therefore, saying that Evolution is creating moral decay is really just a claim that Evolution goes against the Bible. So, we haven't really said anything new.


[/ QUOTE ]

Then please start by telling us exactly how do we distinguish from good and evil?

Digity
03-27-2005, 11:27 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's a bit of a problem with the argument that Evolution is creating moral decay. When you make that argument what are you using as your 'moral yardstick'? The Bible. Therefore, saying that Evolution is creating moral decay is really just a claim that Evolution goes against the Bible. So, we haven't really said anything new.


[/ QUOTE ]

Then please start by telling us exactly how do we distinguish from good and evil?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think good and evil aren't static, but depend on a lot of factors. For instance, when Copernicus claimed that the Earth wasn't the center of the galaxy he was condemned and considered a heretic, but eventually he was proven to be right. So, he was once considered evil and later considered good. Sometimes what's good or evil depends on the context. For example, if you have a family of Jews hidden in your attic and some Nazis come along and ask if you're hiding any Jews...would it be wrong to lie? I would lie. So, for instance, I don't have a moral code written in stone telling me I should never lie. I might even kill someone if I have to...for instance, if they threaten to kill me or someone else.

Basically, I feel the context of the situation greatly influences what actions are appropriate and which are not(i.e. good or evil).

XenoWang
03-27-2005, 11:29 PM
Now you're just falling into the realm of moral relativism, which has been destroyed over and over here at ABC. Good and evil are distinguished by an Absolute Truth, not relative Truth.

Digity
03-27-2005, 11:31 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Now you're just falling into the realm of moral relativism, which has been destroyed over and over here at ABC. Good and evil are distinguished by an Absolute Truth, not relative Truth.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I haven't seen the argument put forth on this site. He asked what I thought on the topic...so I answered him.

Adam Knowlden
03-27-2005, 11:37 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I think good and evil aren't static, but depend on a lot of factors.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for backing up what I suspected.

[ QUOTE ]
or example, if you have a family of Jews hidden in your attic and some Nazis come along and ask if you're hiding any Jews...would it be wrong to lie? I would lie

[/ QUOTE ]

So using your logic, Hitler hunting the Jews was not evil. Why? Your answer demonstrates why.

The answer depends on the vantage point of the individual person.

To Hitler he believed he was right so therefore he was right.

[ QUOTE ]
would it be wrong to lie?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're assuming lying is wrong. Demonstrate how you would know lying was wrong in the first place. You're not answering my question.

[ QUOTE ]
...for instance, if they threaten to kill me or someone else.


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, same question. How do you know killing is wrong? The answer is your personal opinion is what determines good and evil. Therefore your definition is no more valid than Osama Bin Ladens.

Using your definition demonstrate how Osama Bin Laden is evil. Remember he sincerly believes he is right.

Going by your animal definition for being gay, it should be ok to kill others.

Venom
03-27-2005, 11:44 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Now you're just falling into the realm of moral relativism, which has been destroyed over and over here at ABC. Good and evil are distinguished by an Absolute Truth, not relative Truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Definitely! Read this for the problem of that, http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/forum/sho...rue#Post1010949 (http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=0&amp;Board=chat&amp;Number=1010949&amp;Searc hpage=1&amp;Main=1010165&amp;Words=hitler+Old+School&amp;topic =&amp;Search=true#Post1010949)

[ QUOTE ]
For example, if you have a family of Jews hidden in your attic and some Nazis come along and ask if you're hiding any Jews...would it be wrong to lie?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is a quote from me:

[ QUOTE ]
I know the bible says obey the laws of the land but what happens if the law bans organized religion like is being proposed to the UN right now? Are we suppose to follow that? I sure won't be.

I feel alright about doing 5-10 over but you won't catch me doing more usually because theres too much at stake if you get caught especially if youre young.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read Acts bro.

Acts 4:15-22
15 But when they had commanded them to go aside out of the council, they conferred among themselves, 16 Saying, What shall we do to these men? for that indeed a notable miracle hath been done by them is manifest to all them that dwell in Jerusalem; and we cannot deny it. 17 But that it spread no further among the people, let us straitly threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no man in this name. 18 And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. 19 But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. 20 For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard. 21 So when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding nothing how they might punish them, because of the people: for all men glorified God for that which was done. 22 For the man was above forty years old, on whom this miracle of healing was shewed.

And Daniel:

Daniel 3:8-27
8 Wherefore at that time certain Chaldeans came near, and accused the Jews. 9 They spake and said to the king Nebuchadnezzar, O king, live for ever. 10 Thou, O king, hast made a decree, that every man that shall hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer, and all kinds of musick, shall fall down and worship the golden image: 11 And whoso falleth not down and worshippeth, that he should be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace. 12 There are certain Jews whom thou hast set over the affairs of the province of Babylon, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego; these men, O king, have not regarded thee: they serve not thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up. 13 Then Nebuchadnezzar in his rage and fury commanded to bring Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. Then they brought these men before the king. 14 Nebuchadnezzar spake and said unto them, Is it true, O Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, do not ye serve my gods, nor worship the golden image which I have set up? 15 Now if ye be ready that at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer, and all kinds of musick, ye fall down and worship the image which I have made; well: but if ye worship not, ye shall be cast the same hour into the midst of a burning fiery furnace; and who is that God that shall deliver you out of my hands? 16 Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter. 17 If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. 18 But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.

19 Then was Nebuchadnezzar full of fury, and the form of his visage was changed against Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego: therefore he spake, and commanded that they should heat the furnace one seven times more than it was wont to be heated. 20 And he commanded the most mighty men that were in his army to bind Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, and to cast them into the burning fiery furnace. 21 Then these men were bound in their coats, their hosen, and their hats, and their other garments, and were cast into the midst of the burning fiery furnace. 22 Therefore because the king's commandment was urgent, and the furnace exceeding hot, the flame of the fire slew those men that took up Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. 23 And these three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, fell down bound into the midst of the burning fiery furnace. 24 Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astonied, and rose up in haste, and spake, and said unto his counsellors, Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered and said unto the king, True, O king. 25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God. 26 Then Nebuchadnezzar came near to the mouth of the burning fiery furnace, and spake, and said, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, ye servants of the most high God, come forth, and come hither. Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, came forth of the midst of the fire. 27 And the princes, governors, and captains, and the king's counsellors, being gathered together, saw these men, upon whose bodies the fire had no power, nor was an hair of their head singed, neither were their coats changed, nor the smell of fire had passed on them.

http://rds.yahoo.com/S=96062883/K=daniel+lions/v=2/l=IVI/*-http://biblia.com/jesusm/daniel-lions-g.jpg

Daniel 6:11-17
11 Then these men assembled, and found Daniel praying and making supplication before his God. 12 Then they came near, and spake before the king concerning the king's decree; Hast thou not signed a decree, that every man that shall ask a petition of any God or man within thirty days, save of thee, O king, shall be cast into the den of lions? The king answered and said, The thing is true, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not. 13 Then answered they and said before the king, That Daniel, which is of the children of the captivity of Judah, regardeth not thee, O king, nor the decree that thou hast signed, but maketh his petition three times a day. 14 Then the king, when he heard these words, was sore displeased with himself, and set his heart on Daniel to deliver him: and he laboured till the going down of the sun to deliver him. 15 Then these men assembled unto the king, and said unto the king, Know, O king, that the law of the Medes and Persians is, That no decree nor statute which the king establisheth may be changed. 16 Then the king commanded, and they brought Daniel, and cast him into the den of lions. Now the king spake and said unto Daniel, Thy God whom thou servest continually, he will deliver thee. 17 And a stone was brought, and laid upon the mouth of the den; and the king sealed it with his own signet, and with the signet of his lords; that the purpose might not be changed concerning Daniel.

And there is much more. Martin Luther King, Jr. also writes a good sermon on this in his 'letter from birmingham Jail.'

[ QUOTE ]
There's a bit of a problem with the argument that Evolution is creating moral decay. When you make that argument what are you using as your 'moral yardstick'? The Bible. Therefore, saying that Evolution is creating moral decay is really just a claim that Evolution goes against the Bible. So, we haven't really said anything new.

[/ QUOTE ]

The evil fruits of evolution are painfully evident.

The Lord Jesus said that “a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit” (Matthew 7:18). A good test by which to evaluate the validity of a philosophy is to examine the fruit it produces in human society and human individual behavior. Let’s shortly examine evolution. Henry Morris states:

“The evolutionary philosophy dismally fails this fruit test. The very essence of evolutionism involves the survival of the fittest, the corollary of which is the elimination of the unfit. This concept led Darwin, Wallace and others to the idea of natural selection as the presumed mechanism of evolution. However, the basic cruelty of the evolutionary process, by whatever mechanism it is supposed to be achieved, is intrinsic to the very idea of evolution itself.

It is not too much to conclude that evolution—if it were true—would be the most wasteful and cruel process that could ever be devised by which to arrive at its supposed goal, the production of humans. “Theistic” evolution thus becomes an oxymoron. A good and wise and powerful God would never stoop to invent and use such a process. Thus, while there are evolutionists who are theists, they are totally inconsistent. Evolution itself, as a process, must be atheistic.”

Evolution was the driving force of Hitler’s ideologies, along with communism in general. Inflicting a harsh rise in racists attitudes:

Bergman, Jerry, “Eugenics and the Development of Nazi Race Policy,” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, vol. 44 (June 1992), pp. 109-123. Bergman is a Professor of Science at Northwest Technical College in Archbold, Ohio. He holds two doctorates in psychology and biology.

p 109

“Abstract. A central government policy of the Hitler administration was the breeding of a ‘superior race.’ This required, at the very least, preventing the ‘inferior races’ from mixing with ‘superior’ ones in order to reduce contamination of the latter’s gene pool. The ‘superior race’ belief is based on the theory of group inequality within each species, a major presumption and requirement of Darwin’s original ‘survival of the fittest’ theory. A review of the writings of Hitler and contemporary German biologists finds that Darwin’s theory and writings had a major influence upon Nazi policies. Hitler believed that the human gene pool could be improved by selective breeding, using the same techniques that farmers used to breed a superior strain of cattle. In the formulation of his racial policies, he relied heavily upon the Darwinian evolution model, especially the elaborations by Spencer and Haeckel. They culminated in the ‘final solution,’ the extermination of approximately six million Jews and four million other people who belonged to what German scientists judged were ‘inferior races.’”
Gasmann, Daniel, The Scientific Origins of National Socialism: Social Darwinism in Ernst Haeckel and the German Monist League (New York: American Elsevier, 1971), 208 pp.



pp xvii
“Along with his social Darwinist followers, [Haeckel] set about to demonstrate the ‘aristocratic’ and non-democratic character of the laws of nature…. Up to his death in 1919, Haeckel contributed to that special variety of German thought which served as the seed-bed for National Socialism. He became one of Germany’s major ideologists for racism, nationalism and imperialism.”

http://www.answersingenesis.org/CreationWise/Cartoons/CWpoisonEvolution.gif

p 168
“[Hitler] stressed and singled out the idea of biological evolution as the most forceful weapon against traditional religion and he repeatedly condemned Christianity for its opposition to the teaching of evolution…. For Hitler, evolution was the hallmark of modern science and culture, and he defended its veracity as tenaciously as Haeckel.”

Hoffman, Peter, Hitler’s Personal Security (London: Macmillan Press, 1979), 321 pp.

p 264
“Hitler believed in struggle as a Darwinian principle of human life that forced every people to try to dominate all others; without struggle they would rot and perish…. Even in his own defeat in April 1945 Hitler expressed his faith in the survival of the stronger and declared the Slavic peoples to have proven themselves the stronger.”

Darwin, Charles, The Descent of Man, 2nd ed. (New York: A. L. Burt Co., 1874), 797 pp.

p 178

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

Furthermore, Evolution is 100% anti Christianity.

"Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer that died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing."

G. Richard Bozarth, "The Meaning of Evolution", American Atheist, 20 Sept. 1979, p. 30

"Atheism is the philosophy, both moral and ethical, most perfectly suited for a scientific civilization. If we work for the American Atheists today, Atheism will be ready to fill the void of Christianity's demise when science and evolution triumph.

Without a doubt, humans and civilization are in sore need of the intellectual cleanness and mental health of Atheism."

Richard Bozarth, "The Meaning of Evolution", American Atheist, 20 Sept. 1979, p. 30

"The day will come when the evidence constantly accumulating around the evolutionary theory becomes so massively persuasive that even the last and most fundamental Christian warriors will have to lay down their arms and surrender unconditionally. I believe that day will be the end of Christianity."

Richard Bozarth, "The Meaning of Evolution", American Atheist, 20 Sept. 1979, p. 30

And you can refer to our bible studies for much more on the evil fruits of evolution.