Have you ever noticed that those who push ‘evolution’ and resist ‘creationism’ never seem to apply their belief system to human nature? It’s true. They will fight any and every attempt to teach creationism; always insisting that it is an ‘un-scientific myth’ or ‘fairytale.’ They will insist that evolution is reality, and thus, nothing else should even be considered. Then they will turn around and ignore their own argument where the issue of human nature is concerned. Whether they realize it or not, they affirm the creation argument when they do this.
Here is the simple version of what I am trying to explain. If evolution is the reality of this world, then what we call tradition is nothing more than the sum total of mankind’s evolutionary learning. In other words, it is the self-aware version of instinct. However, in every generation, the youth has resisted the learning of the ages. Traditions are seen as ‘archaic’ and ‘old fashioned.’ Rather than accept and embrace this collective learning from the past, every generation pushes for ‘progress.’ It is in this rejection of the past and pushing for a ‘new future’ that we find proof of ‘creationism.’
If evolution is the reality of this world, then it would follow that every new generation would accept the lessons of the past. It would be a natural part of our ‘evolution’ to do so. This would be the operative evidence of natural selection. Those who accept and embrace the past live because they do not have to suffer the penalties (usually death) of ignoring these past lessons. But we do not do this. Every generation resists the traditions of the society into which they are born. Each generation is convinced that it can ‘create’ its own future. Well, if we think we can ‘create’ a new future for humanity, whether we like it or not, we are acknowledging creationism. And this leads to the second edge of this two-edged sword of suicide for the ‘evolutionist.’
If man can direct his evolution according to his will, then it is impossible for evolution to be the governing force of this universe. But to show why this is true, we must first assume the negative. Let’s assume that directing the development of human nature is a natural extension of evolution. We must first start by ruling out the existence of a Creator. If there is no Creator, it then follows that there is no such thing as free will. We are all nothing more than a collection of matter acting according to whatever natural laws govern the behavior of the human animal. This would then mean that any ‘directing’ of human nature is the product of evolution. But that would lead to a contradiction to the laws of evolution. Looking to history, we see that most every attempt to ‘direct’ the evolution of human nature has inevitably resulted in mass murder. This is self-destruction, which violates the evolutionary principle of self-preservation. That indicates free will, which then points to the necessity for a Creator. And thus, we have shown that actual observed reality negates the argument for evolution (at least in the Darwinian sense). It also indicates that there must be a Creator, and if there is a Creator, then creationism is the more likely explanation for this universe.
Now, let’s look at this issue again – from a different perspective. If we assume that we – the human animal – can direct our own evolution, are we not admitting that ‘creation’ is a part of the principles governing this universe? Directing the evolution of human nature is the same thing as creating the human nature we desire. If we honestly believe we can do this – and actual events in human history prove that we do – then it is objective evidence that we instinctively understand that there is no universal law governing human nature. If there were, then we would not waste time trying to change our nature. It would be as futile as trying to reverse gravity and change the laws of inertia. But we do try to change and direct human nature. Why? Do we try to change the law of gravity and inertia? No, because we know we cannot do that. So why do we think we can change human nature? There is another post just in the implications of this question, but the one point I want you to understand in this post is that we all instinctively understand that the existence of this belief speaks against evolution and for creationism. It is simple logic, but then, those who think they can change what God created are not really worried about something as limiting as logic, are they? Because, if they were, they would realize their very desire to change human nature – not to mention their belief that they can actually do so – logically suggests the existence of a Creator, which then negates any possibility that they can actually achieve their desire.