For the universe of all things is not under itself or within itself: for it is irrational and impossible to make a statement to this effect, namely, that the universe is above the totality of itself, when, in fact, it is defined by the ultimate causative Power, which is beyond everything and defines everything...
- Eriugena, Periphyseon, Irish, 9th century
All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
- John 1.3
Evolutionary theory appeals to many people as an explanation for the beginnings, nature, and final state of the cosmos. That’s not news, I know; it’s just curious.
It strikes me as curious, anyway, that so many apparently clear-thinking people can believe in and stake their careers and lives on the flimsy, contradictory, incongruent, and otherwise unsupportable doctrines such a worldview requires.
Take, for example, the doctrine of the eternality of matter. Evolution teaches that matter, in some form at least, is eternal. Now I wonder how the evolutionist knows that? Of course, he doesn’t know it, he simply believes it to be so. He must believe it to be so even to begin thinking in an evolutionary manner. It’s not a fact that matter is eternal; it is, rather, a belief, and one that allows evolutionists to exclude God from their thinking.
Even if matter were eternal, evolutionists would have to posit this doctrine as an act of faith, because they cannot prove it by the methods of science or reason, which are, in the evolutionary scheme of things, the only reliable tests for truth.
Or consider the doctrine of chance: Chance, in evolutionary thinking, is unknowable, unpredictable, all-powerful, and as often as not works to the detriment and destruction of matter instead of its improvement.
I wonder how evolutionists know that? Is chance a fact? Or is it merely another convenient belief that allows them to plow ahead in their Godless worldview?
If I were to teach children in my charge, say at a school, that just outside the doors, and looming over them all day long, lurks an all-powerful force, completely indifferent to their wellbeing or concerns, altogether unknowable and uncontrollable, that will just as soon devour as delight them, do you think their parents might report me to the school board?
Believing in chance, as evolutionists do, flies in the face of another doctrine, the doctrine of order, and its corollary, the doctrine of knowledge. Because the universe is orderly it is therefore knowable, as every evolutionist will heartily agree.
But how does evolutionary thinking square that belief in order with the belief in chance?
Finally, take the doctrine of science, which insists that science is the only reliable means of knowing truth. Science alone gives us truth. Whatever is not arrived at via the scientific method is not true.
I’d like to see that belief demonstrated by the scientific method.
Evolution is a form of religion, a naturalistic religion which worships the human mind as the final architect and arbiter of truth, which reserves the right to declare the limits and uses of reality, according to the tenets of human thought.
Don’t get me wrong, science is a great gift. But scientists, trusting in their own best ideas, have come up with some pretty dastardly and destructive notions, leading to some pretty disastrous consequences. Science is a religion as likely to destroy as to ennoble. We can’t help but wonder, as C. S. Lewis did, “Does the whole vast structure of modern naturalism depend not on positive evidence but simply on an a priori metaphysical prejudice? Was it devised not to get in facts but to keep out God?” (Weight of Glory)
Does it take an Irishman to remind the world that matter can neither spawn itself, define itself, sustain itself, nor give any rhyme or reason for its existence, much less compose “The Messiah” or write Hamlet?
That there is a greater Being overruling all creation is clear from the most casual observation of a flower, a bee, or the unchanging pattern of the night sky.
What does it say about the force of Christian conviction that we continue to allow such false beliefs to rule our land, shape our children, and determine the moral composition of our culture?
Surely, if only we were more curious – and more obedient – we might show the world, in the Kingdom of God, a worldview far superior to, and more workable than, the religion of evolution?
1. Why do you think evolutionary thinking has become the dominant worldview of our day?
2. Why is it important to hold that God created, sustains, and defines the nature of all things?
Psalm 145.1-3, 10-12 (Brother James’ Air: The Lord’s My Shepherd)
I will extol You, God, my King, and ever praise Your Name!
I bless You, Lord, for everything, each day and e’er the same!
Great are You, Lord; my praise I bring; unsearchable Your fame!
Your works shall thank You; all Your saints shall praise and bless You, Lord.
Your reign we bless without restraint; Your power fills our words.
Our children we shall educate in all Your splendor, Lord!
Lord, thank You for Your sovereign rule over all things; help me to keep Your sovereignty in mind today as I…
The right Wind
One of the reasons we struggle in our walk with the Lord is that the wrong winds – such as evolutionism – are filling the sails of our soul. Our ReVision series, “Winds of Doctrine,” explains more. You can download the first three parts of this study by clicking here.
Our book Restore Us! can show you how and why to seek the Lord for revival. We’re offering it at a special price through this month. Just click here.
We pray that, if Crosfigell ministers to you, you’ll consider sharing with us in the financial support of our ministry. If the Lord moves you to give, you can use the Contribute button at the website to give with a credit card or through PayPal, or you can send your gift to The Fellowship of Ailbe, 360 Zephyr Road, Williston, VT 05495.
T. M. Moore
All Psalms for singing from The Ailbe Psalter. Except as indicated, Scripture taken from the New King James Version. © Copyright 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
 Eriugena, pp. 72, 73.