< Changing Worldviews.Commentary >

Words are powerful - Thoughts shape - Ideas have consequences

Jonathan Krive

Certified Legal Assistant
Posted April 5, 2003

Are You Just a Mistake?
The Implications of Evolution

Every worldview is based upon the origins of existence. Your convictions about your origin determine your outlook upon life.

Imagine if a biology teacher started a class by saying, “I want to make sure you understand the fact that you are an accident. Because the formation of the universe was completely random and has no reason to it - you aren’t important. Since you just happened to evolve, you’re just a mistake like all the other mistakes out there.”

You might laugh at the absurdity of this statement, but think about the hypothesis of evolution for a minute. This hypothesis states that all matter came together randomly, and evolved, by accident, into more complex creatures. So eventually, this process made enough “mistakes” through natural selection that it ended up in producing humans. While the majority of debate between evolutionists and creationists revolves around the validity of this hypothesis, I would like to look at another aspect.

Instead of discussing the plausibility of this hypothesis, I would rather like to look at its implications on life. Perhaps humans did evolve. If evolution is true, what does it mean for us? It would seem that evolution would cause your life story to be summed up in the phrase, “From goo to you, by way of the zoo.” You have no purpose in life. It is survival of the fittest. There are no moral absolutes. You just have to make them up.

Evolution was not included in the public school until the late 1960’s, before then the theory was banned. In 1968, the US Supreme Court ruled the banning of evolution unconstitutional in Epperson v. State of Arkansas (1968). Schools began including this hypothesis in textbooks after this ruling. In 1987, the Supreme Court dealt a crushing blow to the American school system. In the case of Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) it deemed that the teaching of any theory supporting a supernatural creation was unconstitutional because it furthered a religion. By this time, the Supreme Court had effectively mandated evolution, and banned creation.

Most people would agree that Creation is a tenet of religion, and the government is not supposed to teach a religion because it violates the “separation of church and state.” (That phrase does not exist in the Constitution; in fact, the words “separation”, “church”, or “state” do not appear in the first Amendmen). Schools do teach a religion though. The Supreme Court ruled in the Torcaso vs. Watkins (1961) that secular humanism is a religion.

Evolution is an essential doctrine of secular humanism. Evolution is to secular humanism, what creation is to Christianity. Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, who has his Ph.D in physical chemistry, summarized it this way, “It’s not a question of biased religious creationists versus objective scientific evolutionists; rather, it is the biases of the Christian religion versus the biases of the religion of secular humanism.” In essence, it is the science of one religion versus the science of another religion.

If evolution is accepted then nothing has any absolute worth. If everything came together by accident, then nothing has any value.

On April 20, 1999, Americans were horrified by the Columbine High School shootings, which left 13 dead and 26 wounded. Five years after this tragedy, people still wonder what possessed those two young gunmen to savagely kill their classmates. Dr. Walt Brown, author of In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, asks the legitimate question, “If humans descended from animals, why shouldn’t humans behave like animals and have the same moral value as animals?” Basically, what is the difference between shooting a human, and shooting a rabbit? There is no difference at all. This fact is evident in the life of Adolf Hitler, and his heinous deeds. Peter Hoffman described Hitler’s worldview in his book Hitler’s Personal Security. “Hitler believed in a 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…”

You might respond to these atrocities with the assertion that humans do posses inalienable rights. For example, the United Nations grants us rights. Because we have rights, absolute values do exist. But where did rights come from before the United Nations existed? Some may answer, “American government.” But did rights exist before the American government? Neither the UN nor the American government can grant rights. People use their pre-existing rights to establish government, for the express purpose of protecting the rights of the people.

If everything is just a mistake, then where do we as humans find inherent value? I propose that humans have rights and value because their Creator endowed them with such rights and value. The Declaration of Independence says, “[T]hat [all men] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Humankind is not the mistake of some evolutionary process, but rather the deliberate creation of a Creator.

Fundamental to every debate is the question, “Where did we come from?” We cannot debate the morality of abortion until we establish the fact that human life has inherent worth because it is created, not just a mistake. Sexual deviancy, from homosexuality to polygamy, cannot be deemed immoral if no standard of morality exists. Illegal immigration can be deemed justified as long as illegal immigrants can get away with it; survival of the fittest justifies any action necessary for survival. Every issue facing society today can find its resolution in the answer to the question, “Where did we come from?” Unfortunately, many have accepted the idea that we came about through a process of mistakes, thereby negating any absolute value of human life. Before you accept any theory about the origins of existence, consider its implications.

© Jonathan Krive 2004

Jonathan Krive is an 18 year old Certified Legal Assistant, national debate team star, and accomplished pianist. Having met the legal requirements for high school graduation at age 15, Jonathan is a graduate of the Oak Brook College of Law Paralegal School. The 2004 winner of the National Right to Life Oratorical Contest competing against state winners of 20 other states, he has competed in the National Christian Forensics and Communications Association for four years, winning Original Oratory at both the 2002 and 2003 NCFCA National Tournament, and ranking as one of four competitors who have won two years consecutively. He has also ranked 3rd place in debate in the nation. A leader amongst his peers, Jonathan works to equip his generation to take their role in the nation, as a debate coach, on campaigns of young candidates, and as a leader in Conservative Clubs of America and Teen Eagles. Jonathan is currently considering one of several offered internships at California's State Capitol. Contact: jkrive@comcast.net