"The Origin of Speciousness"

The Rev. Mike Zamzow sent me this link to what is in many respects a fine article on the real story of Charles Darwin and the implications of the theory of evolution.

But the article contains a fatal flaw. It tries to make the patently absurd case that believers in theistic evolution share with Darwin and the other supporters of the theory the notion that evolution took place by pure chance. By definition, of course, theistic evolution actually holds that God guided the process of evolution along pre-determined lines to reach the results He desired.

This is not, of course, to argue that theistic evolution is therefore harmless. Paul uses the figures of the first and second Adams (the second being Christ) to explain the introduction of death into creation, on one hand, and its conquest, on the other. It's true that, in one sense, the mere fact of comparison doesn't actually necessitate Adam being an historical personage; to say that "just as Tom Sawyer got others to do his job of painting the fence, many Missouri Synod pastors are trying to get laypeople to perform tasks which are properly the function of the pastoral office" is not necessarily to assert either that Tom Sawyer was a real person or that the pastors in question are fictional ones (though it would be well if they were!). But the person of Adam is described as the actual means by which death entered the world; unless death is fictional, therefore, Adam cannot be- unless, of course, Paul's whole statement is simply nonsense. Nor can "Adam" simply be taken as a figure for the First Man; in order for humanity to have evolved from lower lifeforms, a whole lot of dying would have to have taken place before mankind would have been around to fall into sin, and thus bring death into the world.

No, Paul's argument rests upon the historicity of Adam, and without Adam Christianity is left without a means to account for the existence of death in a creation whose Creator wants life for it. That's the problem which many theistic evolutionists just don't see; those who do simply choose to contradict Paul, and suggest that death was originally part of God's creation, without dealing with the unfortunate consequence that He cannot then be said to have restored creation to His original intention by conquering it through Christ. But important though that issue is, in the Kingdom of the Left Hand it's important, nevertheless, to move past that issue and raise a point which the article linked to above points us to, even while completely missing it.

The argument over the place of creationism and intelligent design, on one hand, and evolution on the other, in the public schools is a red herring. Creation and intelligent design are not science. Rather, they are metaphysical theories which, to be sure, may be argued for on the basis of evidence, but which have their origins outside the realm of what is simply observed. Evolution, it can be argued, is science- at least to the extent that it originates in the description of observable things like the fossil record, embroyonic recapitulation, and so forth.

That means that if the argument is between creationism and intelligent design, on one hand, and evolution, on the other, in a pluralistic society the latter will always win. By focusing the argument there, people of biblical faith end up losing the argument before it ever begins. Our arguments are theological and metaphysical ones. But theology and metaphysics, by their very nature, are excluded from the public sector by the First Amendment- and, I would argue, by the very nature of a pluralistic society.

Our greatest weapon is the very argument which is used against us. The enemy isn't finally evolution; that's merely the disguise the enemy wears. The enemy is an idea every bit as metaphysical- and therefore every bit as out of bounds in the public schools- as creationism and intelligent design: materialism.

As the article Rev. Zamzow sent me demonstrates, Darwin was a materialist- and evolution is a fundamentally materialistic ideology. It cannot finally be reconciled with Christian revelation. But neither can its endorsement by the public schools be reconciled with the First Amendment! Evolution per se is one thing; evolution as a Trojan Horse for a materialistic ideology as to the origin of the universe and of life- human or otherwise- is out of bounds for the very same reasons that creation and intelligent design are.

By all means, let evolution be taught- as the theory of origins accepted by most scientists. But let's drop this nonsense about trying to present creationism or even intelligent design as science. Let's not even bother debating- at least in the arena of the curricula of the public schools- the merits of the idea of evolution (that's an argument which more properly belongs to the realm of apologetics, anyway).

Rather, let's use the argument of the other side against it. Let's expose the teaching of the religion of materialism in the public schools under the pretext of the theory of evolution for exactly what it is: a blatent violation of the First Amendment, and an unconstitutional intrustion of a particular metaphysical position into the realm of legally sanctioned- and therefore legally established- religion.