The first step in critical thinking is to avoid succumbing to the atmosphere of intimidation created by those who promote evolution. Those who successfully defend their Christian beliefs, know what they believe, and are confident in their beliefs. They know upfront that they will be ridiculed for standing outside of the box. It is a lost cause to expect to persuade those who do not wish to be persuaded. Only those who seek truth will listen to a well-reasoned argument. Those who are hostile to the gospel will not. Those who are afraid of making a stand will not. In both cases, it is personal motivation that takes precedence over the evidence.
One important point to always keep in mind is that the facts are not in dispute. There is nothing observed by science that creationists disagree with. It isn’t the facts that are in dispute, it is the exclusion of certain evidences and the conclusions drawn from the facts that are in dispute. It is a point of contention when facts that threaten evolution are not allowed acknowledgment in the popular scientific community. In evolution, the conclusion has already been drawn and the conclusion takes precedence over the facts. To illustrate this, let’s take a critical look at the Cambrian Explosion.
If you are not familiar with this term, the Cambrian Explosion is a term for the so-called Cambrian layer of strata. The Cambrian period is estimated by evolutionists to be around 530 million years ago. The reason it is called the Cambrian Explosion is because this is where life suddenly appears in the fossil record. Evolutionists openly admit that there is no evolution found at any stage, yet they continue to preach the ‘fact’ of evolution found in the fossil record. Consider these quotes from several evolution resources:
Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W. W. Norton, 1987).p. 229
“ the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years [evolutionists are now dating the beginning of the Cambrian at about 530 million years], are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.”
Richard Dawkins is probably the most popular propagator of evolution, and openly mocks Christianity and creation. He calls evolution a fact and not a theory. This is in spite of, by his own admission, that there is no evidence of evolutionary history. Even though he admits that there is no supporting history, he says in a review of the book ‘Blueprints’:
“…We are here talking about the fact of evolution itself, a fact that is proved utterly beyond reasonable doubt. To claim equal time for creation science in biology classes is about as sensible as to claim equal time for the flat-earth theory in astronomy classes. Or, as someone has pointed out, you might as well claim equal time in sex education classes for the stork theory. It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”
Now look at what Stephen Jay Gould has to say about the fossil records:
Stephen Jay Gould, “The Interpretation of Diagrams: Is the Cambrian Explosion a Sigmoid Fraud?” Natural History, vol. 85 (August/September 1976), pp. 18-28.p. 18
“ the Precambrian fossil record is little more than 2.5 billion years of bacteria and blue-green algae. Complex life did arise with startling speed near the base of the Cambrian.”
Stephen Jay Gould, “A Short Way to Big Ends,”
“Where, then, are all the Precambrian ancestors—or, if they didn’t exist in recognizable form, how did modern complexity get off to such a fast start?”
We should stop and ask this question as well – how did life get off to such a fast start? Evolution claims that it takes millions of years and in some eras, billions of years. Yet two of the leading preachers of evolution are asking why the evidence doesn’t fit the evolutionary model? At the same time, they refuse to abandon the model. Is it really creationists that are guilty of intellectual dishonesty? Perhaps this quote will help with this question.
Peter J. Smith, “Evolution’s Most Worrisome Questions,” review of Life Pulse by Niles Eldredge (Fact on File, 1987, 246 pp.), New Scientist (November 19, 1987), p. 59.
“Eldredge and Gould, by contrast, decided to take the record at face value. On this view, there is little evidence of modification within species, or of forms intermediate between species because neither generally occurred. A species forms and evolves almost instantaneously (on the geological timescale) and then remains virtually unchanged until it disappears, yielding its habitat to a new species.”
Smith confirms yet again that the appearance of life is instant and then goes on to admit that it does not change. A critical thinker should ask how this evidence points to evolution as these men claim? If life appears suddenly and life remains unchanged, where is evolution? Evolution demands a changing organism in order to ‘carry the genes’ to the next evolutionary step. What does the evidence of ‘unchanged’ life point to – creation or evolution?
The lack of change is also confirmed in the Science News:
“Ancient Alga Fossil Most Complex Yet,” Science News, vol. 108 (September 20, 1975), p. 181.
“Both blue-green algae and bacteria fossils dating back 3.4 billion years have been found in rocks from S. Africa.”
“Even more intriguing, the pleurocapsalean algae turned out to be almost identical to modern pleurocapsalean algae at the family and possibly even at the generic level.”
Let’s put our critical thinking to use here. Algae and bacteria are supposed to evolve into more complex life leading eventually to plants and animals. If the earliest fossils are unchanged and genetically equal to today’s algae and bacteria, where do the facts lead us? If we go outside the box, we are supposedly into theology. That leaves critical thinking out in the cold. Are we to accept the evolutionary model on blind faith, or follow the evidence out of the evolution model and be labeled as ignorant, stupid and religious?
George, T. Neville, “Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective,”
“Granted an evolutionary origin of the main groups of animals, and not an act of special creation, the absence of any record whatsoever of a single member of any of the phyla in the Pre-Cambrian rocks remains as inexplicable on orthodox grounds as it was to Darwin.”
Let’s now take a critical look at Neville’s argument. He first establishes that special creation is not an option. He then acknowledges that there is not a single member of the Pre-Cambrian fossils that provide any links between primitive life and the Cambrian explosion of life that supposedly arises from it. He then concludes that there is no explanation.
Why is there no explanation?
Why is special creation ruled out before the evidence is examined?
Evolution draws the facts from the conclusion instead of drawing the conclusion from the facts. Is this true science? Does eliminating conclusions before looking at the evidence discourage critical thinking? Is it a rational argument to exclude any conclusion you don’t want to find? Finally, why do many evolutionists claim that the Bible is false because you can’t prove that God exists, yet they then claim that evolution is true because you can’t prove it didn’t occur?
If we don’t stop and examine the argument closely, we are going to believe the last person that gave a passionate argument. This is why it is vital to learn to analyze the facts and examine the argument. Instead of allowing someone to feed us their opinion, each person should learn to examine what is actually being said. Evolutionists take others by the hand and guide them toward predetermined conclusions while leading people away from the evidences they choose not to acknowledge.
Instead of accepting the starting point, we should ask ‘How did you get to this point?’ Instead of accepting conclusions, we should demand truth and evaluate the validity of the conclusion. We have purposefully been dumbed down. Education in modern schools does not encourage critical thinking. Students are told what to think, not how to think. It is our responsibility to overcome this challenge and apply ourselves to reason. Just because evolution and atheism calls itself ‘reasonable thinking’ does not make it so. When examined closely, the atheistic definition of reason is to believe accepted ideas, not to think for oneself. In truth, the definition of reason is “to think and draw conclusions” (Websters New World Dictionary). To be considered intellectual and reasonable by evolution standards, we are not allowed to draw our own conclusions unless they lead where evolution demands that we go. Modern ‘free thought’ demands that we accept the conclusion already provided to us – the box of evolution.
In the next section, we will look at how we are fed conclusions and how facts are dodged by crafty arguments. When we turn our critical thinking off (as we are encouraged to do), the arguments make perfect sense. Those who have been dumbed down to accept the standard evolutionary belief system, accept the conclusions, while ignorantly believing that facts are supporting evolution. It is our responsibility to sift through the web of deceit, analyze, think critically, and then draw a well reasoned conclusion.