Can You Live by an Evolutionary Worldview?

As a teen, I learned about evolution, which was seen as a completely random process. Over time, I came to see its numerous flaws and concluded that it was not a viable theory; I have written about the reasons for that here: https://keithpetersenblog.com/2020/09/16/is-evolution-a-viable-theory/ (Don’t worry; it’s not “technical.”) In Charles Darwin’s original formulation of evolution, human beings were regarded as simply animals. Among other things, this meant that people were not responsible for their actions and were thus free to live however they wanted. The flaws of this kind of thinking should be immediately apparent even from a secular point of view; more about that later.

In 2007, a multi-national group of biologists concluded that evolution is deterministic and orderly rather than random. This is a radical change from the randomness that generations of kids had previously learned about. But what would the consequences of this reformulation be for the reality of living?

A few months ago, I came across a rather remarkable book called Finding Truth by Nancy Pearcey. In her book, Pearcey fleshes out five powerful principles to apply to any worldview, whether it be secular or religious. I found her third principle to be particularly illuminating: Does the worldview contradict what we know about the world? She gives examples of prominent thinkers who have adopted a view of human beings as essentially machines. I understand now that this is a natural outgrowth of the view of evolution as deterministic rather than random; in other words, we are essentially not responsible for our actions because we are “pre-programmed” by our genes to think and act in certain ways. Even the great physicist Albert Einstein, who predated the change in evolutionary thinking, wrote almost 100 years ago, “I am compelled to act as if free will existed because if I want to live in a civilized society, I must act responsibly.” Notice the important phrase “as if;” in other words, Einstein didn’t believe in free will, but he lived according to it. This is an example of what Pearcey calls a “severe mental schizophrenia.” Here are some others:

  • Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins refers to human beings as “survival machines–robot vehicles blindly programmed” by their genes. On the other hand, he also says, “I blame people [and] I give people credit.” When a young man questioned him about his mechanistic but inconsistent view of human beings, Dawkins said, “It is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with; otherwise, life would be intolerable.”
  • Philosopher Edward Slingerland has a whole section in one of his books entitled, “We Are Robots Designed Not to Believe That We Are Robots.” In other words, we are actually robots, but we think we’re not. Here’s what he wrote about his daughter: “At an important and ineradicable level, the idea of my daughter as merely a complex robot carrying my genes into the next generation is both bizarre and repugnant to me.”
  • Roboticist Rodney Brooks writes that a human being is nothing but a machine bound by the laws of physics and chemistry. However, writing about his own children, he says, “When I look at my children, I can, when I force myself, …see that they are machines. [However], that is not how I treat them… They have my unconditional love.”

It is incredible to me how people like Richard Dawkins, Edward Slingerland, and Rodney Brooks can somehow live with this kind of extreme cognitive dissonance. On the one hand, they profess to have a view of human beings as machines; at the same time, however, they admit that they themselves don’t–indeed, can’t–live like it, especially when it comes to their own children. Beyond the contradictions that they somehow live with, the danger, of course, is that they and other people who hold to their views can live as if they are not responsible. The same is true, of course, regarding Darwin’s original formulation of evolution, which treats human beings as animals; in neither view–human beings as machines or as animals–are people truly responsible for their actions. This flies in the face of reality; if you don’t think so, murder someone in full view of a group of police officers and see what happens to you in court.

Evolutionary theories, whether old or new, hold up neither to scientific scrutiny nor the reality of trying to live according to them. The Christian worldview, in contrast, has incredible explanatory power for everything. This includes the Biblical view of human beings as being created in the image of God and being morally responsible for our actions.

If you have simply accepted evolution as fact, and even moreso if you have tried to live according to its implications, I would encourage you to examine it for yourselves. I would also encourage you to examine the Christian worldview; you can read what I and so many other people have written about it, but I would also encourage you to go to the source for what we who are Christians believe: the Bible. There you will find the truth about our sinful condition and the remedy for it in Jesus Christ–the Truth–that millions of others have found throughout history.

Self-Marriage and Other “Marriages”

A good friend of mine recently sent me a link to an article about self-marriage (also known as sologamy) ceremonies, something I had never heard of before. Self-Marriage Unveiled, a 10-Week Initiation into Sacred Union, says this: “Every week for 10 weeks, you will receive an email with a theme, question, ceremonial practice, and writing about Self-Marriage to inspire you to go deeper. These self-inquiry practices will guide you into writing vows during week 7 and marrying yourself in your own ceremony in week 9.” This is not free, of course: it will cost you $200. The program is clearly geared toward women, which is no surprise: all of the testimonials/reflections on their website are from women; here is the link: http://www.selfmarriageceremonies.com/ However, there are men who have also married themselves.

It turns out, however, that even a marriage to yourself is not without its problems. Brazilian influencer Suellen Carey divorced herself after one year, explaining that she had even gone to therapy to fix the issues in her marriage, but the loneliness got to be too much for her. She says, “Now is the time to open my heart to new possibilities, including the chance to find a partner.” There are two things in particular that jumped out at me: one was the reference to her loneliness; the other is that she is now looking for a partner, obviously to relieve the loneliness that her self-marriage couldn’t.

After I shared the above link with my Sunday-school class, one of my brothers sent me a link to yet another new phenomenon: hologram marriages. Alicia Framis, a 57-year-old Spanish woman, is marrying a hologram named AILex; interestingly, she also mentions loneliness in a blog post. She says, “Love and sex with robots and holograms are an inevitable reality. They make great companions and are capable of expressing empathy.” Here is the link to the article: https://interestingengineering.com/culture/first-woman-marry-ai-hologram

While we can laugh and shake our heads (and I do) at self-marriages and hologram marriages, decrying the narcissism inherent in them, it is obvious that people like Suellen Carey and Alicia Framis are incredibly lonely; it is no surprise that both make reference to loneliness.

As I was researching this, another kind of marriage that came to mind was same-sex marriage, which was first legalized in 2001 by the Netherlands. 23 years later, there are 36 countries where same-sex marriage is legal; you can see a map here: https://www.hrc.org/resources/marriage-equality-around-the-world You’ll notice that a very large number of Caucasian-majority countries are included, as well as more of South America than I expected.

A fourth kind of marriage is polygamy, which has been around since very early recorded history. Depending on your source, there are currently between 47 and 58 countries where polygamy is legal. You can see a map here: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-where-polygamy-is-legal It’s no surprise that the vast majority of these countries are Muslim-dominant. It wouldn’t surprise me if polygamy becomes legal in the U.S. someday; LDS-dominant Utah has already decriminalized it.

How are we to evaluate all of this? If you’re a Christian, as I am, you need to look to the Bible. Way back in Genesis 2:24, God says, “For this reason a man will leave his mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” In Ephesians 5:22-33, the Apostle Paul gives instructions to husbands and wives. Verse 33 says, “However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.” The Bible makes it clear that marriage is between one man and one woman. However, there are some critics who point to the fact that in the Old Testament, even godly King David, a man after God’s own heart, had at least eight wives and thus was a polygamist. Oh, and his son, wise King Solomon, had 700 wives (plus 300 concubines). While it is true that both David and Solomon were polygamists, does that mean the Lord approved of this practice? That would be like saying that the Lord approved of Jacob (whose name was later changed to “Israel”) for deceiving and then directly lying to his father Isaac so that he could get the birthright, and the blessings that went with it, instead of his brother Esau. In other words, just because something is in the Bible without direct consequences for it, that doesn’t mean the Lord approves of it. When we look at the Bible as a whole, it is very clear that the Lord does not approve of either polygamy or deceit/lying.

Regarding the other three types of marriage mentioned earlier: as much as the LGBTQ community might like to have the church’s recognition and even approval of same-sex marriages, we can’t give it to them because the Lord Himself doesn’t. They have the legal right to marry, and that should be enough. (Yes, I am aware that there are churches that not only approve of such marriages, but even officiate such weddings; the leaders of those churches will have to answer to the Lord, and I would not want to be in their shoes.) Regarding self-marriage and hologram marriage: while I can understand the deep loneliness that drives people into such “marriages,” they are fundamentally a reflection of narcissism, a self-love that is diametrically opposed to what the Bible teaches about loving others. Here is what Philippians 2:3-4 says: “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.”

May we who know the Lord speak the truth in love to those we know, including those who have marriage views and practices that the Lord does not approve of.

Changing Praise Practices in Education

Several years ago, a friend of mine and I were discussing our rather-similar early childhoods (in the 1960s, but in different states), and we somehow ended up talking about praise, or the lack thereof, both at school and at home. One conclusion we had both come to independently of each other is that our teachers and parents didn’t want us kids to develop a “big head.” When I recently discussed this with my wife, who grew up at the same time in yet another state, she said the same thing. Although I haven’t seen this documented, the same experience of at least three different people in widely-separated states has convinced me that both our experience and at least one reason for it were probably the norm. This doesn’t mean that our parents and teachers were “mean” (although some were), but simply that we were expected to behave in certain ways; if we did, that’s what we were supposed to do, but if we didn’t, we could expect some kind of consequence. In addition, schools and parents were very much in lockstep; if our parents received a phone call from our school about disruptive behavior, they didn’t question the teacher or administrator in a defensive manner, but at the very least chewed us out. (Yes, I experienced this personally!)

Fast-forward two generations, into the 1990s. I don’t know about where you live, but in my city, bumper stickers like this became rather common: “My child was a student of the month at…” and “My child is a star student at…” I haven’t seen those around for at least ten years; one of the reasons is that schools didn’t want to be liable for kids/cars becoming targets of jealousy. In fact, my wife heard that at least one school had expressed concern about such stickers possibly making the kids more likely to become targets of kidnappers. In a similar vein, one year, a photography company contracted by our son’s school gave parents the option of a class photograph with their child’s photo centered and enlarged compared with classmates and the teacher. Talk about a big head! My wife and I both felt disgusted by this option and did not get the class photo. We certainly loved our son, but we didn’t want him to think he was more important than everyone else in the photo. Thankfully, that kind of class-photo option did not reappear the following year! I should add here, in contrast to the 1960s, that it wasn’t hard to notice parents had become much more defensive about their children’s behavior in general, and certainly more specifically at school; after all, their child was a “star!”

Other similar manifestations of praise around that time from schools were slogans like, “You’re special!” and “You’re awesome!” and “You can do or be anything!” While I didn’t mind the first slogan so much, the second and third ones bothered me because they’re very generalized, and the third one, in particular, is not true. What does it even mean to say that a person is awesome? And while every child has specific talents and skills, that doesn’t mean they can be successful at anything and everything!

There is plenty of research that concludes the following: when children are praised for specific talents and accomplishments, they take the praise as sincere; when they are praised in a very general way, they eventually don’t view it sincerely. Dr. Lisa Firestone, the Director of Research and Education at The Glendon Association, writes, “Self-esteem isn’t about telling kids that everything they do is terrific. A real sense of self-worth is based on the skills they build for themselves and the true accomplishments they feel they’ve made. However, many parents have the tendency to build up their kids with false or exaggerated statements. For example, instead of saying, ‘What a creative painting! You really worked hard on that,’ they may say something like, ‘Wow! What a wonderful artist you are! You’re so talented! You’re the best painter I’ve ever seen.’”

Firestone goes on to say that when parents overpraise their kids, they may feel entitled; inadequate; disappointed; and less interested in activities. The first three have to do with kids eventually realizing that they are not as able as their parents have led them to believe. To illustrate the final one–children becoming less interested in activities–she tells the story of a young boy who used to love baseball and took pride in his little-league games until his dad became involved. His loud yells during games made the boy feel embarrassed and resentful, and baseball became a performance. He soon lost interest and stopped playing baseball altogether. I should add that not every child is going to react the same way as this boy did, but it is a cautionary tale for parents; it’s certainly possible to be supportive without being, frankly, obnoxious!

Fast-forward another three decades, and we see the strange rise of Critical Race Theory (CRT) in education. It’s actually been around since at least 1989, but following George Floyd’s death four years ago, it became much more in vogue in some states. It soon started to come to light that in some schools, kids were being told (more explicitly in some cases than others) that whites were oppressors and blacks were victims. Some programs advocated by educators seemed just too ridiculous to be true: the Oregon Department of Education, for example, advertised a course for middle-school teachers in early 2021 that included a list of ways “white supremacy culture” allegedly “infiltrates math classrooms.” Those included the focus on “getting the ‘right’ answer” and students being “required to show their work.” As you might guess, there was a backlash: At least 44 states have taken steps to restrict teaching CRT and/or limit how teachers can discuss racism. I mention CRT here because it is very different from the overpraising of kids that had been going on 30 years prior, and in fact is in opposition to it.

What are we to make of all this? First of all, I would hope that parents want to praise, but not overpraise, their kids; we ought to be selective and specific in our praise so that our kids will perceive it as sincere. That way, our kids will be better able to gauge their talents and abilities. I wouldn’t want to return to the scarcity of praise in the 1960s, but neither do I want to see the effects on society of parents overpraising. Regarding Critical Race Theory: I would hope that regardless of which side of the political aisle you’re on, you would not want to see it perpetuated. Of course, our kids should understand our nation’s history, including its worst aspects. However, CRT promotes lies and racial division for no good reason.

The Apostle Paul in 1 Thessalonians 5:11 says: “Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing.” The context of this is that one day, those of us who know and love the Lord will be with Him forever. However, I believe we can rightfully apply this to our interactions with people of all ages, not just kids, in terms of specifically praising them in using their talents and abilities to do the right thing.

Is God More Tolerant than He Used to Be?

There seems to be an increasingly popular notion that God as revealed in the Old Testament and God as revealed in the New Testament are very different; not that they are different Gods, but that the way He acts is different during those two periods of history. In the Old Testament, God is seen as vengeful and quick to anger, as shown in instances when even some Israelites are sentenced to death, which is quickly carried out. In fact, sometimes God Himself suddenly (from our perspective) strikes someone down; one prominent example is Uzzah, the Israelite who died because he touched the ark of the Covenant as it was being transported on a cart; you can read the story in 2 Samuel 6:1-8. God in the New Testament, in contrast, is seen as loving, patient, and slow to anger.

First of all, in case you’re not familiar with the regulations regarding transporting the ark of the covenant in Old Testament Israel, here’s what Exodus 25:13-15 says: “Then make poles of acacia wood and overlay them with gold. Insert the poles into the rings on the sides of the chest to carry it. The poles are to remain in the rings of this ark; they are not to be removed.” 2 Samuel 6:6-7 tells us, “When they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah reached out and took hold of the ark of God, because the oxen stumbled. The Lord’s anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down and he died there beside the ark of God.” As R.C. Sproul (now in heaven) has written, the real question is: Why was the ark being transported on a cart?! Furthermore, Uzzah was probably a Levite; more specifically, he was likely a Kohathite, having the responsibility of taking care of the sacred things, in which case he should have known better. If he wasn’t a Kohathite, then he shouldn’t have been walking alongside the ark. And again, the ark was not supposed to be on a cart in the first place, but carried by means of poles inserted into the rings on the sides.

Regardless of the reason for it, some will still say that God was capricious or unfair in striking down Uzzah when he was “just trying to help.” This is perhaps a reflection of our difficulty in comprehending the difference between living under the theocracy of Old Testament Israel and our current world. In his illuminating book Ten Lies about God, Erwin Lutzer makes this point in writing about the old covenant that God made with the Old Testament Israelites compared with the new covenant of the New Testament. Now God calls out people from every tribe, tongue, and nation, forming us into the church. In the Old Testament, the Israelites were God’s chosen people; not that He didn’t also save some people from other nations, but that His people had entered into a covenant: if they obeyed the laws God gave them, they would be blessed; if they disobeyed, they would be punished.

This brings us to another distinction that Lutzer makes: the earthly Mount Sinai vs. the earthly–and especially heavenly–Mount Zion. Mount Sinai was where God gave Moses the Ten Commandments; Mount Zion as used in the Bible is a reference to Jerusalem as a whole, and when God establishes the new heaven and the new earth, there will also be a new Jerusalem, a heavenly one (Revelation 21).

Most significantly of all, from my perspective, Lutzer makes a third distinction between immediate, physical judgment and future, eternal judgment. The Old Testament Israelites were sometimes punished for their disobedience with immediate death; when people in the New Testament era don’t put their trust in Jesus Christ, they are punished for eternity in hell. Lutzer writes: “In a sense we can say that the harsh penalties of the Old Testament demonstrated an overabundance of grace: by seeing these punishments immediately applied, the people had a visual demonstration of why they should fear God. In our day, these penalties are waived, and as a result people are free to misinterpret the patience of God as laxity or indifference. Today God allows sins to accumulate and delays their judgment.” He goes on to quote Romans 2:5: “But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed.” Notice that phrase “storing up wrath;” that should give us pause, to put it mildly. Here’s a related verse, Ecclesiastes 8:11: “When the sentence for a crime is not quickly carried out, the hearts of the people are filled with schemes to do wrong.” Just think of what our contemporary society would be like if sentences for crimes were quickly carried out!

I think it is clear that in general, God’s punishment of individuals tended to be swift in the Old Testament; however, are there instances in the New Testament where the Lord quickly judged disobedient people? Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5 come to mind; the Lord struck them down for lying to the Holy Spirit about land they had sold. A less obvious example is some in the Corinthian church in regard to the Lord’s Supper; the Apostle Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 11:29-30: “For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.” In other words, some believers in the Corinthian church died because of their sin in relation to the Lord’s Supper. As a final contemporary example, in his video series The Holiness of God, R.C. Sproul tells the story of a man who shook his fist and said, “If there is a God, let Him strike me down!” In a matter of days, God did just that.

As I think about the distinction between immediate, physical judgment and future, eternal judgment, which is worse? I suppose the answer is obvious. I think about Uzzah, for example; only the Lord knows a person’s heart, but I believe we will see him in heaven. (I don’t think this applies to all OT Israelites who died suddenly; the rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram in Numbers 16 comes to mind.) Is it going to be better in eternity for someone who lived to be 100–but never trusted Christ–than for Uzzah?

If you’ve made it this far, here are some encouraging words about the Lord’s love and patience with us. 2 Peter 3:9 tells us this: “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” I should add that lest you think the Lord was “impatient” in the Old Testament, here’s what King David wrote in Psalm 103: “The Lord is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in love.” The Lord is indeed patient with us, wanting us to come to repentance. If that doesn’t describe you, I pray that today will be the day when you turn in repentance to Jesus Christ in saving faith. If you have any questions about how to do that, I’ll be more than happy to help you!

Why Do We Do What We Do?

I was born in 1960, so I grew up at a time when obeying your parents and teachers was expected, and they were to be respected. My father was a pastor, and one thing he preached about more than once was the ten commandments, one at a time–OK, maybe not #7, the adultery one. I knew what was expected of me even if I didn’t understand why, but little pagan that I was, it seemed I often found myself in trouble at my local Christian school.

As I grew older, I had a lot of “why” questions about various things, including why I should obey what the Bible said. After I became a Christian at age 20, I gradually found myself having more of a desire to live in obedience; however, as I was reading through Proverbs, Chapter 16:2 brought me up short: “All a man’s ways seem innocent to him, but motives are weighed by the Lord.” Five chapters later, Chapter 21:2 says, “All a man’s ways seem right to him, but the Lord weighs the heart.” I realized that doing the right thing was not enough; it was important for me to understand my own motives. As a prime example, I have always enjoyed compliments of various kinds; who doesn’t? However, I realized that kind of desire was very strong in me after I read Gary Chapman’s The Five Love Languages; words of affirmation were #2 in my ranking (and are probably #1 now). Reading further in Proverbs, here’s what Chapter 27:2 says: “Let another praise you, and not your own mouth; someone else, and not your own lips.” OK, so I realized that I should not boast. However, the second part of Chapter 27:21 takes it a step further: “Man is tested by the praise he receives.” Ouch. In John 12:42-43, we read, “Yet at the same time many even among the leaders believed in him [Jesus]. But because of the Pharisees they would not confess their faith for fear they would be put out of the synagogue; for they loved praise from men more than praise from God.” I had to examine myself; did I love praise from men more than praise from God? How was I to live by this in the deepness of my heart, where only the Lord can truly see?

I eventually found my answer in 1 Corinthians 10:31, which tells us, “So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.” When people praise me, I want to give the glory to God, not to myself; after all, He has given me everything I have. There are times when I have thanked the Lord out loud, depending on who has complimented or thanked me; sometimes I just say “Thank you” (to my ESL students throughout the years, for example), but inwardly, I always try to remember to give Him the glory. I have written more about this here, regarding humility: https://keithpetersenblog.com/2020/05/20/what-does-humility-look-like/; and here, regarding my purpose in life: https://keithpetersenblog.com/2022/01/13/what-is-your-purpose-in-life/.

Another verse I came across that further motivated me to examine my motives is James 4:3: “When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures.” I realized I should always pray that the Lord’s will be done when I pray about something or someone, but this verse took it a step further, emphasizing my motives, once again.

Sometimes we need to ask ourselves corporately, as a church body, about our motives. Last year I was reading in Zechariah 7:5-6, where the Lord tells the prophet this: “Ask all the people of the land and the priests, ‘When you fasted and mourned in the fifth and seventh months for the past seventy years [while you were in captivity in Babylon], was it really for me that you fasted? And when you were eating and drinking, were you not just feasting for yourselves?'” This speaks to our church traditions as well as other religious ones, even fasting: is our focus on the Lord? Do we even understand why we have certain traditions?

Finally, I need to speak to my own tendency to “judge.” I have written about this elsewhere: https://keithpetersenblog.com/2020/08/11/who-are-you-to-judge/ One of the conclusions that I came to was in the form of a question: when I criticize another believer, whether openly or inwardly, am I condemning, or do I genuinely want the person to renounce their sin and live according to the faith that they profess? This again addresses the question of motive.

I suppose someone might ask, “If I can’t do something for the right motive, should I still do it?” I’ll answer that with a brief vignette: When my kids were young, my wife asked me one Saturday if I wanted to go out with her and them, as well as another mom and her kids. My initial response was “No” because I thought how good it would be just to relax at home; my wife didn’t pressure me at all, either. However, as I thought about it, I realized it was something I ought to do regardless of whether I felt like it or not. On the outing, which was out in nature, I realized after a couple of hours that I was actually enjoying it, and I felt the Lord’s smile. That was enough to motivate me in the future: not that it was wrong to stay home sometimes in similar situations, but that it was good and right–and fun!–for me to do things with my family more often than not–especially out in the Lord’s creation!

I trust it’s clear that this post is at least as much about myself as it is about anyone else out there. I have to regularly evaluate why I do what I do. If you’re a believer, I hope you will do the same. If you’re not a believer, I pray that you will be motivated to investigate Christianity in a deeper way.