A candid admission
The real issue behind the creation/evolution battle over origins
I must admit, the ferocity of many of the hostile comments we receive in response to our articles has surprised me.
A decade ago I naively thought that when people could be shown via creation science information that the Bible’s account of history can be trusted, they would excitedly embrace the truth—the salvation freely offered through Jesus Christ, our Creator and our Lord.
But now, the doggedness some correspondents show in refusing to accept obvious, observable facts prompted me to frustratedly say to a CMI colleague, “I feel like I’m bashing my head against a brick wall. We practically gift-wrap the truth for people in our articles, yet many still can’t see it.”
Hearing this, another Christian friend said, “Actually, I think in some cases it’s not that they can’t see it, it’s that they won’t see it.”
‘Uh-oh, I can see where that question leads … but it can’t, we can’t go there … because the consequences of that would change my whole life …’—Brev, a self-declared ‘seeker after truth’
In light of a recent experience during a speaking ministry tour, I suspect he’s right. After giving a creation presentation, it’s not unusual to have someone come up and say, “I’m an atheist”, and then proceed to ask hostile questions. But recently, a young man whom I’ll call Brev1 introduced himself quite differently. His first words were, “I’m a seeker after truth”—and then he proceeded to ask hostile questions. On the existence of God, Brev said he was more agnostic than atheist.
His questions were against the background of his thinking that the universe can be explained via yin and yang forces over billions of years. I turned the questions back onto his own mixed-up views, and after about 45 minutes we got to the point where I asked him a simple yes/no question about whether there was any possibility that the history outlined in the Bible might be true. To my amazement, Brev said (after a long reflective pause) something that I’ve never previously heard any atheist or agnostic dare to admit: “Uh-oh, I can see where that question leads … but it can’t, we can’t go there … because the consequences of that would change my whole life—if the Bible’s history is true then I’d have to devote my whole life to serving God … The commitment would be too great … No, it’s impossible.”
Brev’s candid admission helps explain why the battle over the truth of the Bible’s historical account is so fierce
Brev’s candid admission helps explain why the battle over the truth of the Bible’s historical account is so fierce. Brev’s candour is in stark contrast to atheists and agnostics who won’t admit what their real objection to the creation message is. And in one sense, Brev is right. If the history of the Bible is correct, then the implications are indeed huge for every individual alive today. There is indeed a ‘cost’—something Jesus spoke of (Luke 14:25–33). But having been on both sides of the divide2 (for I was once an atheist, living in line with the selfish purposelessness conveniently bestowed by the evolutionary paradigm), I can say that, for me, it’s a clear choice. There is nothing more satisfying than to joyfully commit your whole life to serving your Creator God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength—we are here for a purpose.
- Not his real name. Return to text.
- Note, it is not a ‘fence’ (cf. the ‘great chasm’ of Luke 16:26). Jesus said one is either for or against him (Matthew 12:30, Mark 9:40, Luke 11:23). As Brev’s admission shows, an agnostic is not truly neutral. ‘Fence-sitting’ on this issue is not an option for anyone. Return to text.