By Ted Baehr, Jeff Holder, and Tom Snyder
For years, the mass media has been trying to turn science against religion while trying to demonize anyone who believes in more traditional, and more biblical, forms of Christianity and Judaism.
Such is the case with the new movie “Creation,” which opens in two or more cities Christmas day, and wider on Jan. 22, 2010.
Despite its title, “Creation” is not about God creating the Earth. Instead, it’s the story of evolution’s founding father, Charles Darwin, and his struggle to write the book that would “kill God.”
Moving forward and backward in time, the movie shows Darwin’s Christian wife struggling with her husband’s increasing lack of Christian faith. It also mocks the Christians who oppose him by presenting them in the worst sort of way.
Eventually, Darwin gives his book to his wife to read. She does and then tells him that she agrees with him and that the book should be published. She says that she now is “an accomplice” and adds, “May God forgive us both.”
There is a constant discussion of science vs. religion in “Creation” and evolution as the only rational truth. This is a one-sided bit of propaganda, however, because there is much that is not said. For instance, evolutionists have yet to produce any tangible evidence of intermediary species, that is, evidence that an ape turned into a human. Scientists should have found thousands upon thousands of transitional species in the fossil record, if Darwinism were true, but such fossils have never really been found. In fact, the evidence against the gradual evolution of Darwin is so startling that many alleged scientists have either had to fake the evidence or change the theory completely, as in the “punctuated equilibrium” theory of the late Stephen Gould. Either way you look at it, Darwinism has been proven false.
Also, the movie does not mention that in his book, “The Origin of Species,” Darwin wrote about the human eye, “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” Evolution scientists have never produced an adequate explanation for the creation of the human eye, much less for the complexity of a single gene or of the human brain, the seat of rational human thought and the physical connection to our individual souls or spirits. Neither can they explain the origin of such abstract concepts as the laws of logic, love, morality, or ethics.
“Creation” uses fallacious “straw men” arguments by crudely depicting the Christians in its story as closed minded, cruel people. This convenient kind of portrayal is a primary technique of ill-conceived propaganda movies like this one. Not only does it hurt the movie’s humanist, anti-Christian arguments in support of Charles Darwin and evolution theory, it’s also poor filmmaking.
The Charles Darwin depicted in the movie uses “teaching moments” with his children, telling them stories about Christian missionaries attempting to convert “savages” who only went back to being savages. This part of the movie seems slightly racist. After all, the subtitle of Darwin’s book actually is, “The Preservation of Favoured Races [emphasis added] in the Struggle for Life.”
Another failure is the movie’s neglect to tell viewers that Darwin’s wife was actually a Unitarian. Unitarian beliefs are actually anti-Christian, unbiblical, and heretical, but they were widespread in England and parts of America at the time Darwin lived. Thus, in one sense, it was the weakness in Emma’s own faith to begin with that led her to marry Darwin in the first place and, eventually, accept his false theory.
At one point in the movie, Darwin tells his sick child, Annie, the story of “Jenny,” an orangutan who died in the arms of the zookeeper, hugging the man just like a human would. Also, Darwin has visions of animals decomposing. From these occult visions, he gets his ideas about natural selection. He points out to his children the savagery in nature and the necessity for violence. Such a pessimistic worldview is unbalanced and clearly not scientific.
That said, evolutionary thinkers like to demonize the views of their opponents by calling their explanations “unscientific.” The idea of what is science and what is not science, however, is a philosophical question, not a scientific question. As such, most evolutionary “scientists” are ill equipped to answer it.
The fact that “Creation” is so well done makes it an even more dangerous piece of one-sided propaganda. Mud, nicely wrapped with a bow, is still mud. A lie that there is no God and that somehow intelligent human beings randomly showed up here on Earth, with no conscious design, is still a lie, even if it’s well written and well acted.
The true “missing link” for Darwin and his modern day disciples is that the world we see today suffers from the fall of mankind and subsequent curse of God. The world was not made to have the violence it does, but God also made a world where goodness is possible, and where survival of the fittest is not the only concern of rational human beings. Ultimately, the responsibility for the violence and savagery in the world lies within our own fallen nature as sinful people.
The Good News is that God has made a way of salvation from sin through Jesus Christ. Jesus is healing the human race and its broken relationship with God, through the power of the Holy Spirit. One day, He will return to complete that sacred, divine work.