Do Evolutionists And Creationists View The Family Differently?
by John D. Morris, Ph.D.
Evolution and creation, as ideas about origins, deal with the unobserved past. They agree fully on observational science, it's just the ideas about history that differ. But philosophers tell us that ideas have consequences, and sure enough, men's ideas about their origin affect their view of the present.
Take the human family unit as an example. All but the most deluded liberals would agree that the family unit is an essential part of any society. The best place for children to grow up is in a loving home with the natural parents. Unfortunately, many are deluded these days, either self-deluded or deluded through education. Anti-family forces are gaining more and more influence. It is ICR's contention that the underlying cause is the acceptance of the evolutionary worldview. Ideas have consequences.
Evolutionists say that we are just highly evolved animals. Furthermore, since animal behavior and animal instincts are what got us to this stage, we can look to our ancestors for a model for our behavior.
Recently a spate of articles has appeared in popular evolutionary journals and news magazines dealing with this subject. Animal groups have been studied, and some have been noted to mate for life. But the studies have documented animals "cheating" on their primary mates, and therefore excused humans for occasional flings outside marriage.
Another set of articles dealt with how a female chooses her mate, and how she uses sexual favors to get what she wants. In each, the implication is that animal behavior is a model for human behavior, as reflected by the title of one: "Immorality In Our Genes." Thus evolution is used to justify sin, and its wrong thinking has lead to untold heartache.
Still another set of animal studies highlights group involvement in child rearing, not just the parents. Discriminating readers will recognize the socialist agenda here, that the government knows how to raise children better than the parents alone. (Many reviewers have felt that Hillary Clinton's new book on children, It Takes a Village, falls into this category.)
But what is the creationist alternative? When we go back to Genesis we see that "God created man in His own image . . . male and female created He them" (Genesis 1:27). At first, "The LORD God formed man" (2:7), but "it is not good that man should live alone" (2:18), so from "the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made He a woman, and brought her unto the man" (2:22). "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh" (Genesis 2:24). Such a union would "cleave" together in a life-long relationship of marital fidelity.
Then, "God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply and replenish [fill] the earth" (Genesis 1:28). Scripture gives no hint that children were to be raised by society. Instead, when God chose Abrahem He said, "I know him, that he will command his children . . . after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment" (Genesis 18:19).
Man is distinct from the animals, for they were placed under his "dominion" (Genesis 1:26). Animal behavior is for the animals, not for "the image of God." Evolution claims to have "changed the image of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping thing . . . professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" (Romans 1:23,22).
Wrong thinking begets wrong behavior, and evolution is wrong thinking.
* Dr. Morris is President of ICR.