Why don’t you link evolutionist sites?
Why don’t you provide a debate forum on this web site?
Douglas B. Sharp
a response to a question.
I think that your question points out a difference in focus in our web site. We provide links to creationist sites that provide links to evolutionist sites, but our focus is clearly evangelistic in much the same way as a pastor would preach a sermon. We want to persuade others to recognize God as creator and Jesus Christ as Lord. Would it be in our interest to provide links to views that detract from that purpose? If a person is intent on finding the opposing viewpoint, there are plenty of ways that he can do so. If evolutionists want to express their views, it is relatively inexpensive for them to put up their own web page, but since we are paying for space, it does not make sense to us to use that space for articles defending evolution.
We want this web site to be a positive place where young people can go to find answers to their questions. We have to answer to God for what we publish, and in doing so, we must be selective. Even with that restriction, in a number of places we do publish questions posed by evolutionists and our answers.
In the academic world there is an inordinate emphasis and value placed upon debate. This is really a Marxist-humanist idea: thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. Our purpose is to focus and emphasize that which is truth. Instead of spending so much time trying to answer a myriad of false arguments, we focus on what we know to be true, and continue to refine that as we grow in our knowledge. We continually monitor as many issues as we can and will correct anything on our web site when new information reveals the need to do so.
There may be a place for a debate type of forum, and there are others that do that quite well, but that is not our purpose or focus. In this choice we have made, we risk being called biased. In that we admit, much in the same way as we are biased toward steak and baked potatoes with hot apple pie a la mode. We are only advocating that which we have tasted and found to be good. There is no need in our mind to keep endless lists of unpalatable cuisine, nor do we want to sample each one or advocate that for everyone.
Did Jesus Christ spend a lot of time with debate? No. He instead taught with authority. Church websites do not link in the pornography websites to give equal time, at least if they want to maintain their integrity. We believe that many of the social issues such as racism, pornography, abortion, violence, have roots in the evolutionary world-view. Let us suppose that a church board decided to build on their parking lot a pit of quicksand, a pit of hot tar, another pit with molten lava, and yet another pit containing three hungry tigers. How long would it be before one of their members has an accident and gets smothered, burned or eaten alive?
It is difficult enough for those who have to face the peer pressure in high school and college against their faith without their own church widening the highway for them to explore destructive ideas and beliefs. The church is not a smorgasbord at which you encourage members to try out different beliefs. Because of that, we will only link the sites whose beliefs we endorse, or those that provide information that are valuable. It is amazing that the same people that insist that creation is not appropriate to be taught in the public schools ask us to spend our money for web space to give equal time to the evolutionary point of view. Since most public schools present only one viewpoint, we have already paid once in taxes to have evolution taught.
Recently I received a nasty-gram concerning this policy, and I think a few further explanations might be valuable. If evolutionists link to this site, why don’t we return the favor? After all, if all points of view are presented, won’t the truth eventually win out?
I don’t think so. It is a rare individual who is trained to detect fallacies in logic and reasoning. In addition, some of the evolution sites contain filthy language and other material that is not appropriate for young people to sample. Most people, including college students, do not recognize appeals to ad-hominem, intellectual peer-pressure, tautologies, circular reasoning, and the like. Therefore they are unprepared to sort out false ideas from the truth.
There is also an almost perverse attraction to that which is false. For example, if you wrote two books “How to Sin in Hollywood” and “How to be Righteous in Hollywood,” which one would sell the most? It would be the former, because it appeals to a philosophy that does not impose requirements on the readers to change their lifestyle. It takes an active decision upon the part of an individual to choose what is right. The Bible teaches us that man’s tendency is to gravitate towards sin continually, and needs a relationship with Jesus Christ to lead him to the truth. The evolutionist philosopher believes that man’s heart is inherently good, and that his own intellect and wisdom will lead him to the truth. Here I believe that the evolutionist fools himself. No matter how smart he is, there is always something that he does not know. The more he learns, the more questions are raised. In addition, if a person has the truth, he is responsible to live his life according to the truth. Most people would rather live a lie than face the truth.
Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth and the life. No man can come unto the Father but by me.” A Christian is one who chooses to embrace Jesus as Lord and ultimate authority in his life, and to develop a relationship where he can hear his voice and recognize his leading. He is Creator, Lord God and Savior, and as our Creator he has the optimum plan for our lives. Instead of relying on intellect and wits to know the truth, a Christian should know the voice of Jesus and by remaining close to Him, have everything he needs.
If I believe this, then I am responsible to my readers to present what I know to be the truth to the best of my knowledge. I am not going to link to a site that detracts from the purposes that I believe God would have me present. Besides I have enough trouble keeping my links up to date for the sites that I know have decent material. The notion that you should consider all ideas, sample and test every one of them, and by the process of elimination come up with what you may think to be the truth may sound “scientific.” But the more ideas that you consider, the greater the chance you will choose the one that is false. I believe that unless Jesus is guiding a person that using this method will ultimately lead to a false conclusion, especially in the cases where it involves a moral decision. With this, I am not being “anti-scientific.” There is a place for deductive and inductive reasoning. But I am advocating that without a moral compass the scientific method ultimately fails. It is not what you know, but whom you know that determines truth!
Getting to know the Spirit of God produces a certain kind of fruit that is recognizable. Galatians 5:22-23 says, “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, (23) Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.” If the spirit behind a web site exhibits these characteristics, and the subject is appropriate there is an excellent chance that I will provide a link. If I want to remain consistent with these fruits, then I do not want a vulnerable junior high school student jumping from this web site to one that would offer a subtle temptation to question the existence of God.
In the Garden of Eden, Satan presented Eve with the choice of sampling the fruit of the knowledge of good and of evil. Adam and Eve already had a pure relationship with their Creator; they needed nothing else. Satan convinced them that they were “missing out” by not knowing evil. The only things they were missing were heartache, misery, death and destruction.