Is evolutionism scientific?

Time:2020-10-12

Is evolutionism scientific? ——Tang chongrong

Genesis 1 26-27: “God says, let us make men in our likeness and in our likeness, and make them ruler over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the cattle of the earth, and all the earth, and all the creeping insects on the earth. And God created man in his own image, but in his image he made men and women. “

When I was 17 years old, I had a great conflict with the Christian belief caused by the theory of evolution. Finally, I chose the Christian faith. This is a great event. I believe every Christian has faced such conflicts and made a choice.

Who am I? There is an “I” consciousness in every one, and this “I” distinguishes me from “non self”. “I” is me, because “I” is not “non me”; who is “non me”? “Not me” is not “I”. What is my “me”? How do I get to know this “me”?

First of all, I want to explain a very important thing is why I need to know my existence. In the universe, we see two different things: being and being. What is “saving”? We use physics to see what is called existence, and we use existential philosophy to think about what is called existence. You will find that the definition of the same term is completely different.

In the category of physics, whatever occupies space and can be inferred by the laws of matter is an existence; but in the field of philosophy, Existentialism “existence” is a completely different concept. German philosophy makes a strict distinction between being and being. For example: this table exists, but the existence of this table is that I think it exists, not the table itself. This table is an existence that does not consciously exist, and my “knowing its existence” to this table is an existence that I feel it exists. Not only do I feel that this table exists, but I can prove and analyze its existence. My awareness, analysis and cognition of other beings are based on my own existence. Therefore, I am not only aware of the existence outside of me, but also aware of my own existence. Therefore, the consciousness of existence is a very special feeling of human beings.

Are animals aware of this self existence? If there is, it must be very different from our self-consciousness. All perception and understanding of an animal cannot be separated from its basic instinctive problems. Its will, emotion and knowledge are all limited within the scope of its instinct. It displays its feelings within the scope of its instinct and expresses its will within the scope of its instinct. For animals, there is no transcendence beyond this instinct. It is not necessary to say that plants have a much lower perception than animals.

In this way, we can see that the reason why people are human is composed of two different components: one is material, the other is the perception of material existence.

I realize that I exist, and I know that my existence also has the existence of the external material part. So when people ask, “who are you?” You usually say, “it’s me.” Especially when people can’t see you, you call yourself “I”; when you can see, you use your name. What’s the meaning of this sentence? When you knock at the door, you are asked, “who are you?” You say, “it’s me.” Do you know how many me there are in the world? There are nearly half a million me, each of whom is called “I”. Because the other party can’t see you, you first assume that he can know who you are from your voice, so you say, “I”. But when he had seen you, he asked, “who are you?” You will say, “I’m Tang chongrong.” Then you will introduce yourself by name. When you say “I”, you are expressing that I am an “I”, I am a subject. When you mention me, you and him, you are referring to the relationship between the persons.

If you talk to a picture of your lover: “are you good to me?” If that picture says “OK.” You will be scared. How can a piece of paper talk? When you talk to a piece of paper, in fact, you regard the impersonal as the possessive, which is a jump. This picture is not a case at all. It is the person who first has the photo of this person.

When you mention your personal existence, you call yourself the first one. This me is the awareness of the subjectivity of self existence, which separates you from non you. I am therefore I, because I am not a non self, and the non self is not me, because it is not one me. This I am calling myself. There is another word in this me, called self. Everyone has a self. If a man only hopes to know something beyond himself, this is a superficial view of thought. Just like a child, his thought is not deep enough, and his cognition only develops outward. So the little child asked his mother, “what is this? What is that? ” He wants to know about the non self. One day, the child suddenly asked, “what am I?” At that time, his whole thought process will enter into a new stage, that is, to recognize himself.

People want to know themselves. The whole universe, the whole world, except people, you can’t find any kind of living things, have the desire to know yourself. Where does the desire for self cognition come from? I want to know who I am, so I ask a question: “who am I?” In the collective sense, people should know who they are.

What is a man? This is a very serious problem.

“Who asks this question?”

“Man asks the question.”

“Whom does he ask?”

“Himself.”

“What does he ask?”

“He asks,’what is man?”

So when people ask, “what are people?” There are three problems

The first question “who asked”?

The second question is “who to ask”?

The third question is “what to ask”?

When you look at the answers to these three questions,

“Asked the man

“Ask who?”

“Ask people.”

“What are you asking?”

“Ask what people are.”

This is a human question.

When we have not mentioned the difference between creationism and evolutionism, we should first mention the cognitive desire of human beings. We not only refer to being and being aware, but also to knowing and being known. “Knowledge” is the existence of the talent, I want to know, when “know”, you are in the subjective position, so now I stand in the position of subjectivity or objectivity? When I want to know people, people become the objects to be known, which leads to the mixture between the subject and the object in which people regard themselves as subjects and objects. People need to know what people are, what they want to know is people, what they want to know is also people, so why do they want to know people? On the one hand, they don’t know; on the other hand, they can know. People want to know. They are willing to know, and they want to know what they don’t know. So what they need to know is what they want to know but they don’t know. Therefore, it is very difficult to understand people.

What we want to think about is not only my own affairs, but also a super historical nature. What is super historicity? I have lived in the world for only a few decades, but I will not be satisfied with these decades just because I was born a few decades ago and died a few decades later. In terms of cognition, I and the known I are a mixture of subject and object. But in my transcendence, I can be eliminated in time and history. However, one of my cognitions is beyond time and space. Therefore, I hope to know what happened thousands of years ago and what the final outcome of the whole human race will be in the future. In this way, cognition will transcend Time transcends space, which is one of the reasons why human beings can have history.

There is not only awareness in me, but also cognition in me. There is also a permanence in me, which transcends the temporary. Therefore, it is very superficial to understand human beings with zoology, to understand human existence with physics, and to explain human life for decades. How can man equate himself with animals? How can people equate themselves with matter? How can people equate themselves with decades of history? This consciousness, transcendence and cognition are the reasons why people are human beings.

What is man composed of? What is man made of? If we do not look at people from the above aspects, our understanding of people will be very one-sided. If a person is wrong about his own consciousness and misunderstanding of himself, his life will be a pity.

When I was 17 years old, I was studying in a left-wing school, so the dialectical materialism, atheism, monism of historical development and the idea of evolution completely shocked me to know where to go. On the other hand, although I had been to the church, to the chapel, and heard the preacher preaching, I was tired of it. At such a wandering fork in the road, I thought One question: is it because I am Chinese that I have to protect Chinese culture to identify with people’s opposition? Have I ever participated in church activities, so I have to stand in the Christian position to defend Christianity? Or is it because I am a person who has received modern education that I should accept modern ideas to confront all traditional theories? How much I wish to stand in a neutral position and base my faith on truth, not on hypothesis, not on my own tradition.

I want to be a loyal person, but who am I loyal to? (I must be faithful, but trustworthy to who? Shoud I be trustworthy to myself? So I hope to be a man of truth.

What does it mean to be faithful to the truth?

Cognition is related to the noumenon of truth. This cognitive instinct must have something to do with the reality of the truth itself, because I want to know the truth. What attracts me to know the truth? It is the truth itself that attracts me to know the truth, so that the truth must have something to do with me.

Truth and knowledge of truth are not the same thing. Is it that I am greater than the truth I know, or is the truth greater than I who can know the truth? I know the truth. Am I greater than the truth I know? Or is truth bigger than me who knows the truth? This involves what is called truth.

Physics has the theory of physics, astronomy has the principles of astronomy, geology has the laws of Geology The general conclusion of all these is the truth of wholeness; in each department, the truth of fragments is the truth of different categories.

When we talk about truth, our concept requires us to have a unity and integrity entity, so this truth is unique, and then we can understand it from various angles and different scopes. Our thinking about people, thinking about where people come from, can’t escape the whole system. Now let’s explore two different descriptions of the origin of human beings.

The first is creationism and the second is evolutionism. In Christian thought, God created man; in evolutionism, it evolved from the lower creatures to the higher ones, and finally to the human beings. The two are quite different: one is an ancient thought, the other is a modern one; one is known by revelation, the other is from observation; one needs belief, the other does not seem to need belief, and comparison is rational; one belongs to religion, the other belongs to science. So where do people come from? Should I accept the theory handed down from ancient times or accept modern research? Should I accept the theory of revelation or observe the facts as the subject? Is this the origin of my faith to bear? Am I a passive acceptor in the field of religion or a researcher in the sphere of science?

Let’s first compare whether these relativities are true. When did evolution begin? You say that it started in 1859 when Darwin (Charles 1809.2.12 ~ 1882.4.19) wrote the origin of species. After this book was written, it completely refreshed the whole outlook on the universe, human beings, politics and society. This is a modern theory. I’m sorry, if you believe me. Evolutionism is not a modern theory. It has existed since 2500 years ago. The first idea came from Thales of Miletus. Thales was the father of the ancient Greek thought. He believed that everything was formed from change. What is the most basic ultimate entity of change? Anaximander (610-546 / 545 B.C.) of Thales continued to study the subject, and Anaximenes of Anaximander, a student of Anaximander, continued to study the subject Milctus activity period about 545 B.C.) and then continue to study, so until the highest level, Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) said: from low-level cells, low-level organisms, very simple biological evolution to more complex, more complex, more complex, and finally the most complex, is human. So the theory of evolution didn’t start with Darwin. Aristotle was the first to have this idea. After 2400 years, Darwin just re developed the theory. Teilhard de Chardin (Pierre, 1881.5.1 ~ 1955.4.10), a modern French Catholic theologian, had a theory called “complexity of complexity” – from simple to complex, gradually, consciousness became higher and higher.

Why did Thales and Aristotle have such thoughts? If you study philosophy, it was the golden age of metaphysics before that. When people look at the world like this, what can be explained is called science. When people continue to ask: “this world is like this, why is it so?” That is to say, as it is, we should also know why. Knowing its nature is science and metaphysics. Therefore, it is metaphysics.

After the 19th century, there was a man named Wallace (Alfred Russell, 1823.1.8 ~ 1913.11.7), who studied the same theories with Darwin at the same time and published the same theories in the same year. Darwin was very strange. How could this younger man study these theories at the same time? In that year, when two people also published the conceptual theory on biological evolution, they became good friends. However, they had a very important different point of view, which will be discussed later.

After Wallace and Darwin, there were two other people who quickly extended this theory to the English world, one was Spencer (Herbert 1820.4.27 ~ 1903.12.8), the other was Huxley (Thomas Henry 1825.5.4 ~ 1895.6.29). They published their philosophical theories from the standpoint of agnosticism (agnosticism was changed from a word Gnosticism in ancient Greece to agnosticism, agnosticism is no Gnosticism, just like the a of atheism in front of theism, it becomes non theism, and atheism becomes atheism). Agnosticism means that we have no way to know the final truth, and we have no way to understand the ultimate entity. But when agnostics are in favor of evolution, they seem to speak from the standpoint of a non agnostic. You talk to them about Christian faith, and they say, “I don’t know.” If you talk to him about evolution, he says, “you know.” These two people extended the theory of evolution to English speaking areas all over the world.

Now we want to mention two things: the first thing is, what kind of philosophy is evolution based on? (please note, I’m not talking about any kind of science, because evolution is not science at all) evolution is based on philosophy of becoming. In ancient Greece, there was a school called philosophy of being and philosophy of becoming, which was expressed in two words: one is the philosophy of being, the other is the philosophy of change. It is static view in “yes” and dynamic view in “variable”. (the idea of “change” is the meaning of “Yi” in the book of changes of the Chinese people Therefore, strictly speaking, “evolution is based on the philosophy of change”, everything is changeable. This is the first point: second, what is the method of evolution? It is the method of making other arguments with hypothesis. So first, it is based on the philosophy of change, and second, it is based on the hypothetical methodology. Its philosophical basis is the philosophy of change], and its methodology is based on a kind of hypothesis. Why do you say that? Because the whole theory is derived from the hypothesis, Darwin did make great efforts to observe the dynamics of various fossils and ecological organisms in different places. But don’t forget that when he wrote the book “the origin of species”, he used such terms as “we may imagine”, “if assume” and “hypothesis”. So this book itself is based on the hypothetical methodology. If you take evolution as a science, I will say to you seriously: “you are still wrong!” So evolution was a hypothetical theory from the beginning.

Three years later, in 1862, Darwin wrote a letter to a professor at Oxford University. He said, “the principle of natural selection must be completely eliminated, because I have not yet found enough evidence. I have not proved it myself.” If you refer to some books, you will find that he got a very disappointed conclusion from the evidence of fossils, because the counter evidence in the fossils is very obvious, which is not consistent with many theories he wrote.

Another two, Lamarck, Jean Baptiste Monet, Chevalier de 1744.8.1-1829.12.18, a Frenchman before Darwin, believed that acquired habits and habits could be inherited. After Darwin, Mendel, Gregor Johann (1822.7.22 ~ 1884.1.6), completely denied the theory of evolution. One, Nelson, wrote a book called after its kind. Mendel said, “but Darwin read Nelson’s book first, and he probably wouldn’t dare to publish his origin of species.” It has been 127 years since this book was published. We have seen that new discoveries in the field of science are increasingly detrimental to the theory of evolution. Take a simple example of mutation: “mutation does not produce evolution, but degeneration, which is proved repeatedly by current science. The mutation produces crisis, not the continuation of existence]. In your cells, when there’s a mutation, it’s cancer, not a mutation that makes you have wings and you can fly.

So to this day, I’m still skeptical about evolution. Why? Because evolution itself is not a science. From its philosophy, its premise and methodology, and from its evidence, it will take a long time. Maybe in our lifetime, we can not find a theory that really supports it.

So 200 years later, science is getting more and more advanced. Can’t we support it? It’s not that simple, so don’t let this problem stop you from accepting Jesus Christ. You say, “when I encounter difficulties in science, will I quit?” No, if you encounter difficulties in science, don’t step back. But in non science, it’s unnecessary for you to keep going.

[evolutionism is that philosophy enters into the scope of Science in the name of Science]. That is to use the method of philosophy to study the category of science. So you can continue to study biology, you can study zoology, you can study animal ecology, you can study the pathology and physiology of every animal. However, when you want to say that each of them is from this to that and that to this, you need a lot of confidence.

Is evolution modern? no Is evolution scientific? no Is evolution completely rational? no Does evolution come from observation? Neither! The theory of evolution comes from the hypothesis.

What does evolution have to do with faith? Evolution needs a lot of confidence. To believe that man is made by God, you need confidence. To believe that man is a monkey, you need more confidence. So do not ridicule the Christian faith and say, “you are superstitious.” I want to tell you that you miss that human beings are changed by animals, which is also a belief, because it is not scientific evidence, it is faith.

The reason why evolution is accepted by atheism is that there is a more convenient way to explain the origin of human beings. Therefore, the basic motivation for people to accept evolutionary theory is not because it is scientific, but because it can cater to their anti religious psychology.

In 1859, Darwin wrote the origin of species. In 1860, Marx (Karl, 1818.5.5 ~ 1883.3.14) finished reading and wrote a letter to Darwin, which said, “thank you. Your theory has greatly helped my Communist thought.” Why? Because Marx’s theory is established from several aspects. In terms of cosmology, he accepted Feuerbach (Ludwig [Andreas] 1804.7.28 ~ 1872.9.13) and established a mechanical materialist view of the universe; in terms of historical methods, he accepted Hegel, George Wilhelm Friedrich (1770.8.27 ~ 1831.11.14) is a materialist dialectic method; from the aspect of social analysis, he produced his own capital theory, and capital is the reason that affects the whole social change. When Marx put these three theories together, they became materialistic and dialectical communism and dialectical materialism communism. However, the whole theory lacks a final source, and he does not want God (because after being influenced by Feuerbach, one will inevitably have an idea against God. We will not explain this aspect here, because it belongs to another topic). He thinks that this must be unscientific, superstitious, ancient, wrong, and numb Religion must be the opium of the people. When a person has such a premise, you ask him, “then where do people come from? He has nothing to say. Suddenly, a theory of evolution came out, which is good. It can complete his whole theory. No wonder Marx thanks Darwin. He said, “thank you. In order to thank you, I read one of your books. Now I give you dozens of my books and give you my capital.” After reading the letter, Darwin replied, “thank you. I don’t want your book.” I don’t know if Darwin was honest or not. Maybe he didn’t have time to look at it.

In his old age, Darwin did not become an atheist. He even thought it was too strange for someone to accept his hypothesis as a religious belief.

Now let’s talk about the point that we haven’t had a chance to start just now, that is, Wallace and Darwin have a big debate. What kind of debate? This argument made Spencer and Huxley feel that if man evolved from evolution, does it mean that when evolution reaches a certain stage, it will change from irrational to rational? The instinct of reason and reasoning is the most dignified part of human beings. Is it evolutionary? Wallace said, “No Darwin said, “it could be.” The two men are at odds on this matter. Later, Huxley and Spencer both admitted that “conscience and reason are not the result of evolution.”

Now I begin to draw a conclusion (I haven’t talked to you about the Christian outlook on life, because this topic is too big. It can’t last a week to talk about it.) I would like to draw your attention to some of the conclusions I have to make, which are about rational conscience.

When I was a child, I asked my mother, “why do every cow have the same face?” My mother doesn’t read much, but she is very smart. I think if she has the chance to receive more education, she will get high honor. How does she answer? She said, “cow, everyone’s face is the same.” I don’t know why my mother knows that cattle look at everyone the same? I thought over and over what my mother said and I thought it was very interesting. When I was preaching in Europe, Europeans asked me, “Why are you Asian faces the same?” I said, “we look at European faces the same way.” “Really?” I said, “yes.” If we Chinese look at it more, we will know that this one is probably Shanghai face, this one is probably Taiwan face, this one is probably from Indonesia, this is probably Korean face, this is Japanese face, why? The more you know, the better you know how to distinguish. Please note that I want to draw a very simple conclusion: [shallow thinking people only look at the same points, deep thinking people look at different points].

Evolutionism assumes the evolutionary process from the similarities between animals and humans, and when God enlightens us, it tells us to pay attention to the differences between humans and animals.

There is only one aspect in which people and animals are the same, that is, the physical nature (Reader: the body belongs to the material aspect). What is the difference between human beings and animals? There are virtues, rationality, existence, persistence, savvy, and others, such as worship and religion. These things are too much.

I don’t know why many learned people are willing to put themselves on the same level as animals? What is the answer from the Bible? God created man in his image. The reason why people are human is that they are like God, not like animals. People like God have become the biggest impact of human culture; people like God have become the greatest description of our self-esteem; people like God have become the highest goal of our struggle; people like God are the affirmation of our highest value. In this way, know God and his revelation, so that you know that you are human.

Please pay attention to the words “Xiang” and “Shi”. “Xiang” is not “yes” and “Shi” does not need “Xiang”. If someone says, “you are very much like President Ronald Reagan (1911.2.6 ~) So you have to ask, “what’s like him?” Like his age? I don’t want it. It’s seventy-eight or ten years old. Is it like his courage? Like his thoughts? Like his political views? If he says, “he’s the best you’re like.” “Don’t be too happy like you, but it’s not like you.”. If he’s Reagan, you don’t have to say to him, “you look like the president of the United States.” Do you understand?

The Bible says that man is like God. Evolution theory: human beings are like monkeys. The Bible says: man is not God, man is not animal, man is man. What do you think of yourself?

Once I was preaching at Cornell University in the United States, a Chinese student specially invited a Chinese professor to listen: “please come and listen to the preacher Tang chongrong tonight.” The Chinese professor said, “what is he going to say? Is it about God? ” The student said, “yes, yes, he wants to talk about God.” The professor said, “I don’t have to listen. I’m God.” I am God! He’s not like God, he’s God. “Are you God? Where are you from, please “Mother gave birth to it.” Your mother must be a godmother “And where does your mother come from?” “From mom’s mother.” “Where does mother’s mother come from?” “Mom’s mom’s mom’s mom’s mom…” “Where did the first mother come from?” You say, “from a monkey.” Is it possible for man not to accept creationism, not God, but to be God himself? It can’t be done. They can’t become God, and finally become the offspring of monkeys. This is what people have to admit.

I now draw a conclusion from my whole observation that I think human beings are pitiful. When a man obeys God and humbly accepts his revelation that man is made in the image of God. From this starting point, you can see human dignity, human possibilities, human goals, God’s plan in you.

May we be a man of critical thinking.