How society should change if evolution is true

The beginning and development of the universe and all life, we are told, was through natural evolution.
No churches if evolution trueIt was a random process that took millions of years. Yet we are assured that it is a scientific fact. Evolution is the exact opposite of supernatural creation where God planned it all with a purpose and did it in 6 days.

If evolution is true without a shadow of a doubt, society should have changed in the following ways:


No amount of creation make-belief will convince Christians that the Bible is true. They will realise that there is no God, Jesus, or Holy Spirit. Churches would have closed a few years after Darwin published his book in 1859. So it was unnecessary to train ministers and evangelists. Theological colleges closed. Theological books and Bibles were burnt or recycled. Former ministers  of the Gospel changed to whatever job they found, because there were no active churches.


There will be no debates between hated creationists and highly trained evolutionary scientists (it will save a lot of time). Scientists will be able to concentrate on science. There will be no evolutionary biologists and geneticists. They no longer need to vindicate Darwin, because he triumphed, and evolution is as much a fact of life as gravity.


People like Richard Dawkins will be jobless, because there will be no need to evangelise for atheism. All people will automatically, by default, be atheists. ‘Religion’ will not be an issue. So nobody will write books that there is no God.


Museums won’t need to organise and display special programs to teach evolution. National Geographic won’t need to make nature programs to ‘sell’ evolution to the masses. Organisations like the National Centre for Science Education that protect evolution against criticism, will not exist.


Oh, it will be so wonderful without a God. There will be no more terrible wars by the Christians, and no more persecution of honest evolutionists who are harassed by ‘creationists.’ 1 There will be no problems, crime, or anything that disturb the peace and happiness in the atheistic Utopia. People will just live and enjoy a life without accountability.


This scenario has not arrived, so maybe evolution is not as true as they want us to believe. In the meantime, Bible believers are urged by atheists and evolutionists not to despair. Christianity is a faith without evidence, while evolution has evidence. The Bible teaches that what you say about others, might apply to yourself.2  In this instance it is very true: it is not Biblical faith that is without evidence (the Bible is history written down by eye-witnesses), evolution is a faith in things that no one has ever seen. It is without evidence.


Question: If evolution is a fact, why does it regard Biblical creation as its enemy?


  1. R Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth, Bantam Press, 2009, p 15, ‘The plight of science teachers today is not less dire.  When they attempt to expound the central and guiding principle of biology; when they honestly place the living world in its historical context – which means evolution; when they explore and explain the very nature of life itself, they are harried and stymied, hassled and bullied, even threatened with loss of their jobs.’
  2. Romans 2:1, ‘You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.’


Author: Gerard and Alida

As you can see in the photo, there are two of us. We live and work together 24/7, studying and enjoying our grandchildren. Our passion is to know and understand what will happen after death. Is there a way to provide for and invest in that?

10 thoughts on “How society should change if evolution is true”

  1. If Christianity is absolutely true, then why does the majority of the world think it is not? Certainly the same expectations of undeniable veracity for evolution would apply to Christianity. Your demands for the outcome of an undeniable fact don’t even pan out for what you, yourself, believe to be an undeniable fact.


    1. Thank you for your comment. Is the following paraphrase of what you meant correct? ‘We claim: if evolution is true, all vestiges of Christianity should disappear. You reason, if the Bible is true, then the whole world should believe it.’
      The following three examples show that the majority have never embraced the God of the Bible. The chances that they will do so in the present or the future are nil.
      The generation of people who rejected God and died in the flood must have been large. Only Noah was declared righteous and walked with God, Genesis 6:9.
      Of God’s chosen nation, the Israelites, only a remnant will be saved, A remnant will return, a remnant of Jacob will return to the mighty God, Isaiah 10:21.
      Jesus said in Matthew 7:13, Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
      There is no indication in Scripture that the majority ever embraced the message of God. The Bible, as a reliable witness of the invisible God, was and is never going to be palatable to the majority.

      If we misunderstand exactly what you meant, please let us know. Blessings.


      1. My synopsis would be, if things which are true obliterate all vestiges of things which conflict with them, as you would suggest ought to be the case with evolution, then why isn’t Christianity unopposed? You give examples that show that the majority have never followed the Abrahamic god, which of course doesn’t rely on scripture to present, but this does not explain why you expect differently for evolution.

        Of course, I can tell why you expect differently, and that is because you a priori believe evolution to be false, and people to be primarily logical. However, your article does not provide evidence that evolution is false, nor any reason why evolution would so universally squash specifically Christianity. It only appears to be valid from the uncritical perspective of already believing it to be valid.


      2. Dear sir, thanks for your civil comments. The reason we expect differently from evolution than from Christianity, is that the Bible makes full provision for freedom of choice, enemies and aggression. If evolution is true, the God of the Bible who created the universe and all life in 6 days, does not exist (it does not apply to religions like Islam, Hinduism, et cetera).

        You say we have a priori belief that evolution is not true and the Bible is. You encourage us to discuss the whole issue of evolution, the Bible, and why the two origins accounts conflict. The blogs will follow. Blessings.


      3. I don’t hold to the opinion that evolution so conclusively decimates god belief, but running with your assumption: if evolution is true, the God of the Bible who created the universe and all life in 6 days, does not exist, and never has. Why, then, should people’s behavior change from the state prior to that realization to suddenly become innately logical and submissive?


      4. Sir, Julain Huxley said, ‘Darwin pointed out that no supernatural designer was needed; since natural selection could account for any known form of life….We can dismiss entirely all idea of a supernatural overriding mind being responsible for the evolutionary process.’ If you are implying that people who initially believed in God and the Bible, and then changes into atheists, become innately logical and submissive, that is your subjective opinion. We beg to differ, and that is where the difference is. We believe that anybody who trusts in evolution is not logical since there is no evidence for it. Thanks.


      5. The question I am raising is why, if there never was a god, would people suddenly change given the discovery of evolution? There never was a god causing them to behave in their certain manner to begin with, causing them to disbelieve in evolution, or debate scientists on the merits of Noah’s ark – they did that of their own volition. Why, if they do that all on their own, would it just stop? Absolutely no scientist is making the claim that it would.

        Huxley may have said that we can dismiss the idea of the supernatural, but he certainly didn’t say that people would. I am not suggesting that people who changed to atheists became logical or submissive, I am suggesting that that is what you are suggesting in your post by saying that, upon realization that evolution is true, all religion suddenly stops and that people will drop it like it meant nothing to them. People are not innately logical or submissive, and there is no reason why one should expect them to just roll over and let their deeply held beliefs disappear.

        You’re running your thought exercise in a world which doesn’t exist.


      6. Sir, we appreciate your comments. Do we understand you correctly on the following points?

        Why, if there never was a god would people suddenly change given the discovery of evolution? …causing them to disbelieve in evolution, or debate scientists on the merits of Noah’s ark. Our point is not that there never was a God. We constitute that there is a Creator God, because evolution is not true. That is why people disbelieve in evolution, or debate scientists on the merits of Noah’s ark.

        People are not innately logical or submissive, and there is no reason why one should expect them to just roll over and let their deeply held beliefs disappear. People might not be innately logical or submissive, but they are not stupid. They realise that there is a Creator and evolution requires too many guesses about the unseen past to be scientifically true.

        You’re running your thought exercise in a world which doesn’t exist. That is true. In the real world, there is a Creator God, and evolution has never been proven true. If you object, how did first life, ATP, DNA, meiosis, mitosis, proteins, enzymes, cellular respiration, photosynthesis, et cetera, evolve?


      7. I am not making the assertion that you are saying that there never was a god. What I am saying is that your scenario acts as though there were one, but upon discovery of evolution, he up and left, causing the entire world to suddenly, and without objection, fall in line behind the fact of evolution. There is no reason to think that this would happen.

        The fact of the matter is, if there is no god, then the majority of the world believes there is in spite of his absence. The veracity of evolution would alter their behavior in no significant way, because they are not running on logic, they are running on feeling.

        Your scenario is flawed because you approach it from the conviction that you are already correct, and you cannot actually imagine it from the point of view of there not being a god. Likewise, assuming there is a god, you cannot imagine evolution adequately explaining the variety of life on the planet. Evolution is the change in allele frequency over generations, due to mutations. This has been demonstrated, and predictions based upon it have panned out as expected. Your shotgun spray of things that you find mysterious does nothing to demonstrate that evolution is not true; simply throwing them out and asking, “How, if not the answer I use to solve all mysteries?” is an argument from ignorance. If, “It’s amazingly complicated,” is a valid argument against the natural genesis of a structure, then I will point out that your own god is astonishingly complicated to the point of even being contradictory within itself, so therefore, it must certainly have had a creator of its own.

        I have no interest in debating evolution with you, as I’ve been through that mud before and I don’t like how filthy I get. The only reason I commented was to point out that your scenario is flawed in conception, and that there is no reason to expect such an outcome for the discovery of evolution, because that is not how people behave. They are stubborn and obstinate, just like you. Even that, though, is impossible to get through your barrier.


      8. Allele frequency changes due to mutations can generate variations among a family, like different dog breeds. It has never been proved, either from the fossil record, or actual breeding experiments, or even genetics, that real Darwinian evolution is possible.
        The origin of first life, the genetic code (DNA), cells and many other processes like meiosis and mitosis, metamorphosis and many others still stump evolutionists. The answers are not forthcoming.
        We accept your conclusion that it is impossible to get through our barrier. The problem is that it is vice versa. Blessings, and thanks for you comments.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: