No topic can be effectively discussed without first settling the subject of human origin. Yes, the issue is that impactful and important. Human beings arrived on earth somehow, for which there are but two options: God and creation or evolutionary happenstance. Humans clearly exist; that much is certain. Therefore, they must have origins, which means this issue must be preliminarily addressed and resolved, because the conclusion defines the human experience and establishes its rules.
So to have a truly insightful discussion about human happiness, we must first stipulate from whence humans came. Because only then can we apply meaningful data to the topic and effectively explore it. There is no way around it; origin is the issue of the human experience. Sans a premise for human life, we can’t really determine anything concrete. We can fight about where human beings came from, but we can’t assign any truth to human issues until the subject of origin is resolved. Everything involving the human species hinges on that singular dichotomy and conclusion. Either God is legit and in command, or humans and their wisdom is king, and the best humankind can do. And the unavoidable fact is that one option is true, and the other is a fraud.
Because origin can’t be shared.
On the one hand, if we say humans are creatures of evolutionary happenstance, then we can then explore the subject of happiness as humans do conventionally and traditionally, or perhaps clinically. Rather, we can explore the world’s opinions and prescriptions for human happiness, as opposed to God’s opinions and prescriptions. Legendary author, Michael Crichton, wrote a splendid, if brief, essay on the subject, for example, in which his insights were actually correct, at least as correct as a “worldly,” human perspective can be. If, as Crichton put it, people just get out of their own heads. If they “resolutely turn the spotlight off themselves, forget their own self-importance, their aches and pains, their feelings and fears, [and] instead get busy” participating in a world that needs them. People would be happy.
I am a huge Crichton fan, for many reasons. Primary among them is that Crichton, despite being an admitted Atheist and subsequent evolutionist, was still able to observe the world in an honest, realistic way, which he nonetheless unflinchingly conveyed through practical prose. There may not be a God, as far as Crichton was concerned, but that didn’t mean people had to create a fake, alternative reality for themselves in which to live, and wherein to behave like fools. It didn’t mean people had to lie to themselves about what is happening before their very eyes, about data/evidence that is clear and incontrovertible. Reality and truth were Crichton’s only path forward, because everything else was simply a delusion. And believers in God or not, intelligent people didn’t have to delude themselves.
When interpretation of any phenomena was required, Crichton simply saw what he saw, reviewed the data, and addressed issues realistically and honestly, which is the approach every human being should take regardless of human origin. If the outcome doesn’t offer the result you want or support your desires. If it isn’t what you want to believe. So what. Take the reality path, anyway, the righteous path to moral and supremely beneficial truth.
This, admirably, was Crichton’s approach to the world’s many mysteries and problems, which he even employed to his own determent on occasion. He wrote a book, Disclosure, for example, about the sexual harassment of men by powerful women. The liberal media and women’s groups hated the novel and raged at Crichton over it—despite it being verifiably true, that powerful women were abusing subordinate men in the workplace. It was the same with State of Fear, a well-sourced and footnoted novel exposing the fraud of climate change, over which the liberal media and climate alarmists raged, too.
The point is that, if people are willing to be honest with themselves and about the issues, there is a human pathway to happiness, and to effectively managing many of life’s challenges, that at least makes sense. Crichton’s prescription is good medicine, at least from a “worldly” perspective. Within a debate about human origin, however, the question is what does God say about human happiness? Rather, what are the rules on happiness in a creational model, in a world commanded by God? Because the authority aspect matters.
Via the Bible, God said, “Vengeance is mine.” That he and he alone will issue consequences for human disobedience, sin, and evil. Ultimately, he left absolutely no doubt that he oversees the human experience and comprehensively controls the entirety of the human condition. Included in this condition is happiness, of course, and both the demonstration and verification of the control in this precise area is clearly revealed in an Old Testament incident.
Basically, in leading God’s people, the Jews, King Saul had disobeyed and angered God. The interesting thing is, God not only abandoned Saul for his defiance. He took Saul’s happiness with him and replaced it with torment. Per his signature book, the prophet Samuel:
“But the spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him.”
So, Saul was happy. Then, suddenly, he was not only unhappy but tormented—by a subordinate evil spirit sent by God, no less. Intriguing as that revelation is, here is the important part: the emotional transition was commanded and controlled by God. As an interesting aside, one wonders how modern medicine would have interpreted Saul’s condition? Wonders what kind of conclusions would have been drawn and diagnosis made? What kind of therapy and medicine would have been prescribed? But then, would any of these diagnoses and remedies even be treating the actual ailment?
No. Because God controls human emotion, and ultimately happiness.
So this condition cannot be overcome, obviously, cannot be cured. Unless God commands, people can’t get better, can’t restore happiness. So then, given the debate over human origin, where are we with all these “worldly,” evolution-styled remedies and prescriptions? It makes one think about all the troubled, unhappy people in the world and who is controlling their suffering, and moreover the reasons for it. We have all these psychiatrists and mental institutions, all these diagnoses and therapies, and all this so-called “worldly” medical wisdom regarding human happiness and other assorted emotional sufferings.
But if God is controlling the human mood levers, how wise is all of it, really?
How authoritative are science, physicians, and modern medicine?
It is invariably said that humankind has come a long way. That science knows so much more about the human body and mind than it did previously, and about how to diagnose and treat human illness, such as depression and unhappiness, and so on. They have all these powerful tools with which to do it, too. Well, apparently, at least according to the creational theory of human origin, the whole science and medical complex might consider their limitations.
The issue of human origin demands an authority of humankind and the human experience, and science and modern medicine seem to have coronated themselves. But then, there is God. People should consider God’s authority in the matter not necessarily because Reverend Smith tells them to on Sunday morning, but because there only two sources for human origin, and God is one of them. In these deliberations, people might also consider that, sitting in a classroom people get to discuss evolution, which is deemed “education”—the ape to man charts, the universe-beginning cosmic explosions, and what not. Introduce God in the same classroom, however, and that perspective is deemed “religion” and frowned upon, despite God and creation being at least an equally viable source for human origin.
Contrasting the two theories, the cause-and-effect paradigm is readily apparent. Here is God, for example, issuing plagues and regulating human emotion. Then there are science and modern medicine, researching and diagnosing these plagues and emotional imbalances, and developing treatments. And yet science and modern medicine are the human health and healthcare authorities?
The conclusion isn’t very logical, obviously.
One person who is supremely logical, however, is the Bible’s King Solomon, whose wisdom is no less legendary. In baseline terms, he made this observation about human happiness:
“For God giveth to a man that is good in his sight wisdom, and knowledge, and joy: but to the sinner he giveth travail, to gather and to heap up, that he may give to him that is good before God.”
“Joy” being obvious happiness, of course, and “travail” being sorrow, distress, torment, and basic unhappiness.
So clearly, within the creational model at least, human happiness comes down to acknowledging, serving, and pleasing the creator of all things, God. Otherwise, one is destined for unhappiness, like so many troubled and unhappy people in the world, for whom we say we must do something, which we do via physicians and hospitals, and all the research and therapies. These are the human answers to unhappiness and misery. Theoretically, however, there is another answer: creational theory and God. In his signature book, the Bible, the guidebook of the human experience, he shot this at humankind:
“There is no savior but me.”
Obviously, he creates the circumstances for this rescue, too.
Love the theory, hate it. It makes no difference. Regarding the human experience and condition, all that matters is human origin, and the individual human choice between the two sources that compete to define it. Daily immersed in human doctrine and treatments, people are well familiar with the “worldly” solutions. More foreign to them is God’s doctrine and remedies. The question is, when do we consider those as strongly?
Theoretically speaking, it would seem that happiness demands it.
“Human history is the long, terrible story of man trying to find something other than God which will make him happy,” said Christian theologian, C.S. Lewis. Well, thank God we have all the worldly medical wisdom to manage the disappointment.
©JMW 7/2026
All Rights Reserved.
John Mark Warren 