The Religion of Evolution
Preface
I wrote a file several months ago and uploaded it to a few BBSs.
The paper dealt with numerous issues that questioned the validity of
the theory of evolution. At that time, I was very naive. I did not
realize the some evolutionists are very `anti-creationist`. I was soon
to learn otherwise.
I must admit that the original file had statements for which I
quoted no source. Since this was the first time I had done this sort
of thing, I did not realize that, in a `scientific` paper, all
statements should be listed with their source.
That file prompted a very rude reply. When I first read it, I was
amazed and shocked that anyone could have such a blatant disdain for
creationists. At first, it seemed the author had utterly destroyed the
points brought forth in my file. However, as I read the file over and
over, I recognized that there were deep personal beliefs and emotions
present. I had thought that believing in evolution or creation was
merely the judging of evidence. There is much more to it than that.
After a time, the reply became fascinating. I realized that I had
been given evidence of what the result is if a person has deep, devout
(`RABID`) belief in the theory of evolution.
So, rather than to present evidence supporting creation, this
file will instead deal with the RESULT of deep belief of the theory of
evolution. If the manner and attitude of the writer of that reply (a
Mr. Haynes) are any indicator, may God have mercy on us.
At first, I contemplated not revealing Mr. Haynes` name, but
since he is so proud of his ignorant, arrogant beliefs, I decided to
include his name. He was willing to place his reply on a national BBS,
therefore they should be read by all who want to see the result of
deep belief in the fairy tale of evolution. It is a message that every
Christian should see. But be advised that THERE IS SOME PROFANITY in
some of his replies. I considered censoring those things, but I feel
that his `message` should be seen in its entirety.
For the purposes of this paper, the term `evolutionist` means a
person that has the attitudes of the person discussed in the preface
of this document. It means a person that embraces the theory of
evolution, and it means a person who has allowed that belief to form
the basis for his/her philosophy of life. It means a person that
openly laughs at the possibility of a Divine Creator.
I must make one thing very clear. THE RESPONSES PUT FORTH IN THIS
PAPER ARE NOT THE NORM: MOST EVOLUTIONISTS ARE NOT THIS WAY! THE
RESPONSES DO NOT, REPEAT DO NOT, REPEAT DO NOT, REPEAT DO NOT! APPLY
TO MOST EVOLUTIONISTS!
I must ALSO make it VERY CLEAR that I AM A SINNER! I am no better
than anyone else, for ALL HAVE SINNED! Without my faith in Jesus
Christ and His eternal blood sacrifice, I would be just as lost and
just as condemned as any atheist!
I am also NOT `judging` ANYONE! I am not qualified to judge any
man. Only God is. Yet, I feel the things discussed in this paper need
to be read by Christians, especially Christian parents whose children
may be being taught that the theory of evolution is `true`.
-----
Just as the Word of God `sprouts` and grows in the heart of the
believer, I believe that devout belief in the theory of evolution
will, in time, produce similar results in virtually any atheistic
evolutionist. That is because the theory of evolution honestly has
very little to do with science. It is a pagan, atheistic religion. I
believe, in time, it will have detrimental effects on a person`s
philosophy of life.
The term "HUMANISM", or "HUMANIST", as used in this paper, is:
"...a philosophy centered on man and human values,
exalting human free will and superiority to the rest of
nature; man is made the measure of all things: Modern
humanism tends to be nontheistic."
"The New American Desk Encyclopedia", (c) 1989, p.604
And, further:
"Humanism, an educational and philosophical outlook that
emphasizes the personal worth of the individual and the
central importance of human values as opposed to religious
belief, developed in Europe during the Renaissance.....
"The Renaissance humanists were often devout Christians,
but they promoted secular values and a love of pagan
antiquity.
"The founding (c. 1450) of the Platonic Academy in
Florence by Cosimo de'Medici signaled a shift in humanist
values from political and social concerns to speculation
about the nature of humankind and the cosmos.
"Desiderius ERASMUS of the Netherlands was the most
influential of the Christian humanists. In his Colloquies
and Praise of Folly (1509), Erasmus satirized the
corruptions of his contemporaries, especially the clergy."
"By the 18th century the word humanism had come to be
identified with a purely secular attitude -- one that
often rejected Christianity altogether.
"Jean Paul SARTRE developed a scientific humanism
preaching human worth based on Marxist theory...
"The American Humanist Association, which grew out of the
Unitarian movement, holds that human beings can satisfy
religious needs from within, discarding the concept of God
as inconsistent with advanced thought and human freedom."
- ACADEMIC AMERICAN ENCYCLOPEDIA
Thus we see that today`s evolutionist/humanist is nothing new,
but merely a descendant of ancient philosophical beliefs that have
existed since the 18th century and long before. We also see that
ridicule of the `clergy` (or religion in general) is nothing new. One
wonders if today`s humanist is aware of his genealogy, an ancestry
sometimes associated with `pagan antiquity` and `scientific humanism`.
People today speak of this time in history as a `new age`. It is
nothing `new`. It is merely a repeating of ancient paganistic,
atheistic beliefs. Some people of the past worshipped the stars - Carl
Sagan, a devout evolutionist/humanist, speaks of doing the same.
Is man ever `ascending to perfection`? Is he `evolving` to great
heights? No, actually he is sinking into the same atheistic morass the
ancient pagans did. He also shares the same fate.
The terms `evolutionist` and `humanist` often center around the
same system of beliefs. In some instances, the terms are
interchangeable.
The above definition is supplied as a source of information. The
term "humanist" applies to many rabid evolutionists. They are persons
who, by virtue of their `superior intelligence`, are `better` than
other people.
True humanists are generally quite egotistic. They love to make
everyone aware of their `intelligence`. They generally are a closely
knit group, because they frankly do not like spending time (or even
speaking) with `stupid`, or `less intelligent` people. They generally
associate only with each other. Usually, this is a good thing,
because the average person gets so fed up with the obnoxious, arrogant
attitude of humanists that they begin dreading to even be in their
presence. I speak from experience.
Humanists are usually very health-minded, even to the point of
phobic fear of illness or death. After all, this life is all they
know. When you die, it`s all over (they think).
"Science" is the alibi used for justifying the religion of
evolution; it is man deifying NATURE and then exalting himself as the
highest `accidental creation` of nature.
Rabid evolutionists are fanatics. They will not stand for any
conflicting religions that would contradict the divine fiats of their
sacred `dogmas` (`spontaneous generation`, `natural selection`,
`accidental formation of amino acids and proteins`, etc.).
Evolutionists like to suggest that creationists are deathly
afraid that evidence `proving` evolution will be found. They like to
assert that such `evidence` would create panic in the Christian world.
That is their assertion, and in a few cases that may be true, but such
an assertion only demonstrates the evolutionist`s ignorance of true
Christianity. The Christian does not base his hopes on what the
fossil record shows, or what the age of the moon is. He bases it on
Jesus Christ. When the evidence demonstrates that creation is `true`,
that is merely `icing on the cake`. Our salvation does not lie in the
fossil record. It lies in the acceptance of the Deity of Jesus Christ.
On the contrary, it is the evolutionist who seeks solace in the
evolutionary scientist, and his doctrines. How else to mollify the
evolutionist`s conscience? If the Biblical account of the history of
man is true, then there IS such a place as Hell. The evolutionist has
a great deal more to lose than the creationist. THAT is what is
terrifying to the evolutionist, although he would never admit it, even
to himself.
For if creation is true (and it is), the evolutionist will face,
at the end of his life, a vengeful God, One Who will make him realize
the consequences of his atheistic, prejudiced life. The evolutionist
will have to account for every `sin` in his life. After denying the
existence of a Creator for his entire life, how is the evolutionist
going to feel when he is forced to stand before the God of the Bible?
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth
in unrighteousness;
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them;
for God hath shewed it unto them.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world
are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made,
even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without
excuse:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God,
neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and
their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.."
- Romans 1:18-23
I do not wish that to happen to anyone. Yet it is the inevitable
result of refusing to accept the obvious evidence of the existence of
God.
True evolutionism is a religion for people who believe that
toleration of sin is a sign of REGENERATION, or `progress`. Any
behavior, no matter how perverse or socially offensive, is acceptable.
It is regarded as the `growth of consciousness`.
No training of any kind is necessary to see the error in such
"logic". But since this religious dogma has to be carried out to any
length, no matter how irrational it becomes, we should not be
surprised to find that it is the evolutionists who have held back
"science" since the days of Darwin.
No man with any degree of intellect would base his beliefs in
human destiny on an accident whose chances of occurring are `one out
of ten to the 46,000th power`, for example. No professional gambler
on this earth would bet any amount of money on odds like that. Only an
evolutionist will.
Any Christian reading this will probably come to realize that
beliefs such as those held by true humanists/evolutionists produce a
personality almost EXACTLY OPPOSITE the code of ethics demonstrated by
Jesus Christ.
Christianity promotes humility, acceptance of any man as a friend
regardless of education, race, or ancestry. It also promotes charity,
forgiveness, and belief in God and Jesus Christ, among other things.
What does belief in evolutionism/humanism produce? Read on and
see.
I will now begin quoting Mr. Haynes` statements, along with my
comments regarding those statements.
First, Mr. Haynes declares `how evolution works`:
"Charles Darwin's theories were not entirely correct, and
have since been modified to take into account what science
has learned since then. If you really want to know how
evolution works, learn what is meant by beneficial
mutation."
Then, later in his tirade, he says:
"You cannot state with certainty that beneficial mutation
has not occurred. You can state that it would be rare.
If anyone was trying to say that it was the sole force
behind the variety of species we see on the planet, I
would not believe them for a minute. But I have never
heard anyone claim that yet, and would be quite suprised
(sic) if they did."
- Dan (The Humanist) Haynes -
Did these two statements come from the same man? First Mr.
Haynes declares that `beneficial mutation` is the basis for how the
theory of evolution `works`.
Then he says that he `would not for a minute` believe that
`beneficial` mutations are the sole force for the variety of species
of life on this planet!
Yet, Mr. Evolutionist can state that it is possible for ONE
"beneficial mutation" can change one species into another!
"If there were a SINGLE significant beneficial mutation
to occur, the NEW SPECIES could replace the old in very
short order." (Emphasis added)
In spite of these contradictory statements, Mr. Haynes proclaims
that evolutionism is `logical`, and creationism is `superstition`.
".....there is no such thing as win or lose in the battle
between logic and superstition...."
Another comment regarding one of the dogmas of the evolutionist
religion follows. When I spoke of the extreme complexity of the ear,
and how it was already `evolved` in the earliest fossil life-forms:
"Again you show a gross lack of knowledge of evolution.
Ears don't appear out of nowhere, they evolve as does
the whole organism, growing in proportion to their
usefulness. On top of which, there is also no opposite
proof, that is that mutation could NOT produce these
organs. Absence of proof is NOT proof of absence, maybe
Mr. Fundamentalist should pick up a good book on basic
logic."
I suppose that I should indeed get a book on logic. If ears
`evolve` "in proportion to their usefulness", how is that possible IF
THEY ARE NOT FULLY `EVOLVED`? That is, if they were not fully
`evolved`, with all parts present, they WOULDN`T WORK AT ALL! In
addition, how does an animal `decide` how `useful` its ears are, so
that they will `evolve` to be more useful? This is crazy.
I wonder how useful my lungs have been today? It must have been
tough back when my ancestor was a fish. I wonder how those fish
decided to someday be an air-breathing mammal, and how they made their
gills slowly change into lungs? Pardon my sarcasm, but this is
ridiculous.
Next I will illustrate some of the many tactics used by
evolutionists to counteract the statements of creationists.
One tactic used by the evolutionist to dodge statements is to
try and find flaws in statements that are `anti-evolutionary`. For
instance, I quoted the following:
"The vast majority of artists` conceptions are based
more on imagination than on evidence. Artists must create
something between an ape and a man; the older the
specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it."
-- Science Digest Magazine
Mr. Haynes then used a multi-faceted tactic to counteract this,
to me, important statement:
"Goody (sic), a quote with a publishers source (no author
of course, lets (sic) not get our hopes up too high). Of
course the quote says absolutly (sic) nothing in support
of creationism, it just means the pictures in text books
may be wrong. if (sic) you read with comprehension, you
can just barely see the stupidty (sic) in the statment.
(sic) `..artists (sic) conceptions are based more on
imagination than on evidence` American Heritage Dictionary
says - `The ability to form mental concepts; invention`.
The Merriam Webster Dictionary says -"thought, notion,
idea`. Gosh (sic) that almost sounds like the quote is
correct!"
Mr. Haynes first cites the lack of author. Next he says, "No
Proof of Creation". Then he makes light of the fact that the artists`
renditions in text books `may` be wrong, as if what people are being
taught in the schools is a trivial matter. Next he calls the quote
`stupid` by reading a definition, again trying to turn this direct,
utterly clear quote into question. Finally, he passes judgment; the
quote is no good!
A 12-year-old child could read this statement and understand it.
But Mr. Haynes will not, because it might have made him realize that
the pictures he no doubt studied (and perhaps admired) as `revealed
truths` are nothing but some artist`s conception, having been dreamed
up by examining nothing more than a few teeth.
Another tactic used is to introduce ridicule into the issue at
hand. For instance, when I stated that I doubted the existence of
`good` mutations ( a cornerstone of the theory of evolution), Mr.
Haynes stated:
"Do you like the way real ugly women look when your god
(sic) has allowed them to born without limbs or teeth?
This implies a creator?"
I replied:
"Just because a person might be considered `real ugly`
by you, that does not mean that they are without worth.
In fact, the mention of people being `born without limbs
or teeth` merely offers inescapable proof that these
things, which are the result of genetic mutations, did
not produce modern man as we know him."
Thus we can see how the evolutionist effectively dodged my
statement. By clouding the issue and asking for proof of a creator,
he was at least able to make a comment, even though that comment does
not address the original statement.
I have learned that the avid evolutionist has an answer for
everything. The answer will often be in the form of (another) theory
that `patches up` the original theory of evolution. Evolutionists also
like to speak of theories so as to make you believe that theories are
scientific `evidence`, when theories are often nothing more than an
exercise of someone`s imagination.
In addition, the rabid evolutionist often seeks refuge in
untestable `facts` or the use of terms that are poorly understood by
the layman. This method also has the added benefit of placing the
creationist in a setting where he appears stupid.
When I spoke of the infamous `pepper moth` as not being examples
of evolution, since although they allegedly `changed color`, (but were
still moths), Mr. Haynes replied:
"Evolution says that changes occur in species due to
the improved survivability of some variations. The moths
may have changed color to match the trees. Then again,
you may be correct in asserting that the moths got darker
due to the same external conditions. Okay, we've gotten
this far without problems, I hope. Now if you could just
jump right in here and explain what the moth should
become? Don't hesistate (sic) , I'm sure that there is a
reason why it shouldn't still be a moth. Those poor moths
must be dissapointed (sic), why I hear (sic) that a couple
of thousand of them really wanted to be Doberman
Pinschers, and one of them really wanted to be a person.
Imagine the letdown, to still be a moth after all this
time."
This illustrates another phenomena that evolutionists have
`faith` in. They seem to assume that all life forms have the power to
reason, as human beings do. Thus they can somehow believe that, since
these moths are still moths, that is what these moths `want` to be.
This is strange logic, but one that is carried over throughout the
`reasoning` of the evolutionist mindset.
When I spoke of the absence of species changing into another
species, Mr. Haynes offered the following sarcastic comment:
"Gosh, here is the same analogy again, no dog has ever
evolved to be a horse! I bet those dogs are really pissed,
(sic) staying up late studying all the changes they needed
to make. Practicing bucking all day, trying to eat that
hay crap, (sic) and none of them have made it yet. Must be
why it takes millions of years huh (sic)?"
Another example of twisted logic. I had spoken of how the fig
tree and the fig gall wasp were totally dependent upon each other for
their survival. I suggested that this suggests that they came into
being at the same time.
This posed no problem, when using the `logic` of an evolutionist:
"Fig gall wasps without fig trees could probably evolve
into olive blossom wasps or dog poop eating (sic)
flightless and witless (sic) wasps, you don't seem to be
offering any proof that they couldn't, or that they never
were before."
Another area demonstrates similar `logic`. Evolutionists disdain
anyone using probability studies in reference to evolution. That is,
when someone quotes the likelihood of amino acid sequences `lining up`
as required for the possibility of evolution, they use the same
bizarre `logic` as demonstrated earlier. When I quoted the chances for
one example, Mr. Haynes said:
"Chance crap (sic) again. How long to (sic) you plan
to keep misinforming people with this garbage. It AIN'T
(sic) random and you should know better."
Thus we see more of this idiosyncratic `logic`. To say that these
statistical studies are meaningless because their data are random,
while saying that evolution is NOT random, is to say that SOMEONE had
a hand in `lining up` the required amino acid combinations. If they
are not random, then WHO `told` these amino acids `how` to form cells?
WHO instructed these amino acids how to form the complex combinations
required for life, if the theory of evolution is true? To me, the
answer is obvious.
Still another method of discrediting scientific statements is
through the demand of `sources`. If a creationist makes a statement,
no matter how valid it might be, the rabid evolutionist can dodge it
by demanding the source of the statement. If the creationist has none,
that is sufficient reason for the evolutionist to say `sources or
forget it`. Using this method, the rabid evolutionist was able to
legally disregard much of my file.
"I really must insist you quote your source or don't use
the information. If it has been shown, then I can read
it, test it and determine for myself if that`s what it
shows."
"Give me SOURCES!...YOU WANT TO PROVE CREATION IS A FACT,
THEN GIVE ME THE DAMN FACTS!"
"Quote your sources and I will go look it up, maybe you
can convert me. (Actually you could, if you can come up
with repeatable scientific experiments to prove anything
you say)."
Note the attitude of the evolutionist here. He, being `more
intelligent`, demands proof. This arrogance is also a common
characteristic of evolutionists/humanists. Mr. Haynes should be well
aware that `repeatable scientific experiments` of creation are not
possible, but at least this allows him to make a sarcastic comment.
In one statement where I DID quote a source (the author was a
graduate of MIT, a PHD. and a former Colonel in the U.S. Air Force),
Mr. Haynes said:
"Well, excuse me, I could never argue with someone who has
the impressive title of Colonel and a PHD. As a side note,
did you know that the brother of the man who created the
Lear jet (Robert I belive (sic) his name is) has filed
suit against the U.S (sic) government claiming that
humans (homeless people and missing children in
particular) are being traded as a food source for aliens
that come here in spaceships, so that we can get some of
their technology. He has a rather impressive list of
degrees himself, but that does not mean he is rational or
intelligent. (sic) Did you know we had a president who was
shocked when he found out that a full fifty percent of the
people in this country are of below average intelligence?
Just because you are a leader doesn't mean you are smart.
So lets (sic) drop the spiffy credential crap (sic) and
just quote the man, okay?"
Mr. Haynes again uses an illogical, multi-faceted approach to
discredit my statement. It should be obvious to the reader that a
rabid evolutionist will attack any creationist statement, using any
means available. Is this an example of the `objective scientific
method`?
The evolutionist/humanist again reveals a contradictory `logic`
in this statement. He judges people largely by their intelligence, yet
my source`s having graduated from M.I.T. is not accepted as proof of
intelligence. What is? Should my source submit to a test by Mr.
Haynes to determine whether or not he is "truly" intelligent?
Still another method of avoiding testy questions is by demanding
proof of creation. Of course, there is no `proof` of creation, at
least to the scientist. As an example, here are some direct quotes
used by Mr. Haynes to disregard some of my statements:
"You come up (sic) with a testable theory for a common
designer and I know of people who would love to try it!"
"....let`s hear some of the proofs for creationism, and
let`s subject them to the test of experiment. The old
saying, put up or shut up."
Yet, when I made the statement that the beauty of the life-forms
on earth were indicative of a Creator, Mr. Haynes said:
"Truly warped. `Beauty is in the eye of the beholder`. To
say that beauty implies a creator also implies that ugly
things (dog turds (sic), Roseanne Barr and Edsels have no
creator. Evolutionary scientists ignore beauty because it
has no relavence (sic) whatsoever to the question at hand.
Don't try to misled (sic) the audience, stick to the
facts."
Thus we have another dodge-the-issue tactic. But he is right,
evolutionary scientists DO ignore beauty. They ignore it because it is
a constant reminder that a Being infinitely greater than they created
this complex, magnificent, beautiful solar system.
It is amazing how we give so much glory to, say, the painter of
the Mona Lisa, without recognizing HOW MUCH GREATER the design of the
WOMAN HERSELF is than the crude likeness of her on canvas is!
Evolutionists who deny the Creator are quick to say that they've
never seen the designer! Neither have they seen Leonardo Da Vinci, the
makers of "Stonehenge", or even the maker of the crude arrowhead, but
they insist in these instances that the design shouts out the
existence of its designer.
Another tactic used to dodge annoying statements is to make light
of past evolutionary blunders, such as:
"Piltdown man was an acknowledged hoax. True. So?"
Thus Mr. Haynes makes light of an elaborate hoax, used to further
belief in the theory of evolution. After being taught as `fact`,
Piltdown man was shown to be a valueless hoax, an exercise in
someone`s imagination. That is true of most if not all of the
evolutionist`s "Missing Link" scenarios. Yet these grave scientific
errors have been taught as fact to hundreds of thousands of people.
The evolutionist acts as if this is just a `minor flaw` in the theory
of evolution.
Another example:
"Evolution does not meet your personal expectations
for a uniform fossil record. So?"
This comment was in reply to my statement that the fossil record
does not show the thousands of transitional forms that should be
there, if evolution were true. The absence of proof has not dampened
the spirits of the devout evolutionist.
We have now seen several of the tactics used to discredit any and
all statements made by creationists.
Does belief in the theory of evolution equate human value with a
person`s intelligence? To some people, the answer is yes. Another
quote:
"STUPID PEOPLE MAKE GRUNTS, LIKE APES. When they get
smarter or, as we in the real world say it, evolve, then
they could begin to discern common features between the
I'm hungry grunt and the I'm going to kill your mother
grunt, and use rules to simplify them." (Emphasis added)
Next, what are the uses of theoretical concepts in science? A
quote:
"Once again for the few who are still reading this, is an
explanation of the basic process here:
1. Scientists propose theories
2. Theories are tested
3. If theory fails to properly explain any set of
circumstances, go back to step one with a new theory.
4. If the theory proves capable of explaining all previously
known data write it down as a scientific "fact". Find
something else to theorize on, or generate a new theory and
go back to step 1 to see if there are other possible
explanations."
FYI, "Science" is defined in Webster's Third New International
Dictionary as "a branch of study that is concerned with observation
and classification of facts and especially with the establishment or
strictly with the quantitative formulation of verifiable general laws
chiefly by induction and hypotheses."
The "Scientific Method", as defined by the same source, is "the
principles and procedures used in the systematic pursuit of
intersubjectively accessible knowledge and involving as necessary
conditions the recognition and formulation of a problem, the
collection of data through observation and if possible experiment, the
formulation of hypotheses, and the testing and confirmation of the
hypotheses formulated."
If this procedure were applied to the theory of evolution, it
would have been discarded immediately. Yet it has not been, because
the religion of evolution has many fanatic disciples.
Yet this evolutionist said:
"If the superstition of creation achieves an equal
position in science books with the CENTURIES OF WORK AND
EXPERIMENT THAT WENT INTO THE TESTING OF EVOLUTIONARY
THEORY, then it will be quite impossible to explain to
children reading those books that one is fact and the
other is fiction. And with the "fact" of creation so
established, it can be argued that everything from the
neccessity (sic) of burning of witches (sic) to the
wisdom in censoring free thought is also a `fact`, since
it too has its source in this book of `facts`."
(Emphasis added)
I didn`t know that "CENTURIES" of testing had gone into the false
theory of evolution, since it was proposed in 1859. It has been about
132 years since its introduction; but it has been "TESTED FOR
CENTURIES"? HOW has it been `tested`? That is an outright LIE!!!
"Biologists are simply naive when they talk about
experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. IT
IS NOT TESTABLE. They may happen to stumble across facts
which seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts
will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will
undoubtedly by deprived of continuing research grants."
(1980 Assembly Week address:
Professor Whitten, Professor of
Genetics, University of Melbourne)
(Emphasis added)
One figure of speech that was in my original file was that people
try to `sell` the theory of evolution. This statement really upset Mr.
Haynes. He of course denied it. Yet I wonder, if his reply is true,
why he would spend four hours writing (by his own admission), just to
make a statement that attempts to condemn the possibility of creation?
And why be so sarcastic in doing it?
"Nobody is trying to sell evolution, it is a fact that is
standing on its own quite nicely thank you. But there are
certain people, of which Mr. Fundamentalist is obviously
one, who think that their ideas should be sold as science
without having to face the scrutiny of experiment and
rigorous proofs. These people wish to corrupt science
books with ancient superstitions without supplying the
rigorous proof that all other science book data is
subjected to."
Wait a minute. Didn`t Mr. Haynes admit a few paragraphs ago that
`Piltdown Man` in science text books was a hoax? Is this an example
of the `rigorous proof` used to collect science book data? How
reassuring.
Finally, what is Mr. Haynes` attitude toward creationists, (or,
more specifically, Christians)? That was made abundantly clear.
First, a quote:
"Evolution does not require or disprove a creator, it
merely states what is the most likely sequence of events
to get to our current state. It says nothing about gods or
devils."
So, do other statements made by Mr. Haynes include the
possibility of his believing in God?:
"Wonderful. Lets (sic) see, what the author advocates here
is believing the writings of a group of barely literate
nomads, of which we have only a single work that has been
passed down through the centuries by many different
cultures. Each culture, and for that matter each writer
that is represented in the bible has changed things to
accommodate accepted beliefs at the time and place of the
writing. There are dozens of serious studies of the bible
(sic), most of which pose serious questions as to the
veracity of the information it contains. Almost all the
stories in the book are obviously adaptations of fables
that have been passed down from other cultures and
religions."
(A quick note: It is interesting that Mr. Haynes called the
authors of the Bible `barely literate`. That is interesting because
one of the Apostles, Luke, was a physician. But this statement DOES
demonstrate Mr. Evolutionist`s total ignorance of the Bible. (Anyone
who doubts the credibility of the authors of the Bible should read
"Evidence That Demands a Verdict", by Josh McDowell.)
"Perhaps you could also quote the source that proves that
its (sic) possible for the cosmic muffin (sic) to fart
(sic) life into existence out of absolutely nothing..."
"God created the universe because this book written by
primitives says so. I could claim that the Pop-Tart fairy
grabbed Elvis' ghost by the ears and squeezed until his
eyeball popped out and formed the earth, which compared to
the creationists (sic) claims (sic) is (sic) closer to
science (Elvis and Pop-Tarts really exist(ed) whereas
evidence of J.C. (Jesus Christ) and his 12 groupies is
about as substantial as the bigfoot shopping mall
described in the lates (sic) issue of National Globe and
Examiner at your local grocery store checkout counter)."
"....note that, like UFO groups, fundamentalists have been
known to selectively edit the more outrageous claims made
by the most fervent adherents. I don't see any sign of the
white supremecy (sic) claims that you will hear if you
attend one of their little get togethers (not that a
godless slime like myself would actually be able to pass
as a chosen one and actually get into on (sic) of them of
course, but I may have sneaked in with my battery powered
holy aura generator)."
"Fundamentalist (sic) belive (sic) in ghosts, devils,
magic and anything else proposed in the ancient
manuscripts they follow. And they also believe that they
have the right to supress (sic) any facts that may not
support those superstitions, along with supressing
(sic) anything that does not go along with their
interpretations of those manuscripts."
"....your line that some cosmic muffin walked up one day
and said "Gee, I think I'll make a universe, stick some
critters (sic) on a planet, hide some rocks that look just
like bones in the ground, then sit around and watch
while the innocent children of these critters die in
house fires and car wrecks. Then maybe I'll send my kid
down there and let them nail him up. Then just when they
get comfy, I'll flood 'em (sic) out, give 'em (sic) a
couple of thousand years and then fry their asses
good". Yessiree (sic), thats (sic) a lot easier for
ME to beleve (sic)..."
"You can belive (sic) in me 'cause (sic) I belong to the
religion that worships a god that is 66% stronger than any
other god..."
"Is your bible (sic) the one source of truth. Then what
about the koran? talmud (sic)? how (sic) about Greek
mythology? I Ching? Aesops fables? Monty Python? Gilbert
and Sullivan? How about the UFO's, I hear they even know
how to take apart human bodies and put them back together
again."
"The creationst (sic) will accept NO revisions to the bible
(sic). The bible (sic) is the literal word and must be
accepted in its entirety, no matter how many times it
contradicts itself and all the other accounts of history.
The creationist believes in banning books and authors that
dare to challenge its authority and actively advocates the
forced teaching of its views in schools without allowing
opposing viewpoints. Nice open minded people you hang out
(sic) with."
"Have you revised anything in the bible (sic) lately, other
than ignoring the parts about sack cloth and ashes and
giving away all your worldy (sic) goods and going out to
spread the word of your god (sic)?"
"Well, Mr. Fundamentlist (sic) and cohorts, you may have
made a mistake here. Ignorant people often own TV sets, so
Billy Grahm (sic) and Reverend Ike and the like can preach
the fundamentalist crap (sic), and get paid incredibly
large sums of money to do so. It works. But it only works
because television is a one way medium. The intelligint
(sic) people watching who know they are frauds can only
change channels. The computer in general and the BBS's
where you post this drivel in particular, are two way
channels. You can spout the superstitions and the rhetoric,
spread the lies and try your best to fool people, but when
you do, the rebuttals will have just as much "air time" as
you do! When you add that to the fact that the people using
these computers are generally smarter than the average
bear, you have your worst nightmare, an edacated (sic)
audience that is able to communicate its doubts and
beliefs."
"If just one person thinks "Why DO children die horrible
deaths in the presence of this all powerful god" (sic)?
then I will have done more good than all to (sic)
pogroms, crusades and witch trials the fundamentalists
have ever embarked upon."
"Look to the middle east, and the war we are involved in.
Look at the killings that have gone on for centuries over
there. THESE ARE THE ACTS OF FUNDAMENTALISTS, who also
have a sacred book, one that also prohibits killing other
people." (Emphasis added)
"If you are one of the many who think it neccesary (sic)
for you to enforce and spread your beliefs throughout
the world, then I hope you also take the time to spread
the parts of the bible (sic) that call for animal
sacrifices, holy wars, the burning of witches and the
killing of the unclean and incestuous, and the hating of
certain races because their ancestors pissed off (sic)
the cosmic muffin."
It is difficult for me to believe that someone could so ignorant
of God as this man is. THIS is an example of the "modern man", one of
the "highest members" of the evolutionary "ascent to perfection"? Is
this what we want our children to become? May God have mercy on us.
There is the question that begs to be asked: "What percentage of
evolutionists have the attitude of Mr. Haynes?" More than you might
realize, although of course it is possible to keep one`s deepest
beliefs `hidden`.
Just as Christians cannot discuss the things of the Kingdom of
God with the unsaved, I believe that evolutionists, when alone, may
more freely discuss the many aspects of their atheistic religion.
Here is one example of a nationally-published magazine whose
evolutionistic/humanistic views are plain:
CREATIONIST FIRED BY SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN
"NEW YORK (AP) -- A widely published writer on scientific
topics says Scientific American magazine wooed him, then
left him at the altar because he believes in the biblical
account of creation.
"Forrest M. Mims III alleged Wednesday that an editor at
the respected publication asked if he'd like to take over
its column about amateur experiments and rejected him
after learning of his beliefs.
"`I've wanted this opportunity for 20 years,` he said. `To
have the opportunity and then lose it because of what I do
on Sunday is absolutely incredible.`
"He (Mims) said he canceled practically all his writing
assignments and was flown to New York, where Scientific
American staffers congratulated him for getting the job.
"But the editor who invited him there suddenly grew cold
when Mims mentioned he'd written for Christian magazines
on such topics as "how to organize bicycle trips for
church kids," the writer said.
"The editor asked if Mims accepted Darwin's theory of
evolution, Mims said. `I replied that I did not.`
"Later, he said, the editor warned him he would be fired or
docked in pay if he "ever wrote anything about creationism
for any magazine." The editor ended the meeting by telling
Mims he had not made up his mind whom to hire, Mims said."
- The Associated Press
By KILEY ARMSTRONG
-----
After writing the first part of this paper, I downloaded a file
from another BBS, giving `answers` to some of the claims of
creationists. I will include parts of it to again demonstrate the
personality of the devout evolutionist. I am going to make this brief,
because this file is getting too big!
But, to give an EXCELLENT example of the `double-talk` used by
evolutionists, consider the next two statements:
Creationist statement:
"Evolution isn't a science because you can't observe
things that happened millions of years ago."
Evolutionist reply:
"Buy (sic) you can observe the RESULTS of things that
happened millions of years ago. And then, by using basic
scientific knowledge, extrapolate back."
Impressive answer, wouldn`t you say? YET when this evolutionist
decided to criticize a scientist`s research because it was in
opposition to the theory of evolution, the shoe is suddenly on the
other foot:
"The....failure of Barnes` research was that he took data
from a short period of time and simply extrapolated it
backwards to obtain a reliable estimate at a time remotely
removed from the data. ANYONE COMPETENT IN ANALYZING
SCIENTIFIC DATA KNOWS THAT EXTRAPOLATIONS ARE GOOD ONLY
FOR A RELATIVELY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME, IF AT ALL, AND THAT
THE FURTHER AWAY FROM THE ACTUAL DATA ONE GOES, THE LESS
RELIABLE IT BECOMES. Barnes extrapolated 150 years' worth
of data back 10,000 years! In real life, one would be
surprised if extrapolation of these data more than a few
hundred years back were accurate."
(Emphasis added)
So, how reliable is the data if one takes data from 1991 and
extrapolates it back 20,000,000,000 years, as evolutionists do? Does
the second statement above mean that evolutionists are incompetent in
analyzing scientific data? Actually, being biased, they are
incompetent.
Creationist`s statement:
"Sun is shrinking by ~5 feet per hour. i.e losing 0.01%
per year. 6,000 creation = ~6% shrinkage, but 20,000,000
years ago the sun touched the earth and 100,000 years ago
the sun was twice as large (making life impossible)."
Reply #1:
"I am interested in how you decide that this is a steady-
state system?"
The evolutionist here ducks the issue by saying that the sun is
not a `steady-state system`. It is true that stars DO change with the
passage of time. But once a star has begun its `life`, according to
my `New American Desk Encyclopedia`, it remains in a relatively steady
state for many millions of years. Thus, if the sun is BILLIONS of
years old, it would have been in a relatively steady state for many
millions of years. Therefore, 26 million years ago the distance from
the sun to the earth would have been zero inches.
In addition, he also makes the comment regarding `steady-state
systems`:
"Point of fact, matter IS being created currently."
Well, I looked in my American Desk Encyclopedia for a definition
of `steady-state system`. To my great surprise, (not really), it is
not a `law`, but (ANOTHER!) THEORY:
"...proposes that the universe has existed and will exist
forever in its current form, the expansion being caused by
the continuous creation of matter so that the average
density and appearance of the universe remain the same at
all times. THIS WOULD NECESSITATE A REEXAMINATION OF THE
`LAW OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY..."
This is nothing but another unfounded fairly tale, dreamed up by
some evolutionary scientist. But it illustrates how belief in the
myth of evolution has warped the thinking of modern-day scientists.
Yet this THEORY does effectively remove God from the scheme of
things. God is not necessary, because, wonder of wonders, THE UNIVERSE
CAN `CREATE` MATTER ALL BY ITSELF!
To give an example of how to learn how life began on earth, the
evolutionist recommended the following reading materials:
"The Evolution of Ecological Systems"
May, Scientific American, Sept 1978
"Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life"
Dickerson, Scientific American, Sept 1978
"The Evolution of the Earliest Cells"
Schopf, Scientific American, Sept 1978
"The Evolution of Multicellular Plants and Animals"
Valentine, Scientific American, Sept 1978
"Life in Darwin's Universe"
G. Bylinsky, Omni Sept 79
Do you get the feeling that the writers of these books/articles
just might be prejudiced toward evolution? Incidentally, I didn`t know
that the universe belonged to Darwin, did you? I honestly believe that
Darwin is regarded as a `god` to some of his modern-day disciples.
As for so-called `transitional fossils`, the evolutionist proudly
proclaims:
"The fossil record will never be complete, but it is
certainly more complete than it was in Darwin's day.
Darwin`s prediction that the "holes" would be filled has
come true. Transitional fossils now exist for all
vertebrate groups. Transitional forms also exist for most
major invertebrate groups and for most groups of plants."
That is quite a definite statement, isn`t it? One would think
that evolution has surely been `proven`, if you were to hear someone
declare this with `certainty`.
However, what about the following comment by Dr. Colin
Patterson, curator of the British Museum of Natural History? In a
personal letter regarding the lack of `transitional fossils` in his
book, Dr. Patterson wrote:
"....I fully agree with your comments on the lack of
direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my
book. IF I KNEW OF ANY, FOSSIL OR LIVING, I would
certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist
should be used to VISUALIZE such transformations, but
where would he get the information from? I could not,
honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to
artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?"
(Emphasis added)
Not to read things into a comment such as this, but the question
begs, "What about the supposed `transitional fossils` that others
claim to have found?" If the curator of the British Museum of Natural
History knows of no `transitional fossils`, do any really exist?
And why did Dr. Patterson say he could not "HONESTLY" provide
such information? That seems an odd word to use.
If this statement is studied, it reveals many beneath-the-surface
feelings. It is almost Biblical in what can be seen `between the
lines`. It makes quite a statement about the alleged `evidence` touted
by evolutionists.
"The realm of nature is so vast, and DARWINIAN FABLES so
easily constructed that virtually any cause can find its
mascot, any group its biological totem."
(Emphasis added)
Howard L. Kaye (Sociology, Franklin
and Marshall College)
In his article, "The Uses and Abuses of Biology" ( Wilson
Quarterly , 11 (1): 80-93, 1987), Kaye discusses the inevitable
influence of personal desires and world views on biological science.
He writes:
"In spite of the claims to greater rigor and objectivity
by which contemporary molecular biologists and
sociobiologists have tried to distinguish their writings
from those of the Spencers and Huxleys of the past, their
efforts, too, constitute SCIENTIFIC MYTHOLOGIES (p. 88)."
(Emphasis added)
Kaye concludes:
"..seemingly extrascientific elements may, at times, prove
invaluable to the scientific enterprise. Yet, however much
the triumphs of science may seem to confirm the ideas and
interests that helped to inspire them and to encourage
their extension into myth, they cannot grant to such
social and PHILOSOPHICAL SPECULATIONS the status of
objective, empirical science" (p. 93).
(Emphasis added)
---------
Evolutionists/humanists generally like to give the impression
that they literally `know everything`. What does the Bible say about
the `wise` of this world?:
"Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth
to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he
may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness
with God.
For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own
craftiness. And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of
the wise, that they are vain."
I Corinthians - Chapter 3:18-21
--------
Not all philosophers have been saddled with the necessity of
finding a way to `fit` their research into the framework of the theory
of evolution, however.
"When I see the blindness and the wretchedness of man,
when I regard the whole silent universe and man without
light, left to himself and, as it were, lost in this
corner of the universe, without knowing who has put him
there, what he has come to do, what will become of him at
death, and incapable of all knowledge, I become terrified,
like a man who should be carried in his sleep to a
dreadful desert island and should awake without knowing
where he is and without means of escape. And thereupon I
wonder how people in a condition so wretched do not fall
into despair. I see other persons around me of a like
nature. I ask them if they are better informed than I am.
They tell me that they are not. And thereupon these
wretched and lost beings, having looked around them and
seen some pleasing objects, have given and attached
themselves to them. For my own part, I have not been able
to attach myself to them, and, considering how strongly it
appears that there is something else than what I see, I
have examined whether this God has not left some sign of
himself.
I see many contradictory religions, and consequently all
false save one. Each wants to be believed on it's own
authority, and threatens unbelievers. I do not therefore
believe them. Every one can say this; every one can call
himself a prophet. But I see the Christian religion
wherein prophecies are fulfilled; and that is what every
one cannot do."
- Written by Blaise Pascal, note #693
in section XI of Pensees', which I
copied from the "Great Books of the
Western World"
Sir Isaac Newton, the great scientist who invented Calculus,
codified the physical laws of motion, gravitation, and thermodynamics,
stated the same thing in these words:
"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and
comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion
of an intelligent and powerful being...This Being governs
all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over
all..."
- The Great Books of the Western
World, Volume 34, pages 369-
370
-----
The Religion of Evolutionary Beliefs
Next I will discuss `The Religion of Evolution`. With the true
evolutionist, man is the `highest` creature in the universe, and, the
more `intelligent` a person is, the `higher` he is. Thus, there are some
people who are `better` than other people.
With the creationist, God is the highest Being in the universe. In
the Creator`s eyes, all men are equal.
Most of all, the religion of evolution demands FAITH! The Bible
says that faith in God and Jesus Christ is an absolute requisite.
Evolutionists may laugh at what seems to them belief in a book of `myths
and fables`.
However, the religion of evolution demands even more faith than does
Christianity! To be an evolutionist, you must believe:
a faith in L-proteins that defy chance formation; a faith
in the formation of DNA codes which if generated spontaneously
would spell only pandemonium;
a faith in a primitive environment that in reality would
fiendishly devour any chemical precursors to life;
a faith in experiments that prove nothing but the need for
intelligence in the beginning;
a faith in a primitive ocean that would not thicken but would
hopelessly dilute chemicals;
a faith in natural laws including the laws of thermodynamics and
biogenesis that actually deny the possibility of the spontaneous
generation of life;
a faith in future scientific revelations that, when realized,
always seem to present more dilemmas to the evolutionist;
faith in probabilities that treacherously tell two stories - one
denying evolution, the other confirming the Creator;
faith in transformations that remain fixed; faith in mutations
and natural selection that add to a double negative for
evolution;
faith in fossils that embarrassingly show fixedness through time,
regular absence of transitional forms and striking testimony
to a world-wide water deluge;
a faith in time which proves to only promote degradation in the
absence of mind;
and faith in reductionism that ends up reducing the materialist's
arguments to zero and forcing the need to invoke a supernatural
Creator.
And Christians trust in faith? This is certainly an ironic state of
affairs, isn`t it? The Christian can visit the Holy Land and see the
palace of King Herod, who killed many babies is his attempts to kill the
baby Jesus. The Christian can see and walk up the very steps that Jesus
Christ did to enter the temple to preach His Gospel.
But the evolutionist can do nothing but read books full of fairy
tales, concocted by mere men. The evolutionist can only admire and study
the latest theories. He will have to be satisfied with imagining them;
since most of them cannot be demonstrated, that`s the best he can hope
for. But he shouldn`t be too caught up in them, because, often, the
slightest brush with reality is enough to cause them to disintegrate,
forcing the formulation of another theory. These the evolutionist will
eagerly grab up and thus have something new to believe in.
Perhaps no book, other than the Bible, has had a greater affect on
human society than Darwin's 'The Origin of Species.' The evolutionary
fantasies of Darwin have been used to justify some of the most terrible
attitudes and activities in the past 125 years in the name of "science."
"Evolutionists are a group of persons who
believe quite openly in mathematical miracles.
They advocate the belief that, tucked away
in nature, outside of normal physics, there is
a law which performs miracles, provided the
miracles are in the aid of biology. This
curious situation sits oddly in a profession
that for long has been dedicated to finding
logical explanations for Biblical miracles."
- New Scientist Magazine
November, 1981
Some will object to referring to the theory of evolution as a
religion. However, just as the existence of God cannot be demonstrated
in a laboratory, neither can the theory of evolution be demonstrated.
The theory of evolution cannot be proved, or even tested; it can only
be believed.
"Science", however, is not supposed to be something one "believes".
Science is knowledge - knowledge that which can be demonstrated and
observed and repeated. Since the theory of evolution cannot satisfy this
requirement, it is not a true science. It is a belief, a humanistic
religion.
A prominent British biologist, a Fellow of the Royal Society, in
the introduction to the 1971 edition of Darwin`s `Origin of the
Species` said that "belief in the theory of evolution" is "exactly
parallel to belief in special creation", with evolution merely "a
satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature."
Oxford zoologist, Mark Ridley, defiantly declared:
"If the creationists want to impress the Darwinian
establishment, it will be no use prating on about
what the fossils say. No good Darwinians belief in
evolution stands on the fossil evidence for
gradual evolution, so nor will his belief fall by
it."
(Ridley, M., 1981, New Scientist 90:830-832)
Isn`t that an incredible statement? This man is declaring that his
belief in the theory of evolution does not depend on the fossil record,
which is where the greatest `proof` of the theory of evolution should
lie!
In writing the obituary for Theodosus Dobzhansky, the famed
evolutionist, an evolutionary geneticist said that Dobzhansky`s view of
the theory of evolution was exactly the same as that of Pierre de
Chardin, the notorious Jesuit priest. The geneticist said that "Evolution
is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, and all
systems must henceforward bow and which they must satisfy in order to be
thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a
trajectory which all lines of thought must follow."
Note the phrase `all systems must henceforward bow`. All information
must be seen through the eyes of belief in the theory of evolution. These
men have undergone a transformation, a change in philosophy that has
affected their very soul.
The British physicist, H.S. Lipson, has reached the following
conclusion:
"In fact, evolution has become in a sense a scientific religion;
almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to
`bend` their observations to fit in with it."
These men are truly devout members of their humanistic-
evolutionistic religion. They will even `bend` the results of their
research in order to serve their philosophy, the theory of evolution.
G.W. Harper calls the theory of evolution a "metaphysical belief".
Ernst Mayr, the outstanding Harvard evolutionary biologist, calls
evolution "man's world view today". Sir Julian Huxley, probably the
outstanding evolutionist of the twentieth century saw "evolution as
nothing less than `the whole of reality`".
Therefore, does belief in the theory of evolution affect a
scientists`s opinion? In some cases, it does:
"Facts do not `speak for themselves`; they are read in
the light of theory. Creative thought, in science as much
as in the arts, is the motor of changing opinion. Science
is a.... human activity, not a mechanized, robotlike
accumulation of objective information, leading by laws of
logic to inescapable interpretations.'
- Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of
Geology and Paleontology,
Harvard University
To me, that statement is saying that the existence of a theory, even
if unproven or unprovable, is to be used to `interpret` scientific
information. In addition, this man seems to be saying that science
should not necessarily use laws of logic to reach interpretations. What
should they then use? Their belief in a myth?
The evolutionist`s faith in the theory of evolution affects their
conduct, enabling them to look at data and reach a conclusion that is
plainly illogical.
The creationist looks at a rose or the butterfly and muses, "Isn`t
it amazing what God has created?". The obvious design of the many forms
of life, the beauty of the creatures, the balance of the system, all
these things sometimes fills the creationist with a sense of awe.
The evolutionist looks at the same things and muses, "Isn`t it
amazing what mutational accidents and chance have produced?". The
accidental design of the many forms of life, the accidental beauty of the
life-forms, the accidental balance of the accidental system, all these
things sometimes place the evolutionist in a sense of awe at what the
theory of evolution has accidentally produced.
This, I believe, is a valid comparison. It is not meant to be
sarcastic or cynical. It demonstrates that the theory of evolution is a
religion, with the same feelings present on either side of the coin.
Despite the shortcomings of his theory, how did belief in the theory
of evolution affect Charles Darwin? Darwin expert Neal Gillespie, in his
book CHARLES DARWIN AND THE PROBLEM OF CREATION (1974, p. 141), said
that "Darwin clearly rejected Christianity and virtually all conventional
arguments in defense of the existence of God and human immortality."
"(Robert Proctor) shows how the major German societies
of physical anthropologists collaborated with the SS
program of race hygiene, helping to make a racial policy..
...Eugene Fischer, the most distinguished of German
physical anthropologists, regarded by many as the founder
of human genetics, was particularly helpful in these
efforts...But surely American physical anthropologists
spoke out clearly against the Nazi perversion of their
science? They did not."
- Matt Cartmill, "Misdeeds in
Anthropology, " Review of Bones,
Bodies, Behavior: Essays on
Physical Anthropology, (Science
(v. 244, p. 858)
"I have done a great deal of work on Darwin and can say
with some assurance that Darwin also did not derive his
theory from nature but rather superimposed a certain
philosophical world-view on nature and then spent 20 years
trying to gather the facts to make it stick."
George Grinnel, Author of
`Pensee`
The Harvard Evolutionist Steven Jay Gould, says that following the
publication of Darwin's 'Origin of Species' in 1859:
"Subsequent arguments for slavery, colonialism, racial
differences, class structures, and sex roles would go
forth primarily under the banner of science."
Gould, Stephen Jay, 'The Mismeasure
of Man' (W.W. Norton and Company,
New York, 1981) p. 72.
`Survival of The Fittest` became the aspect of Darwinian religion
used most by those who attempted to justify their political views.
In their text book, 'Civilization Past and Present,' authors Wallbank and
Taylor said that Darwin's theory of the survival of the fittest:
"...became a vogue that swept western thought in the late
nineteenth century. It also became a convenient doctrine
for justifying various economic and political theories."
Wallbank, Walter T. and Alastair M.
Taylor, 'Civilization Past and
Present,' 4th ed. (Scott, Foresman
and Co., 1961), Vol. 2, p. 361.
"The book, 'The Americans,' describes the use of Social
Darwinism, at the time of the American industrial
revolution, to justify the abuses of capitalism and the
protestant work ethic, but nothing is mentioned of its
role in the defense of racism, sexism, fascism and
communism."
Jordan, Winthrop D., Miriam
Greenblatt and John S. Bowes, 'The
Americans,' (McDougal, Little and
Company, Evanston, IL, 1985) pp.
415-416.
Some industrialists did in fact take advantage of certain
implications of Darwin's theory to condone their unethical practices.
In his autobiography, the great captain of industry, Andrew Carnegie,
described his conversion to evolutionism on reading Darwin, and its
effect on his own world view:
"I remember that light came as in a flood and all was
clear. Not only had I got rid of theology and the
supernatural, but I had found the truth of evolution. 'All
is well since all grows better,' became my motto, my true
source of comfort. Man was not created with an instinct
for his own degradation, but from the lower he had risen
to the higher forms. Nor is there any conceivable end to
his march to perfection."
Hofstadter, Richard, 'Social
Darwinism and American Thought,'
(Beacon Press, 1955) p. 45.
Evolutionism soothed the consciences of the big industrialists in
their dealings with competitors, and it also aided those who took
advantage of the poor. Evolutionism discouraged efforts to improve the
working and living conditions of the poor, the sick and the children
because, after all, it was "natures way" that the strong should prevail
over the weak and even eliminate them. After all, `survival of the
fittest`!
Some have argued that such views are an unfortunate use of Darwinism
that was never suggested by Darwin himself, but this is not true. Robert
D. Clark says that:
"Darwin often said quite plainly that it was wrong to
ameliorate the conditions of the poor, since to do so
would hinder the evolutionary struggle for existence."
Clark, Robert E.D., 'Darwin: Before
and After,' (Poternoster Press,
1958) p. 120.
Again it is often argued that Darwin would never have supported this
interpretation of his theory, but in the sixth chapter of his 'Descent of
Man,' Darwin said that the time would come when the white races of the
world would destroy the black race. Darwin wrote that eventually,
evolution would increase the gap between the human and the ape by the
anticipated extinction of such evolutionary "intermediates" as
chimpanzees and blacks:
"The break will then be rendered wider, for it will
intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may
hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon,
instead of as at present between the negro or Australian
and the Gorilla."
Darwin, Charles, 'Descent of Man,'
1871, p.201
"Darwin's cousin, Sir Francis Galton, carried his uncle`s
ideas to their logical conclusion and became the father of
the American eugenics movement."
"Galton, Sir Francis." 'The
Encyclopedia Britannica,' 1964 ed.
Eugenics is the so-called "science" which seeks to improve the
biological make-up of the human species by selective breeding. Galton
even advocated the regulation of marriage and family size according to
genetic quality of the parents. This was a seemingly logical development
since Darwin believed that the variation he saw among the individuals of
a species was without limit and thus if selective breeding were applied
to humans, as it is to farm animals, the perfect human (superman) was
sure to develop.
This concept of the "master race" was put into actual practice by
Adolph Hitler in Germany through his efforts to create a "pure" Aryan
race while exterminating the Jews who he considered to be inferior. This
`negative publicity` killed the interest in eugenics in America until
recent years. Now, in the end times, with the religion of
evolutionist/humanist views coming into vogue again, there is talk of
doing the same.
Evolutionism has even promoted sexism. For example, one of
America's most distinguished psychologists, G. Stanley Hall, claimed that
suicide rates were higher for women than men because women have a more
primitive `evolutionary status` than men:
"Woman's body and soul is phyletically older and more
primitive, while man is more modern, variable, and less
conservative. Women are always inclined to preserve old
customs and ways of thinking. Women prefer passive
methods; to give themselves up to the power of elemental
forces, as gravity, when they throw themselves from
heights or take poison..."
Hall, G.S., 'Adolescence: Its
Psychology and its Relations to
Physiology, Anthropology,
Sociology, Sex, Crime, Religion,
and Education,' (D. Appleton and
Company, New York, 1904) Vol. 2,
pp. 589 and 784.
Darwinism was also used by the Nazis and others to justify the
aggressive militarism which plunged America into the Second World War.
Friederich von Bernhardi was a German soldier who wrote the book `Germany
and the Next War' which praised the virtues of war in strong evolutionary
terms. Of this book, the anthropologist Ashley Montagu says:
"'War,' declared Bernhardi, 'is a biological necessity;'
it is as necessary as the struggle of the elements of
Nature;' it 'gives a biologically just decision, since its
decisions rest on the very nature of things. The whole
idea of arbitration represents a presumptuous encroachment
on the natural laws of development, for what is right is
decided by the arbitration of war.' In proof thereof such
notions of Darwin's as The Struggle for Existence, Natural
Selection, and the Survival of the Fittest are invoked.
According to Bernhardi, it is plainly evident that anyone
who makes a study of plant and animal life that 'war is a
universal law of nature.' This declaration and
fortification of Germany's will to war - for it had the
highest official sanction and approval -was published in
1911. Three years later the greatest holocaust the world
had ever known was launched..."
Montagu, Ashley, 'Man in Process,'
(World Pub. Co., 1961), pp. 76-77.
Hitler based his fascism on evolutionary theory as is evident from
his speeches and his book 'Mein Kampf.' Robert E.D. Clark has pointed
out that in the great number of books covering every phase of the Hitler
regime, there is hardly any mention of the influence of Darwinism, which
Clark attributes to the fear of being considered `anti-evolutionary`
(Clark, pg. 117).
Benito Mussolini was also intensely influenced by Darwinism which he
thought supported his belief that violence is basic to social
transformation. Clark says that:
"Mussolini's attitude was completely dominated by
evolution. In public utterances he repeatedly used the
Darwinian catchwords while he mocked at perpetual peace,
lest it should hinder the evolutionary process."
Clark, pg. 115
The Prussian militarist, Heinrich von Treitsche, used the concept of
the "survival of the fittest" to actually glorify war and to raise the
interest of the state over the individual:
"The grandeur of war lies in the utter annihilation of
puny man in the great conception of the State, and it
brings out the full significance of the sacrifice of
fellow countrymen for one another. In war the chaff is
winnowed from the wheat."
Von Trietsche, H.G., 'Politics,'
Translated by B. Dugdale and T.
de Bille (Constable and Co.), Vol.
1, pp. 66-67.
The intent is not to blame Darwin for all war but if survival of the
fittest is to be applied to man and taken literally, even brutal
militarism seems a logical consequence. After all, when God is removed
from a man`s beliefs, man will ALWAYS revert back to his old `sin
nature`.
Frederich Engels, one of the founders of Communism, wrote to Karl
Marx, December 12, 1859, "Darwin, whom I am just now reading, is
splendid."
Zirkle, Conway, 'Evolution, Marxian
Biology, and the Social Scene',
(University of Pennsylvania Press,
1959), p. 85.
Karl Marx wrote back on December 9, 1860, "Although it is developed
in a crude English style, this is the book which contains the basis in
natural history for our views." (Zirkle, pg. 86)
Marx again wrote to Engels on January 16, 1861, "Darwin's book is
very important and serves me as a basis in natural selection for the
class struggle in history...not only is a death blow dealt here for the
first time to 'Teleology' in the natural sciences but their rational
meaning is emphatically explained." (Zirkle, pg. 86)
The three things then for which Marx was most indebted to Darwinism
were:
1) an atheistic "explanation" for the origin of the Cosmos
2) the struggle for existence
3) the progressive development and improvement of man
Communism cannot tolerate an allegiance to anything higher than the
state so it demands atheism. Marxism also insists that man`s `well-
being` is progressively improved through a blind process of class
struggle and revolution. Marx had such a high regard for Darwin's
contributions to the development of Communism that he wanted to dedicate
his book 'Das Capital` to him, but Darwin declined the offer.
A quote by Leon Trotsky (Marxist and follower of Lenin) concerning
Darwinism and evolution. It is particularly eye opening since several
advocates of the 'punctuated equilibrium' theory of evolution are avowed
Marxists. These advocates include Steven Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin.
Note particularly Trotsky's use of 'equilibrium' in this passage.
"The Darwinian theory of the origin of species encompasses
the entire span of development of the plant and animal
kingdoms. The struggle for survival and the processes of
natural and sexual selection proceed continuously and
uninterruptedly. But if one could observe these processes
with ample time at one's disposal--a millennium, say, as
the smallest unit of measure -- one would undoubtedly
discover with one's own eyes that there are long ages of
relative equilibrium in the world of living things, when
the laws of selection operate almost imperceptibly, and
the different species remain relatively stable, seeming
the very embodiment of Plato's ideal types. But there are
also ages when the equilibrium between plants, animals,
and their geophysical environment is disrupted, epochs of
geobiological crisis, when the laws of natural selection
come to the fore in all their ferocity, and evolution
passes over the corpses of entire plant and animal
species. On this gigantic scale Darwinian theory stands
out above all as the theory of critical epochs in plant
and animal development."
"Portraits, Personal and
Political", by Leon Trotsky.
George Breitman and George
Saunders, eds. New York :
Pathfinder Press, 1977.
These quotes were originally written in 1919 but not published until
1922. Now compare Trotsky's view with that of Stephen Jay Gould!
"Eldredge and I refer to this scheme as the model of
punctuated equilibria. Lineages change little during most
of their history, but events of rapid speciation
occasionally punctuate this tranquility." "The process may
take hundreds, even thousands of years; you might see
nothing if you stared at speciating bees on a tree for
your entire lifetime. But a thousand years is a tiny
fraction of one percent of the average duration for most
fossil invertebrate species..."
"Eldredge and I were fascinated to learn that many
Russian paleontologists support a model similar to our
punctuated equilibria."
"The Panda's Thumb". New York : W.W.
Norton, 1982. In: "The Episodic
Nature of Evolutionary Change," p.
184-185. Originally published in
'Natural History' magazine.
It might be argued that this paper blames Darwinism for too many of
the great social mistakes and atrocities of our century and that, in any
event, Darwin really did not intend for his theory to have social
implications. That may be true, but in a letter to H. Thiel in 1869,
Darwin seems to indicate that he fully appreciated the social
implications of his theory:
"You will really believe how much interested I am in
observing that you apply to moral and social questions
analogous views to those which I have used in regard to
the modification of species. It did not occur to me
formerly that my views could be extended to such widely
different and most important subjects."
Darwin, Francis, editor, 'The Life
and Letters of Charles Darwin' (D.
Appleton and Co., 1896) Vol. 2, p.
294.
Perhaps the most serious impact of Darwinism on our society is its
essentially atheistic view of the Cosmos and its origin. This view makes
man the sole judge of what is right and wrong.
Some say that belief in Darwinism does not have to destroy one`s
Christian faith, but it can! Darwin was not a scientist, but a clergyman
in the Anglican church and claimed that before his voyage on the Beagle,
he did not "doubt the strict and literal truth of every word in the
Bible," but after he came to accept the origin of all life by evolution
he said:
"I had gradually come by this time to see that the Old
Testament from its manifestly false history of the world..
was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the
Hindus, or the beliefs of the Barbarian."
Rallings, Christopher, 'The Voyage
of Charles Darwin' (Mayflower
Books, New York, 1979) pp. 161-163.
In his autobiography, written mainly for the benefit of his
children, Darwin said that his study of evolution and the laws of nature
made the miracles of the Bible unbelievable. He concluded:
"Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was
at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no
distress, and have never since doubted even for a single
second that my conclusion was correct. I can indeed hardly
see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true...."
Darwin, Francis 'The Life and
Letters'. pp. 277-278.
In addition, I will now review some of the words and phrases used in
the above quotes:
1. `a faith`
2. `biological miracles`
3. `exactly parallel to belief in creation`
4. `good Darwinian`
5. `evolution is a light which illuminates all facts`
6. `scientific religion`
7. `metaphysical belief`
8. `man`s world view today`
9. `the whole of reality`
10. `an ideology`
11. `philosophical world-view`
12. `..light came on as in a flood and all was clear`
13. `..I had gotten rid of theology`
14. `Woman`s body and soul`
I believe any Christian can see and appreciate the religious
overtones of those words and phrases. Those are some of the same words
Christians use in confessing their faith in God and His Son, Jesus
Christ.
These men have not merely adopted the belief of science. They have
made a commitment to a religion, and it has affected their entire body,
soul, and spirit.
Indeed, they have truly begun a belief that, in time, is going to
affect their entire being. Without God, they will inevitably revert back
to their own resources. The Bible calls those `resources` man`s "sin
nature", and the path leads to DESTRUCTION.
"Evolution is the root of atheism, of communism, nazism,
behaviorism, racism, economic imperialism, militarism,
anarchism, and all manner of anti-Christian systems of
belief and practice."
From "The Remarkable Birth
of Planet Earth, by H.M.
Morris, pg. 75
Fortunately, not all scientists have remained true to the faith.
Dr. Collin Patterson, Senior Principal Scientific Officer in the
Paleontology Department of the British Museum of Natural History, says
that he "now realizes that evolution was a faith. I had been duped into
taking evolution as revealed truth in some way"; and, "that evolution not
only conveys no knowledge, but conveys anti-knowledge; apparent knowledge
which is harmful to systematics".
As Ehrlich and Birch have said of the theory of evolution: "Every
conceivable observation can be fitted into it. But no one can think of a
way in which to test it."
"The law of natural selection is not, I will maintain,
science. It is an ideology, and a wicked one, and
it has as much interfered with our ability to perceive
the history of life with clarity as it has interfered
with our ability to see one another with tolerance."
"...we were victims of a cruel social ideology that
assumes that competition among individuals, classes,
nations or races is the natural condition of life, and that
it is also natural for the superior to dispossess the
inferior. For the last century and more this ideology has
been thought to be a natural law of science, the mechanism
of evolution which was formulated most powerfully by
Charles Darwin in 1859."
- Kenneth J. Hsu, "Is Darwinism
Science?" Earthwatch (3/89)
_________________________________________
There are many books and magazines articles by scientists and
laymen which are highly critical of all aspects of evolution. The
following books should be available in libraries and book stores and
will document the scientific case against evolutionism:
'Evolution: A Theory in Crisis' by Michael Denton (Adler & Adler,
1985)
'The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution' by Wm. R. Fix (MacMillan
Publishing Company N.Y., 1984)
'The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong' by Francis
Hitching (Ticknor & Fields, New Haven, 1982)
'Darwin Retried' by Norman Macbeth (A Delta Book, Published by Dell
Publishing Co., New York, 1971).
THIS FILE IS FREEWARE
IT MAY BE REPRODUCED
IN ANY MANNER AS LONG AS IT IS NOT CHANGED