You would hardly think of "dogma," "faith," "doctrines," and "mysteries" as being the language of evolutionists. But far from being uncommon, such mysterious and religious-sounding words are to be found throughout evolutionary thought, showing evolution to be more a new religion than a provable science. EVOLUTION is a modern religion. To speak of it doubtfully, or to challenge its authenticity is a kind of sacrilegious, scientific blasphemy, calling down the wrath of its devoted followers on the head of the unenlightened doubter.
There is no question about it — they say. Evolution is to be treated with the awe and respect of devotion to an absolute — a LAW, as it were, which many evolutionists devotedly follow — a dogmatic, absolutist assertion of faith.
Smashing the Idol n past years, we have continually exposed this false religion for what it is. We have shown its vast flaws, carelessly assumed hypotheses, missing evidence, irrational approaches, and its utter challenge to human credibility. And in so doing, we have sometimes incurred the wrath and displeasure of some few defenders of the faith.
The modern Dagon demands devotion. To doubt it is a type of scientific heresy.
Besides those who dogmatically assert the "truth" of evolution, and who say there are no other alternatives, there are many laymen who believe they can reconcile evolution with the Bible, and religion. "Theistic evolutionists," they may be called.
But despite the protests of those who feel they can reconcile evolutionary thought with their religious concepts — this article will point out the very authorities they cite DO NOT attempt any such reconciliation. They repeatedly state quite the contrary; that the two (religion and evolution) are utterly irreconcilable!
Do you doubt that evolution is a religion? Do you doubt that it utilizes faith, dogma, and belief in a vague, ancient "beginning" which sounds like a statement of religious belief? Then please allow some of the earlier "defenders of the faith" — the most eminent evolutionists of all — to set your doubts at rest.
Writes Thornwell Jacobs, in his book The New Science and the Old Religion: "Master minds from all fields of discovery... are united in their confession of faith which is embraced in that superb generalization called 'evolution'" (emphasis mine throughout).
But not only do evolutionists speak of dogma, doctrines and faith — they also urge upon the unenlightened student of their faith various subtle forms of intellectual pressure — inferring that those who would venture to doubt are incapable of rational thought.
"The fact remains that among the present generation no informed person entertains any doubt of the validity of the evolution theory in the sense that evolution has occurred... Evolution as an historical fact is established as thoroughly as science can establish a fact witnessed by no human eye" (Theodosius Dobzhansky, Genetics and the Origin of Species, p. 8).
Another writer speaks of the qualifications for intellectual competency: "We do not know any competent naturalist who has any hesitation in accepting the general doctrine... no one has any hesitation in regard to that fact" (J. Arthur Thompson, Concerning Evolution, p. 53).
Another speaks of the large numbers of adherents to the doctrines of evolution, thus using the commonplace argument "everybody's doing it." "Scientists the world over agree that the validity of the principle [of evolution] has been amply demonstrated... Let us rest assured that the truth of evolution is demonstrated" (H. H. Newman, The Nature of the World and of Man, p. 381).
Another cites education and culture: "Evolution is now an integral part of all general education and culture. To suppose that it may someday be abandoned is to live in intellectual barbarism."
But just who, then, among the land of the living or dead, is included in the unenlightened realm of intellectual barbarity?
It may be admired as forceful preaching to inveigh against all believers in God, the Bible account of creation, and the hereafter as intellectual barbarians — but forceful though this type preaching might be, it still smacks of "protesting overmuch," leading one to ponder whether the evolutionists would just as soon laymen didn't bother themselves about investigating the theory in the first place.
If you are the end result of such enormous changes over such incomprehensible periods of time, if YOU are the proudest accomplishment of blind and chance processes, shouldn't you wonder about WHAT you are, WHY you are here, WHERE you came from, and WHERE you are going?
The NEW Dark Ages? Most laymen can recall, from high school history, various religions which have insisted the understanding of the "mysteries" of the faith were to be left to the paid professionals — it was not the lot of the worshippers to question, to wonder. It was theirs to accept the preachments, and obey.
Looking back on such medieval practices, we can only be the more thankful for our freedoms of choice, today. But to draw an obvious comparison — it seems some proponents of evolution would prefer the average laymen simply left all thoughts concerning the validity of the theory to the professionals.
Many scientists have been quick to point out the practice of some theologians to leave the deep religious matters to the professionals — the men of the cloth. It was not for the layman to bother his head about God, angels and the location of hell, it seemed.
And so evolutionists seem to enjoin today, "Don't bother your uninformed little head about all the seemingly impossible 'leaps,' conflicting information, chaotic disarray, lack of proof, missing links, unobserved phenomena or unanswerable mysteries."
"Surely" they would seem to intone, "the ways of evolutionary origins are mysterious, and past finding out." "Yea," they seem to preach, "eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the mind of man the marvelous miracles and chance occurrences which contriveth to bring about our being."
And it becomes an emotional issue with some, too. Some few defenders of the faith have displayed a certain tenderness to criticism — perhaps even a lack of a proper amount of faith in their own theories. From time to time one invites me to "stick to religion" and leave evolution alone.
But evolutionists have never proved especially bashful (as we shall see demonstrated in this article) when treating the Biblical account of creation and God Himself with something less than respect. So it seems a pity some few cannot accept objective criticism in their own oft-stated "spirit of science."
After all, avowed evolutionists say to you, IF you are to accept their theories, you HAVE NO GOD. Your belief in any Creator Being is regarded as belonging to that dark era of ancient times of superstition, witchcraft, and voodoo.
If the evolutionists' arguments are true, then you have no spiritual makeup, no life after death, and no hope beyond this temporal physical existence, AND YOU HAVE NO MORAL GUIDE FOR HUMAN CONDUCT!
If evolutionists be correct, then you have no reason for controlling human impulses short of those penalties still imposed by an ever-changing society.
Some few (by no means all) evolutionists resent being challenged in their beliefs. But do they expect the layman to remain placidly uninvolved and disinterested when they sweep aside, with one pedantic and impatient gesture, the whole history of the Western world, the invention of printing, the founding faith of our forebears, the beginning roots of our civilization, and the basis for our freedoms?
No — every human being should very carefully look into BOTH evolution AND the Bible — whether evolutionists feel the average human being is entitled to an opinion or not. After all, it's your life.
Strangely, we live in a world where laws exist to punish one man for slandering another, but where are the laws governing slandering the high office of the Creator God? While it is well and good we still recognize the right of free expression, and that at least some humans have learned how to disagree without being disagreeable, it seems many have nothing but utter contempt for their Creator — this expressed in the manner in which they live their lives, their profanities and curses, and even the most direct forms of ridiculing the belief in God.
A Built-in Bias? s there some strange compulsion in human nature which seems to make it AUTOMATICALLY hostile to God? Is there some built-in antisupernaturalistic bias in man?
Listen to these choice statements from some of the leading evolutionists
JULIAN HUXLEY: "For my own part, the sense of spiritual relief which comes from rejecting the idea of God as a supernatural being is enormous."of recent times. "Practically all enlightened people have come to accept the idea of man's origin by descent from lower animals, even though they may be quite ignorant of the evidence for it or the stages in the slow progression from simple beginnings to mankind's present estate" (James H. McGregor, General Anthropology ).
And this: "Never again can a majority of the best-informed minds of any advanced culture give support or countenance to a belief in the supernatural" (The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought, by Oscar Riddle).
The same author also said, "Always incomplete, science has now advanced far enough to make any imaginable view of the supernatural unacceptable to a high proportion of the best-informed minds."
Is this because science has carefully weighed the "supernatural," and the BIBLE account of creation, and found it wanting? No. Few, if any, have seriously looked into it.
I do not imply traditional theology, nor even the most commonly accepted religions of the day, but the actual statements of Genesis itself! Perhaps some assume scientists have turned to evolution AFTER they carefully entertained the possibility of special creation, and found it lacking in some point?
Not so. The whole APPROACH to the study was preconditioned to OMIT the idea of special creation.
Notice. "In science one should NEVER accept a metaphysical explanation if a physical explanation is possible, or indeed, conceivable" (This View of Life, p. 200, George Gaylord Simpson).
When applying this reasoning to laboratory experiments in, say, explosives, it would appear good practical advice. But when applying such suggestions to origins, to those areas which science ADMITS lie outside science, it seems an unreasonable approach. Time and again, in these articles, we have shown how scientists admit the most basic questions confronting evolution lie OUTSIDE the realm of science. Yet, even though reduced to conjecture, guesswork, and imagination, many seem bent upon FORCING a "scientific" conclusion rather than a "metaphysical" one, EVEN WHEN A METAPHYSICAL ONE WOULD SUIT THE KNOWN FACTS MORE EASILY THAN AN ASSUMED POSTULATE!
Another of the acknowledged greats of evolution, Julian Huxley, said, "Our faith in the idea of evolution depends on our reluctance to accept the antagonistic doctrine of special creation" (Dogma of Evolution, p. 304).
But is faith, even according to the Bible definition, based upon one's admitted UNWILLINGNESS to accept any other alternative? The Bible insists faith is based ON ASSURANCE (Heb. 11:1), on the conviction of the believer in practical FACT, not empty guesswork. Faith which is only assumption, based on guesses, is not faith, but vague hope.
Following are a few poignant quotations from Julian Huxley-which have never been retracted, to my knowledge. "I think we can dismiss entirely all idea of a supernatural designer being responsible for the evolutionary process," he said, thus refuting the claims of some few who cling to "theistic evolution." Remember, even the "authorities" of the evolutionary world themselves do not attempt to sit astride the fence of evolution and the first chapter of Genesis. They state there are only the two alternatives — that it is utterly impossible to believe both. And in this, they are correct.
Mr. Huxley also said, "God has been forced to abdicate his kingdom section by section." "Operationally God is beginning to resemble, not a ruler, but the last fading smile of a cosmic cheshire cat."
I sincerely doubt that Mr. Huxley experienced a wave of protest challenging these as blasphemous allegations, since attacking God has long since been considered not only acceptable, but chic.
But it is amusing to me to ponder the attitudes of those indignant spirits whose ire is aroused at the slightest questioning of evolutionary dogma.
Had I said, in past articles, "Our FAITH in God depends on our reluctance to accept the antagonistic doctrine of evolution," I can almost see the sneers, and hear the shrieks of derision and chortles of scorn from dyed-in-the-wool evolutionists. Had I said, "In religion one should NEVER accept a scientific explanation if a spiritual explanation is possible, or indeed, conceivable," I should have been accused of the very narrowest of anti-scientific bias!
It would seem such arguments work both ways.
Mr. Huxley also said, "Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the Creator of organisms from the sphere of rational discussion," thus labeling any and all who should ever challenge Darwin's conclusions as being irrational.
Strong words, those — and a most direct challenge to the Creator and His laws. Another writer said, "The first point to make about Darwin's theory is that it is no longer a theory, but a fact. No serious scientist would deny the fact that evolution has occurred, just as he would not deny the fact that the earth goes around the sun" (Issues in Evolution, p. 41).
A House Divided But serious or not, many scientists HAVE denied that evolution is a proven fact — and there are nearly as many varying postulates for evolutionary thought as there are evolutionists to propose them.
While some laymen may be under the impression evolutionists are unified in their acceptance of evolutionary theory, the truth is far different.
For example, "As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process" (Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation).
Mr. Huxley himself said, "We need not deny the fact of evolution because we have not yet discovered the machinery."
From left to right, illustrations showing similarity of human, chicken, and shark embryos. Is this a proof of evolution? Or doesn't this more logically show that all embryos were designed by the same master architect a supreme Creator? (See PDF for Picture) If this were your approach to understanding, say, a modern jet airplane, you would appear a little ridiculous. To confidently assume it had EVOLVED, and to call your assumption a FACT, even while admitting it was incomprehensible to you just HOW such a modern marvel COULD have evolved — well...
Said another author, "In other words, the evolutionists do not doubt for a moment that evolution has occurred; but when it comes to the question of just precisely HOW evolution occurs they are at a loss to answer" (New Views on Evolution, G. P. Conger).
And still another said, "Among the present generation no informed person entertains any doubt of the validity of the evolution theory in the sense that evolution has occurred, and yet nobody is audacious enough to believe himself in the possession of the knowledge of the actual mechanics of evolution" (The Mansions of Philosophy, p. 70, Will Durant).
It seems to be a matter of selecting the "notion" or the "theory" which is most appealing to you, and then operating from the point of view of that theory!
But can theories color even the known, provable, practical facts?
Indeed they can!
Recently, one layman attempted to enlighten me on the theories of "theistic evolution," the while claiming to set forth comparative anatomy and physiology as his most basic proof.
He never for a moment saw the whole argument of comparative anatomy IS EVEN BETTER SUITED TO DIVINE CREATION, since it plainly shows a MASTER PLANNER, and ONE DESIGNER, utilizing ONE OVERALL PLAN.
Why didn't we see this?
Because his whole approach was preconditioned, in advance.
Preconditioned Attitudes Once your attitude is set, your mind conditioned to "see" something which has been ALREADY PLACED in your mind, it is amazing what the mind can believe it has "seen"! The conclusions reached are the result of a basic approach to the facts presented — a beginning premise.
For example, once a student has been assured, in advance, the information he is about to receive is proof of evolution, once his whole approach has been colored by mind conditioning, it is truly "easy" for him to "observe" how the carefully arranged skeletal systems of, say, tiny eohippus, larger horses, gibbons, apes and man "might have" formed parts of an evolutionary "tree."
But think of a relevant example. Suppose you wanted to play a trick on an unsuspecting friend. You have carefully heated a poker in the fireplace, and have a piece of beefsteak close by. Also, you have an ice-cold poker in hand, concealed from your friend. Suppose you ask him to close his eyes, and then quickly touch the back of his hand with the icy poker, while instantaneously searing the piece of meat with the red hot poker? What will be his reaction?
I don't advocate that anyone actually attempt such a trick, since it could bring about a fainting or heart attack — but, knowing the power the human mind has over the body, 1 believe it is safe to say it is not only quite likely the man would be unable to determine in those first few seconds whether he had actually been burned or not, but it is also possible he might find that section of his skin actually turning red.
If he was properly prepared to believe he was going to be burnt, his mind would wrongly interpret the feeling of extreme cold as being extreme heat! Yet the two are exact opposites.
Students whose minds are prepared to believe they will be seeing "proof" of progression, rather than similarity of DESIGN, will accept such "proof" as being ACTUAL. And how many classrooms are there, today, where BOTH ALTERNATIVES are presented fairly?
How many textbooks are there where, say, the right hand pages all set forth the evolutionary points of view, and the left hand ones set forth the view of special creation?
How many colleges and universities exist with courses which COMBINE both possibilities? Or isn't it more common to find theologians being trained in atmosphere which seem to continue in sublime IGNORANCE of modern evolutionary thought, just as scientists and evolutionists remain in sublime IGNORANCE of the Bible, and what it plainly says?
This article, by itself, does not disprove evolution. It could hardly pretend to "prove" creation. But it HAS intended to sharpen the issues a little more clearly, and to present the truth about the basic APPROACH found in all too many cases.
For only one of the many, many cases of SPECIFIC FLAWS in evolutionary thinking, read our free brochure, A Whale of a Tale! You'll find SPECIFICS here — some poignant questions asked — some amusing examples given, and you will be given both sides of the picture.
Every month, you can expect articles in the pages of this magazine exposing the false doctrines of evolution for what they really are — the greatest hoax ever foisted upon the minds of unsuspecting people — a veritable latter-day FAITH, complete with dogma, doctrines, and mysteries. Shockingly, you would find, if you cared to research it for yourself, a remarkable similarity of approach in traditional, religions and the theory of evolution!