The flesh is the old life, the natural life inherited from Adam, with its apparent resources of personality, of ancestry, of commitment, of dedication, and so forth. You can do all kinds of religious things in the flesh. The flesh can preach a sermon. The flesh can sing in the choir. The flesh can act as an usher. The flesh can lead people to Christ. Did you know that? The flesh can go out and be very zealous in its witnessing and amass a terribly impressive list of people won to Christ, scalps to hang on a belt. The flesh can do these things but it is absolutely nauseating in the eyes of God. It is merely religious activity. There is nothing wrong with what is being done, but what is terribly wrong is the power being relied upon to do it (Ray Stedman).
Other Authors

The Religion Of Evolution

The Religion Of Evolution

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 `wellbeing ` 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