scientists are in general agreement that evolutionary theory is an
established fact of science and cannot logically be questioned as a
view of origins. However, what one concludes about human origins is
one of the most crucial points for deciding a whole range of other
issues, whether positively or negatively—from the nature of man and
the purpose of life to the relevance of morality and religion to the
future of humanity. Is man only the end product of the impersonal
forces of matter, time and chance with all this implies—or the
purposeful creation of a good and loving God with all this implies?
Given the tremendous influence of evolutionary theory in the last 100
years, the answer has already been given to most people.
history of mankind, few theories have had the impact that evolution
has. The famous evolutionary Zoologist Ernst Mayr of Harvard
University observed in 1972 that evolution was coming to be regarded
as "perhaps the most fundamental of all intellectual revolutions in
the history of mankind."1
definitive modern biography by James Moore, Darwin: The Life of a
Tormented Evolutionist, points out that Darwin, "More than any
modern thinker—even Freud or Marx… has transformed the way we see
ourselves on the planet."2
Bird is a prominent Atlanta attorney and Yale Law School graduate who
argued the major creationist case on the issue of creation/evolution
before the U.S. Supreme Court. In his impressive criticism of
evolutionary theory, The Origin of Species Revisited: The Theories of
Evolution and of Abrupt Appearance, he observes of The Origin of
Species, "That single volume has had a massive influence not only on
the sciences, which increasingly are built on evolutionary
assumptions, but on the humanities, theology, and government."3
Mankind Evolving, eminent geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky points out
that the publication of Darwin’s book in 1859, "marked a turning point
in the intellectual history of mankind…" and "ushered in a new
understanding of man and his place in the universe."4 He
reflects that even a hundred years after Darwin "…the idea of
evolution is becoming an integral part of man’s image of himself. The
idea has percolated to much wider circles than biologists or even
scientists; understood or misunderstood, it is a part of mass
biologist Michael Denton also points out the dramatic influence of
this dominant theory, even in disciplines outside the natural
twentieth century would be incomprehensible without the Darwinian
revolution. The social and political currents which have swept the
world in the past eighty years would have been impossible without
its intellectual sanction…. The influence of evolutionary theory on
fields far removed from biology is one of the most spectacular
examples in history of how a highly speculative idea for which there
is no really hard scientific evidence can come to fashion the
thinking of a whole society and dominate the outlook of an age.
is perhaps the Darwinian view of nature more than any other that is
responsible for the agnostic and skeptical outlook of the twentieth
century…. [It is] a theory that literally changed the world….6
evolution has permeated practically the entire fabric of contemporary
culture and provides the basis for modern man’s world view and thus
his subsequent actions, who can argue that this theory is unimportant?
Indeed, it is how an individual views his origin, his ultimate
beginning that, to a great extent, conditions his world view, the
decisions he makes, and even his general lifestyle. As the philosopher
Francis Schaeffer once noted, people usually live more consistently
with their own presuppositions than even they themselves may realize.7
need examine the twentieth century and take note of the impact of
evolutionary materialism to see that, "Evolutionary theory does indeed
dominate modern thought in virtually every field—every discipline of
study, every level of education, and every area of practice."8
it turns out that evolution is wrong, then everything it has impacted
may have been affected in a prejudicial or even harmful way. Since we
have discussed this topic elsewhere, we will not elaborate on it here.9
What we will do is show why none of the harmful, indeed, often tragic
consequences of this theory were ever necessary in the first place.
material that follows, we will offer some of the reasons why evolution
is widely accepted, why we believe evolutionary theory is wrong and
why we believe it should no longer be accepted by thinking people, at
least by those who do not allow their personal materialistic
philosophies to color their interpretations of scientific data. Below
we offer six false assumptions relating to belief in evolution.10
Assumption 1—Scientists accept evolution because it is a proven fact
of science that cannot logically be denied.
many popular misunderstandings concerning the nature of science.
Philosopher of science Dr. J. P. Moreland discusses some of these
misconceptions and observes that even "scientists today, in contrast
to their counterparts in earlier generations, are often ill equipped
to define science, since such a project is philosophical in nature."11
In fact, Moreland cites several standard definitions of science given
in such texts as College Physics, Biological Science, Webster’s New
Collegiate Dictionary, as well as judge William R. Overton’s
definition of science in the decision against creationism in the
famous creation science trial in Little Rock, Arkansas, December 1981.
He observes that none of these definitions of science is adequate.12
It is not
our purpose here to discuss the problems involved in the definition of
We do need to know that the interaction of science and philosophy is a
complex one and that there is no universally accepted clear-cut
definition of what science is. We are on safer ground if we define
science in a general way, noting its methodology, i.e., the scientific
method. For our purposes, the Oxford American Dictionary (1982)
definition of science is adequate:
of study which is considered either with a connected body of
demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified
and more or less colligated and brought under general laws, and
which includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truth
within its own domain. (Emphasis added)
work involves things like observation, formulating a hypothesis,
experimental testing to repeat observations, predictability, control,
the scientific method by first of all observing and recording certain
natural phenomena. He then formulates a generalization (scientific
hypothesis) based upon his observations. In turn, this generalization
allows him to make predictions. He then tests his hypothesis by
conducting experiments to determine if the predicted result will
obtain. If his predictions prove true, then he will consider his
hypothesis verified. Through continual confirmation of the predictions
[e.g., by himself and other parties] the hypothesis will become a
theory, and the theory, with time and tests, will graduate to the
status of a [scientific] law.14
scientific method may be diagramed as follows:
Certain Natural Phenomena Observed
Observations Compiled and Data Studied
(Generalization Explaining Data in Summary Form)
Further Observations Confirming Hypothesis
Further Observations Conflicting with
New Hypothesis Formulated
Observations Consistently Confirming the
above definition of science and description of the scientific method
will indicate is that, while scientists who study nature utilize the
scientific method, evolutionary theory itself is not ultimately
scientific because evolution has few, if any, "demonstrated truths" or
"observed facts." Microevolution or strictly limited change within
species can be demonstrated but this has nothing to do with evolution
as commonly understood. After citing evolutionists who confess that
evolution is not scientifically provable, Dr. Randy L. Wysong
is not a formulation of the true scientific method. They [these
scientists] realize [that, in effect] evolution means the initial
formation of unknown organisms from unknown chemicals produced in an
atmosphere or ocean of unknown composition under unknown conditions,
which organisms have then climbed an unknown evolutionary ladder by
an unknown process leaving unknown evidence.16
words, to the extent that the findings of science hinge upon
demonstrated truths and observed facts, evolutionary theory has little
to do with the findings of science. Evolution is more properly
considered a naturalistic philosophy or world view that seeks to
explain the origin of life materialistically. As the late A. E.
Wilder-Smith, who held three earned doctorates in science, observed,
has shown [in his The Implications of Evolution], Neodarwinian
thought teaches seven main postulates. Not one of these seven theses
can be proved or even tested experimentally. If they are not
supported by experimental evidence, the whole theory can scarcely be
considered to be a scientific one. If the seven main postulates of
Neodarwinism are experimentally untestable, then Neodarwinism must
be considered to be a philosophy rather than a science, for science
is concerned solely with experi-mentally testable evidence.17
J. Ouweneel, Research Associate in Developmental Genetics, Ultrech,
Netherlands, with the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences,
points out in his article "The Scientific Character of the Evolution
Doctrine," "It is becoming increasingly apparent that evolutionism is
not even a good scientific theory."18
He documents why evolution should not be considered a scientific fact,
theory, hypothesis, or postulate. For example, concerning the latter,
evolutionary theory is not properly designated a scientific postulate
because this must: (a) be in accordance with the principal laws of
mathematics and natural science; (b) not be more complicated than
necessary for the explanation of observed phenomena; (c) give rise to
conclusions which can be controlled by further experimental
observations and testing; (d) conform to the general data of science;
(e) alternate hypotheses must be shown to be wrong or less acceptable;
and (f) finally, the reliability of a scientific conception is
inversely proportional to the number of unproven postulates on which
it is founded. Evolution fails all three criteria for categorization
as a scientific postulate.
This is why
Dr. Ouweneel concludes that evolution is actually a materialistic
postulate rather than a credible scientific theory.19
But one would never know this from reading the scientific literature,
literature which constantly assures the world that evolution is a
principal reason evolution "must" be a scientific fact is because of
the materialistic bias that pervades the scientific world—a bias
which, in the end, is really unnecessary and in ways even harmful to
the cause of science.20
evolution continues to be set forth as an established fact by the
scientific community. Pierre-Paul Grasse, the renowned French
Zoologist and past president of the French Academy of Sciences, states
in his Evolution of Living Organisms: "Zoologists and botanists are
nearly unanimous in considering evolution as a fact and not a
hypothesis. I agree with this position and base it primarily on
documents provided by paleontology, i.e., the [fossil] history of the
Theodosius Dobzhansky, who, according to another leading evolutionist,
Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard, is "the greatest evolutionist of our
asserts in his award-winning text, Mankind Evolving, "the proofs of
evolution are now a matter of elementary biology…. In Lamark’s and
Darwin’s times evolution was a hypothesis; in our day it is proven."23
World famous scientist George Gaylord Simpson, distinguished professor
of vertebrate paleontology at the Museum of Comparative Zoology at
Harvard emphasizes in The Meaning of Evolution, "Ample proof has been
repeatedly presented and is available to anyone who really wants to
know the truth….In the present study the factual truth of organic
evolution is taken as established…"24
is a distinguished Cornell University astronomer and Pulitzer Prize
winning author. He is perhaps best known as the host and co-writer of
the Cosmos television series seen in 60 countries by approximately 3
percent of all people on earth; the hard cover edition of Cosmos was
on the New York Times best-seller list for 70 weeks and may be the
best-selling science book in the English language in the 20th century.
In this book, Sagan simply states, "Evolution is a fact, not a
anthropologist Konrad Lorenz observed in Intellectual Digest, "It is
not a theory, but an irrefutable historical fact, that the living
world—since its origin—has evolved from ‘below’ to ‘above.’"26
Rene Dubos, one of the country’s leading ecologists, stated in
American Scientist, "Most enlightened persons now accept as a fact
that everything in the cosmos—from heavenly bodies to human beings—has
developed and continues to develop through evolutionary processes."27
Noted geneticist Richard Goldschmidt of the University of California
once stated in American Scientist, "Evolution of the animal and plant
world is considered by all those entitled to judgment to be a fact for
which no further proof is needed."28
prominent evolutionist, Sir Julian Huxley, claimed in his famous
keynote address at the Darwin Centennial held in 1959 at the
University of Chicago, "The first point to make about Darwin’s theory
is that it is no longer a theory, but a fact. No serious scientists
would deny the fact that evolution has occurred, just as he would not
deny the fact that the earth goes around the sun."29
On the other
hand, creationists and other non-evolutionary scientists argue that
evolution cannot logically be considered factual apart from any real
hard data in the life sciences show that evolution is not occurring
today, all the real data in the earth sciences show it did not occur
in the past, and all the genuine data in the physical sciences show
it is not possible at all. Nevertheless, evolution is almost
universally accepted as a fact in all the natural sciences.30
comments of the late Canadian scholar, Arthur C. Custance (Ph.D.
Anthropology), author of the seminal ten-volume The Doorway Papers. He
was a member of the Canadian Physiological Society, a fellow of the
Royal Anthropological Institute and a member of the New York Academy
of Sciences. In "Evolution: An Irrational Faith" he observes,
all the fundamentals of the orthodox evolutionary faith have shown
themselves to be either of extremely doubtful validity or simply
contrary to fact…. So basic are these erroneous [evolutionary]
assumptions that the whole theory is now largely maintained in spite
of rather than because of the evidence…. As a consequence, for the
great majority of students and for that large ill-defined group,
"the public," it has ceased to be a subject of debate. Because it is
both incapable of proof and yet may not be questioned, it is
virtually untouched by data which challenge it in any way. It has
become in the strictest sense irrational…. Information or concepts
which challenge the theory are almost never given a fair hearing….31
In fact, in
the opinion of this erudite scholar,
Evolutionary philosophy has indeed become a state of mind, one might
almost say a kind of mental prison rather than a scientific
attitude.… To equate one particular interpretation of the data with
the data itself is evidence of mental confusion…. The theory of
evolution…is detrimental to ordinary intelligence and warps
the premises of evolutionary theory are about as invalid as they
could possibly be…. If evolutionary theory was strictly scientific,
it should have been abandoned long ago. But because it is more
philosophy than science, it is not susceptible to the
self-correcting mechanisms that govern all other branches of
scientists can be wrong.
of science reveals many instances where the majority of scientists
have been convinced as to a particular theory and yet been wrong.
Further, when it comes to the discussion of the creation/evolution
issue, many scientists today simply seem to be closed minded. Why?
Because modern science is committed to the ideology of evolution and
any time a philosophical commitment to a particular ideology exists,
there will probably be a reluctance to consider alternate viewpoints.
Yet consider again the comments of Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith, the
deliverer of the Huxley Memorial Lecture at the Oxford Union, Oxford
University, February 14, 1986:
May not a
future generation well ask how any scientist, in full possession of
his intellectual faculties and with adequate knowledge of
information theory, could ever execute the feat of cognitive
acrobatics necessary to sincerely believe that a (supremely complex)
machine system of information, storage and retrieval, servicing
millions of cells, diagnosing defects and then repairing them in a
teleonomic Von Newman machine manner, arose in randomness—the
antipole of information?34
words, "How could any scientist in possession of the modern facts we
now have logically continue to exercise faith in naturalistic
evolution?" As molecular biologist Michael Denton observes of the
created order of living things, "To common sense it does indeed appear
absurd to propose that chance could have thrown together devices of
such complexity and ingenuity that they appear to represent the very
epitome of perfection."35
Nevertheless, there are many reasons explaining why scientists who
accept evolution can be wrong. Among them we mention four.
A) A false
belief can be accepted by mistakenly assuming there are no legitimate
scientific theories to replace it.
Wilder-Smith observes that when the modern scientific establishment
adheres to evolutionary belief, it is "certainly not because
experimental evidence encourages the establishment to do so."366
He explains that a commitment to materialism is the problem. Thus,
exists at present no other purely scientific alternative which
postulates a purely scientific materialistic basis for biogenesis
and biology. To repeat, there is at present no purely scientific
alternative to Darwin. Creationism, being religious, is of little
use to the materialistic thought of today. It is simply an
irrelevant subject worthy only of ridicule…. Scientists whose
upbringing and education are Darwinian and therefore naturalistic,
have for this reason no real alternative to Darwinism. Here we have
perhaps one of the main reasons for the victory of Darwinism even
today, even though the accumulating evidence of science is steadily
against the theory.37
But what if
there is a legitimate scientific option to evolution which is not
materialistic? For example, as we will discuss later, Yale Law School
graduate Wendell R. Bird fully documents that the theory of "abrupt
appearance" is entirely scientific—and also that such a theory was
capable of being advanced scientifically by scientists of an earlier
era. Further, he shows that creation itself is not necessarily
religious; it too can be fully scientific.38
B) A false
theory can be accepted because scientific facts can be misinterpreted
or unnaturally forced to fit a dominant theory.
The facts of
the natural world are in the possession of every scientist,
creationist or evolutionist. The issue in debate is the interpretation
of those facts. Yet scientific facts may not only seem to fit a false
theory, but scientific facts themselves may become irrelevant because
of the intrinsic appeal of a particular paradigm whose own
preservation becomes paramount:
matter how convincing such disproofs [of evolution] might appear, no
matter how contradictory and unreal much of the Darwinian framework
might now seem to anyone not committed to its defense, as
philosophers of science like Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend have
pointed out, it is impossible to falsify theories by reference to
the facts or indeed by any sort of rational or empirical argument.
The history of science amply testifies to what Kuhn has termed "the
priority of the paradigm" and provides many fascinating examples of
the extraordinary lengths to which members of the scientific
community will go to defend a theory just as long as it holds
sufficient intrinsic appeal.39
the geocentric theory of the sun orbiting the earth dominated science
for several hundred years. Although a heliocentric alternative was
considered as early as the Greek astronomers, the geocentric theory
was, by the late middle ages, "a self-evident truth, the one and only
sacred and unalterable picture of cosmological reality."40
But, as with all false theories, there were innumerable facts which
got in the way. The response of scientists was to invent
"explanations" to account for the irregularities. As more and more
explanations were required to deal with more and more problems
presented by undeniable facts, by the early 16th century the entire
Ptolemaic system had become "a monstrosity" of fantastically involved
explanations and counter-explanations.41
Nevertheless, "so ingrained was the idea that the earth was the center
of the universe that hardly anyone, even those astronomers who were
well aware of the growing unreality of the whole system, ever bothered
to consider an alternative theory."42
century concept of phlogiston is also instructive. The theory of
phlogiston "assumed that all combustible bodies, including metals,
contained a common material, phlogiston, which escaped on combustion
but could be readily transferred from one body to another."43
Scientific experiments with zinc and phosphorus appeared to prove the
The concept was fully accepted for a hundred years and debated for
another hundred years before it was finally disproven. But in fact,
"The theory was a total misrepresentation of reality. Phlogiston did
not even exist, and yet its existence was firmly believed and the
theory adhered to rigidly for nearly 100 years throughout the 18th
As was true
for the geocentric theory, awkward facts were cunningly assimilated,
explained away or ignored. It was the false theory itself which
determined how science dealt with facts. The facts themselves had to
bow to the truth of phlogiston. Thus, as time progressed and more
discoveries were made which made it increasingly difficult to believe
in phlogiston, the theory was not rejected but "was modified by the
insertion of more and more unwarranted and ad hoc assumptions about
the nature of phlogiston."46
Origins of Modern Science, Professor H. Butterfield observes how the
phlogiston theory actually led to scientists being intellectually
incapacitated to deal with the evidence:
two decades of the 18th century give one of the most spectacular
proofs in history of the fact that able men who had the truth under
their very noses, and possessed all the ingredients for the solution
of the problem—the very men who had actually made the strategic
discoveries—were incapacitated by the phlogiston theory from
realizing the implications of their own work.47
In a similar
fashion Denton comments,
It is not
hard to find inversions of common sense in modern evolutionary
thought which are strikingly reminiscent of the mental gymnastics of
the phlogiston chemists or the medieval astronomers…. The Darwinist,
instead of questioning the orthodox framework as common sense would
seem to dictate, attempts of justifying his position by ad hoc
proposals,…which to the skeptic are self-apparent rationalizations
to neutralize what is, on the face of it, hostile evidence.48
great many intractable scientific problems with modern evolutionary
belief do not constitute a disproof of Darwinian claims but rather
situations which require adjustment to the belief in order that the
belief be preserved at all costs.
C) A false
belief can be accepted because scientists assume the belief to be true
only because of broad general support among scientists.
In the case
of evolution, no one questions the basic idea because everyone accepts
the basic idea:
that every journal, academic debate and popular discussion assumes
the truth of Darwinian theory tends to reinforce its credibility
enormously. This is bound to be so because, as sociologists of
knowledge are at pains to point out, it is by conversation in the
broadest sense of the word that our views and conceptions of reality
are maintained and therefore the plausibility of any theory or world
view is largely dependent upon the social support it receives rather
than its empirical content or rational consistency. Thus all the
pervasive affirmation of the validity of Darwinian theory has had
the inevitable effect of raising its status to an impregnable axiom
which could not even conceivably be wrong.49
constant refrain that evolution is a "undisputed scientific fact." As
Richard Dawkins asserts in The Selfish Gene: "The theory is about as
much in doubt as the earth goes around the sun."50
Once the scientific community elevates a theory, in this case
evolution, to a self-evident truth, defending it becomes irrelevant
and there is "no longer any point in having to establish its validity
by reference to empirical facts."51
Further, all disagreement with the current view becomes irrational by
definition. As P. Feyerabend argues in his article "Problems of
Empiricism" in Beyond the Edge of Certainty: "The myth is therefore of
no objective relevance, it continues to exist solely as the result of
the effort of the community of believers and of their leaders, be
these now priests or Nobel Prize winners. Its ‘success’ is entirely
D) A false
belief can be accepted by scientists because they prefer its
there are many materialistic scientists who are also atheists and
therefore more than happy to accept the atheistic implications of
naturalistic evolution. Here, as we indicate below, the very purpose
of evolution is to explain things without recourse to God. Again,
scientists are only men, and if the unregenerate bent of the human
heart underscores the attempt to escape God, then naturalistic
evolution is certainly an appealing idea. If there is no God, there
are no necessary moral standards and one may happily discover
justification for any conceivable belief or lifestyle.
scientists have pointed out with seeming satisfaction that, given
evolution, there is no need to consider God. This tends to make one
suspect that some of these scientists may have ulterior motives for
wanting evolution to be true.53
For example, in his Heredity, Race and Society, Theodosius Dobzhansky
observes, "Most people, however, greeted the scientific proof of this
view [i.e., evolution] as a great liberation from spiritual bondage,
and saw in it the promise of a better future."54
As noted novelist Aldous Huxley, grandson of "Darwin’s bulldog,"
Thomas Henry Huxley, once confessed in his Ends and Means:
motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently
assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to
find satisfying reasons for this assumption…. Most ignorance is
vincible ignorance. We don’t know because we don’t want to know.
philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned
exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned
to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not
do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political
power and govern in the way they find most advantageous to
themselves…. For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my
contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an
instrument of liberation.55
proceeds to identify this liberation as being political, economic and
sexual and, no doubt, like many other modern materialists, found
evolutionary belief quite satisfying.
Assumption 2—Scientists are always objective when they do their
research and publicly express their belief in evolution.
contrary, scientists are people, and people are not often objective
and neutral. Scientists, of course, work harder at being objective
because of the limits and goals of the scientific disciplines, but
this doesn’t mean personal preferences or ideologies never get in the
way of their research. Unfortunately, the scientific community has its
share of ambition, suppression of truth, prejudice, plagiarism,
manipulation of data, etc. This is illustrated by Tel Aviv Medical
School’s Professor of Urology Alexander Kohn in his False Prophets:
Fraud and Error in Science and Medicine (1986), by Broad and Wade’s
Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science
(1982), and other books and articles.
that many scientists have biases against scientific creationism can be
seen through contemporary examples. When one of the greatest thinkers
and scholars of modern times, Mortimer J. Adler of the University of
Chicago, referred to evolution as a "popular myth," the well-known
materialist and critic, Martin Gardner, actually included him in his
study of quacks and frauds in Fads and Fallacies in the Name of
Philosopher and historian Dr. Rousas Rushdoony was entirely correct
when he observed of evolution, "To question the myth or to request
proof is to be pilloried as a modern heretic and fool."57
case of Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith. Smith earned three doctorates in the
field of science; his noteworthy academic career spanned over 40 years
including the publication of over 100 scientific papers and over 40
books which have been published in 17 languages. Before discussing his
own case, he illustrates with two others where eminent scientists have
been silenced because they dared question evolutionary belief:
above this, the situation is such today that any scientist
expressing doubts about evolutionary theory is rapidly silenced. Sir
Fred Hoyle, the famous astronomer, was well on his way to being
nominated for the Nobel Prize. However, after the appearance of his
books expressing mathematically based doubts as to Darwinism, he was
rapidly eliminated. His books were negatively reviewed and no more
was heard about his Nobel Prize. The case of the halo dating methods
developed by Robert V. Gentry tell a similar story. Gentry gave good
evidence that the earth’s age, when measured by the radiation halo
method using polonium, might not be so great as had been thought
when measured by more conventional methods. A postulate of this type
would have robbed Darwinism of its main weapon, namely long time
periods. Gentry lost his research grants and job at one sweep.
It is by
such methods, often bordering on psychoterror, that the latter day
phlogiston theory (Neodarwinism) still manages to imprint itself in
pretty well all scientific publications today. I myself gave the
Huxley Memorial Lecture at the Oxford Union, Oxford University, on
February 14, 1986. My theses were well received even by my opponents
in the debate following the lecture. But I have been to date unable
to persuade any reputable scientific journal to publish the
manuscript. The comment is uniformly that the text does not fit
their scheme of publications.
(December 1986) received an enquiry from the Radcliffe Science
Library, Oxford, asking if I had ever really held the Huxley
Memorial Lecture on February 14, 1986. No records of my having held
the lecture as part of the Oxford Union debate could be found in any
library nor was the substance of this debate ever officially
recorded. No national newspapers, radio or TV station breathed a
word about it. So total is the current censorship on any effective
criticism of Neodarwinian science and on any genuine alternative.58
Bergman and others have documented that there are thousands of cases
of discrimination against creationists—of competent science teachers
being fired merely because they taught a "two model approach" to
origins; of highly qualified science professors being denied tenure
because of their refusal to declare their faith in evolution; of
students’ doctoral dissertations in science rejected simply because
they supported creation; of students being expelled from class for
challenging the idea that evolution is a fact, etc.59
lawyer Wendell R. Bird, author of The Origin of Species Revisited
observes that "most of higher education is dogmatic and irrationally
committed to affirm evolution and to suppress creation science, not on
the basis of the scientific evidence but in disregard of that
evidence."60 He correctly refers to the "intolerance,"
"hysteria," and "unfairness" of the evolutionary establishment and to
…intolerable denials of tenure, denials of promotion, denials of
contract renewals, denials of earned degrees, denials of admission
into graduate programs, and other discrimination against that
minority that disagrees with the prevailing dogmatism and dares
affirm creation science…. From my research for published articles in
the Yale Law Journal and Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy,
and from my legal work in First Amendment litigation, it is my
professional judgment that the cases of discrimination reported [by
Bergman]… are a very tiny fraction of the general pattern and
practice of discrimination against creationists and creation science
at both the college and university level and the secondary and
elementary school level.61
research for his book, The Criterion, Dr. Bergman interviewed over 100
creationists who had at least a master’s degree in science, the
majority with a Ph.D. degree—among them Nobel prize winners and those
with multiple doctorates in science. "Nevertheless, all, without
exception, reported that they had experienced some discrimination…
some cases were tragic in the extent, blatancy and consequences of the
For example, "over 12 percent of those interviewed stated that they
had received death threats, highly emotional non-verbal feedback or
irrational verbalizations against them" and "creationists have never
won a single employment discrimination court case." Further, "Many
persons who were denied degrees or lost jobs were forced to move to
another community and start over…. Many creationists publish under
pseudonyms; others are extremely careful to hide their beliefs while
earning their degree and come out of the closet only after they have
the degree in hand or have earned tenure."63
department supervisor stated, "You creationists are Stone Age
Neanderthals, and if I had my way I would fire every one of you."64
One creationist had a Ph.D. in biology from Harvard University. He had
actively been seeking a teaching position for 12 years. One employer
don’t like holy people, fundamentalists, especially Baptists, Church
of Christ types, Pentecostals or other seventeenth century
retrogressives. If we find out we hired one, especially if they
start talking to the other research scientists about their beliefs,
I terminate them within the month. Usually they leave without much
of a protest. And I’ve never had one bring suit even though firing
on religious grounds is illegal, and I know that it is.65
other illustrations of religious bigotry from the evolutionary
Bergman states that several of his colleagues told him that if they
discovered one of their students was a conservative Christian, they
would fail him/her. One professor said, "I don’t think this kind of
people should get degrees and I’m going to do what I can to stop
them." Bergman observes that "some professors are openly advocating
failing creationists" and he cites examples.
professor of biology at a large state university was denied tenure
admittedly because of his creationist views although he had more
publications in scientific journals (well over 100) than any other
member of his department, many of them in the most prestigious
journals in his field. When the university that granted his Ph.D. in
biology learned he was an active creationist, they assembled a
committee to rescind his degree six years after it was issued!
Michigan science teacher was fired shortly after he donated several
boxes of books on creationism to the school library. A "South Dakota
Outstanding Teacher of the Year" recipient was also fired because he
was teaching creationism in class.
David A. Warriner received his B.S. in chemistry from Tulane
University, his Ph.D. from Cornell University and was close to a
second Ph.D. He was invited to join the Natural Science Department
at Michigan State University as a creationist. After four years his
department head suggested tenure but the dean of the department
claimed he had "damaged the image of science" for the university and
was dismissed. He has been unable to find a teaching position at any
creationist working on his Ph.D. in zoology at a major university,
with almost straight A’s, expressed serious reservations about
evolution to his dissertation committee. He was required to take
four more courses in evolutionary biology before they would permit
him to graduate. After the courses were completed, his dissertation
committee asked whether he now "believed in evolution." When he
replied he was "more firmly convinced of the validity of creationism
than ever before," the dissertation committee broke their agreement
and refused to grant his degree.
researcher at a Cancer Research Center who had earned an excellent
reputation for his six years’ work was forced to resign once his
creationist views became known.
Chandra Wickramasinghe of the University College in Cardiff, Wales
and co-worker with Fred Hoyle, one of the world’s best known living
astronomers, allegedly received death threats merely for speaking
out in favor of a two-model teaching position.
Melnick’s study in the Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, May 1982,
observed that "Significant creationist literature has been
self-censored from nearly every major secular university library in
hypocrisy in all this seems evident enough. The evolutionary
establishment demands freedom of expression for itself but refuses
this to its opposition. As Dr. Thomas Dwight of Harvard observed, "The
tyranny in the matter of evolution is overwhelming to a degree of
which the outsider has no idea."68
In our colleges and universities today, the Christian faith can be
ridiculed all day long, Marxism can be espoused, the Constitution
criticized, marriage degraded, and homosexuality encouraged—but the
theory of evolution is somehow sacrosanct. Chicago University’s
Professor Paul Shoray observed, "There is no cause so completely
immune from criticism today as evolution."69
head of the science department at an Ivy League university tore out an
article in Systematic Zoology because it was critical of natural
selection. When confronted he said, "Well of course I don’t believe in
censorship in any form, but I just couldn’t bear the idea of my
students reading that article."70
Assumption 3—Evolution is compatible with belief in God.
Adler is one of the great modern thinkers. He is author of such
interesting books as Ten Philosophical Mistakes, Truth in Religion and
How to Think About God; Chairman for the Editors for the Encyclopedia
Britannica and architect and Editor-in-Chief for the 54-volume The
Great Books of the Western World library. This set contains the
writings of the most influential and greatest intellects and thinkers
in Western history—from Aristotle to Shakespeare.
In Volume 1
of The Great Ideas: A Syntopicon of Great Books of the Western World,
Adler points out the crucial importance of the issue of God’s
existence to the greatest thinkers of the Western World. With the
exception of only certain mathematicians and physicists,
authors of the great books are represented…. In sheer quantity of
references, as well as in variety, this is the largest chapter. The
reason is obvious. More consequences for thought and action follow
from the affirmation or denial of God than from answering any other
And here is
where we see perhaps the greatest consequence of evolutionary
theory—its denial of God and the unfortunate results that have flowed
outward into society from this denial. We saw in false assumption
number one that evolution was not a true scientific theory but a
materialistic postulate that seeks to explain life naturalistically.
In light of this, to think that evolution has no theological or social
consequences is naive. As leading evolutionist Sir Julian Huxley once
noted, "Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the Creator of
organisms from the sphere of rational discussion."72
Brown received his doctorate degree for research done in 19th century
theology. Concerning the impact of evolution on Christianity, he
confesses, "By far the most potent single factor to undermine popular
belief in the existence of God in modern times is the evolutionary
theory of Charles Darwin."73
authority Dr. Huston Smith observes,
education undoes belief [in God] is its teaching of evolution;
Darwin’s own drift from orthodoxy to agnosticism was symptomatic.
Martin Lings is probably right in saying that "more cases of loss of
religious faith are to be traced to the theory of evolution…than to
scientist John Randall points out, "There can be little doubt that the
rise of Darwinism played an important part in undermining Victorian
J. W. Burrow
concedes that perhaps more than any other work, Darwin’s book shook
man’s belief in "the immediate providential superintendence of human
Watts, a London journalist, observed,
compiling my book, Britain Without God, I had to read a great deal
of anti-religious literature. Two things impressed me. One was the
tremendous amount of this literature available, and the other was
the fact that every attack on the Christian faith made today has, as
its basis, the doctrine of evolution.77
testimony to the religious impact of evolutionary thinking, consider
the well thought out conclusions of the famous Humanist Manifesto II
which were based squarely on naturalistic evolution:
thought, atheism, agnosticism, skepticism, deism, rationalism,
ethical culture, and liberal religion all claim to be heir to the
humanist tradition…. We find insufficient evidence for belief in the
existence of a supernatural; it is either meaningless or irrelevant
to the question of the survival and fulfillment of the human race.
As nontheists, we begin with humans, not God, nature, not deity…. We
can discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species….
No deity will save us; we must save ourselves…. Promises of immortal
salvation or fear of eternal damnation are both illusory and
harmful…. Rather, science affirms that the human species is an
emergence from natural evolutionary forces…. There is no credible
evidence that life survives the death of the body…. We affirm that
moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is
autonomous and situational, needing no theological or ideological
sanction…. the right to birth control, abortion, and divorce should
be recognized. The many varieties of sexual exploration should not
in themselves be considered "evil."78
In light of
the above, it should not surprise us to find a logical relationship
between naturalistic evolution and philosophical/practical atheism;
indeed, this is made evident throughout atheist literature.79
In The American Atheist Richard Bozarth argues as follows:
destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was
supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original
sin, and in the rubble, you will find the sorry remains of the son
of god…. If Jesus was not the redeemer… and this is what evolution
means, then Christianity is nothing….80
individual observed earlier, "We need only insure that our schools
teach only secular knowledge…. If we could achieve this, God would
indeed be shortly due for a funeral service."81
problem is that without God, man is the one who dies, quite literally.
As Dr. Ravi Zacharias observes:
Conveniently forgotten by those antagonistic to spiritual issues are
the far more devastating consequences that have entailed when
antitheism is wedded to political theory and social engineering.
There is nothing in history to match the dire ends to which humanity
can be led by following a political and social philosophy that
consciously and absolutely excludes God.82
One of the
great blind spots of a philosophy that attempts to disavow God is
its unwillingness to look into the face of the monster it has
begotten and own up to being its creator. It is here that living
without God meets its first insurmountable obstacle, the inability
to escape the infinite reach of a moral law. Across scores of
campuses in our world I have seen outraged students or faculty
members waiting with predatorial glee to pounce upon religion, eager
to make the oft-repeated but ill-understood charge: What about the
thousands who have been killed in the name of religion?
emotion-laden question is not nearly as troublesome to answer if the
questioner first explains all the killing that has resulted from
those who have lived without God, such as Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini,
Mao, et al… why is there not an equal enthusiasm to distribute blame
for violence engendered by some of the irreligious? But the rub goes
even deeper than that. The attackers of religion have forgotten that
these large-scale slaughters at the hands of anti-theists were the
logical outworking of their God-denying philosophy. Contrastingly,
the violence spawned by those who killed in the name of Christ would
never have been sanctioned by the Christ of the Scriptures. Those
who kill in the name of God were clearly self-serving politicizers
of religion, an amalgam Christ ever resisted in His life and
teaching. Their means and their message were in contradiction to the
gospel. Atheism, on the other hand, provides the logical basis for
an autonomist, domineering will, expelling morality…. The Russian
novelist Fyodor Dostoevski repeatedly wrote of the hell that is let
loose when man comes adrift from his Creator’s moorings and himself
becomes god—he understood the consequences. Now, as proof positive,
we witness our culture as a whole in a mindless drift toward
lawlessness—we live with the inexorable result of autonomies in
collision. [Zacharias cites Hitler, "I freed Germany from the stupid
and degrading fallacies of conscience and morality…. I want young
people capable of violence—imperious, relentless and cruel."]83
Christian people, including scientists who are Christians, believe
that evolution and belief in God, even the God of the Bible, are
entirely compatible. We disagree. Clearly, evolution has influenced
the Bible through the many theories proposed in an attempt to
harmonize the theory of evolution with biblical teaching. Attempts at
accommodation fail because evolutionary belief and biblical teaching
are only compatible at the expense of biblical authority. As The
Encyclopedia of Philosophy points out, "It hardly needs saying that
Darwinism is incompatible with any literal construction put on either
the Old Testament or the New Testament."84
It is always
a mistake to interpret Scripture in light of dubious theories,
scientific or otherwise. Properly interpreted, Scripture will never
conflict with any fact of science simply because God is its author.
After all, God not only inspired Scripture, He made the creation
Himself accepted divine creation (Mark 13:19); Adam, Eve and Abel
(Matthew 19:4-5; Luke 11:50-51); and Noah’s Flood (Matthew 24:37-9;
Luke 17:26-7). For Christians, at least His authority is supreme. The
bottom line is this: if evolution is true, the Bible, literally
interpreted, cannot be true and therefore cannot be considered
reliable, let alone the Word of God. Conversely, if the Bible is God’s
Word, then it is evolution which cannot be true.
spite of the harmful effects of evolutionary thinking as to personal
belief in God, and the terrible effects in the modern era, it is new
discoveries about the creation itself that are almost forcing modern
scientists to reconsider God. Indeed, as a medical doctor and computer
specialist points out,
centuries scientific rationalists have maintained that believing in a
Supreme Being or Creator God is akin to committing intellectual
suicide. However, the twentieth century has supplied an abundance of
scientific discoveries which point to a transcendent Creator who
ordered and energized the universe. This evidence is so powerful that
numerous prominent scientists have begun to speak openly about the
existence of just such a Being. [Further,] In this twentieth-century
age of skepticism it is indeed ironic to discover that more evidence
has accumulated for the existence of a transcendent Creator in this
century than any time in the last 1,900 years.85
example, we may cite the text Cosmos, Bios, Theos, produced by sixty
world-class scientists, including twenty-four Nobel prize winners.
Co-editor and Yale University physicist Henry Margenau summarizes the
logical conclusion for open-minded scientists as they face the
incredible complexity and design of the universe they live in.
Margenau reasons that there "is only one convincing answer" to explain
the intricate complexity and laws of the universe—creation by an
omniscient, omnipotent God.86
Ultimate reality is
impersonal matter. No God exists
Ultimate reality is an
infinite, personal, loving God.
The universe was
created by chance events without ultimate purpose.
The universe was
lovingly created by God for a specific purpose.
Man is the product of
impersonal time + chance + matter. As a result, no man has eternal
value or dignity nor any meaning other than that which Is
Man was created by God
in His image and is loved by Him. Because of this, all men are
endowed with eternal value and dignity. Their value is not derived
ultimately from themselves, but from a source transcending
Morality is defined by
every individual according to his own views and interests.
Morality is ultimately relative because every person is the final
authority for his own views.
Morality is defined by
God and immutable because it is inherently based on God’s
The afterlife brings
eternal annihilation (personal extinction) for everyone.
The afterlife involves
either eternal life with God (personal immortality) or eternal
separation from Him (personal judgment).
1 Ernst Mayr, "The Nature
of the Darwinian Revolution," Science, Vol. 176 (June 2, 1972), p.
2 James More, Darwin: The
Life of a Tormented Evolutionist (NY: Warner, 1991), p. xxi.
3 W. R. Bird, The Origin
of Species Revisited: The Theories of Evolution and of Abrupt
Appearance, Vol. 1 (NY: Philosophical Library, Inc., 1989), p. 1.
4 Theodosius Dobzhansky,
Mankind Evolving: The Evolution of the Human Species (NY: Bantam,
1970), p. 1.
5 Ibid., p. xi.
6 Michael Denton,
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, MD: Adler and Adler, 1986),
7 Francis A. Schaeffer,
How Should We Then Live: The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and
Culture (Old Tappan, NJ: Revelle, 1976), p. 19.
8 Henry Morris, The Long
War Against God: The History and Impact of the Creation/Evolution
Conflict (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989), p. 18.
9 John Ankerberg, John
Weldon, The Facts On Creation vs. Evolution (Eugene, OR: Harvest
House, 1992) pp. 35-44.
10 The term evolution is
used in reference to the general theory that all life on earth has
evolved from nonliving matter and has progressed to more complex
forms with time; hence, "macroevolution" and not "microevolution" or
minor changes within species illustrated in crossbreeding (e.g.,
varieties of dogs).
11 J. P. Moreland,
Christianity and the Nature of Science: A Philosophical
Investigation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989), p. 21.
12 Ibid., 21-42.
13 Ibid., 17-138.
14 R. L. Wysong, The
Creation/Evolution Controversy (East Lansing, MI: Inquiry Press,
1976), pp. 40-41.
15 Ibid., 41.
16 Ibid., 44.
17 A. E. Wilder-Smith,
The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution (San Diego, Calif:
Master Books, 1981), p. 133.
18 Willem J. Ouwneel,
"The Scientific Character of the Evolution Doctrine," Creation
Research Society Quarterly, September 1971, pp. 109.
19 Ibid., 109-115.
20 Robert T. Clark, James
D. Bales, Why Scientists Accept Evolution (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker,
1976), pp. 29-95; Ankerberg and Weldon, pp. 25-42.
21 Pierre-P. Grasse,
Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of
Transformation (New York: Academic Press, 1977), p. 3, emphasis
22 Cited in Bird, Vol. 1,
p. 141, emphasis added.
23 Dobzhansky, Mankind
Evolving, pp. 5-6, emphasis added.
24 George Gaylord
Simpson, The Meaning of Evolution (New York: Bantam, 1971), pp. 4-5,
25 Carl Sagan, Cosmos
(New York: Random House, 1980), p. 27, emphasis added.
26 Konrad Lorenz,
Intellectual Digest, February 1974, p. 62, emphasis added.
27 Morris, The Long War,
p. 20, emphasis added; citing Rene Dubos, American Scientist, March
1965, p. 6.
28 Morris, The Long War,
p. 24, emphasis added; citing Goldschmidt, American Scientist,
January 1952, p. 84.
29 Julian Huxley in Sol
Tax, ed., Issues in Evolution (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press, 1960), p. 41 from Morris, The Long War, p. 322, emphasis
30 Morris, The Long War,
31 Arthur Custance,
"Evolution: An Irrational Faith" in Evolution or Creation? Vol. 4—
The Doorway Papers (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), pp. 173-174.
32 Ibid., pp. 174-175.
33 Ibid., p. 179.
34 A. E. Wilder-Smith,
The Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory:
Information, Sources and Structures (Costa Mesa, CA: TWFP
Publishers, 1987), p. III.
35 Denton, p. 326.
36 Wilder-Smith, The
Scientific Alternative, p. iv.
37 Ibid., second emphasis
38 Bird, Vols. 1 and 2;
cf., Vol. 1, p. 45.
39 Denton, p. 348,
41 Ibid., p. 349.
42 Ibid., emphasis added.
44 Wilder-Smith, The
Scientific Alternative, p. I.
45 Denton, p. 358.
47 H. Butterfield,
Origins of Modern Science, 1957, p. 199 cited in Denton, p. 351.
48 Denton, pp. 351-352.
49 Ibid., p. 75.
50 In ibid.
51 Ibid., p. 76.
52 P. Feyerabend, Beyond
the Edge of Certainty, 1965, p. 176 as cited in Denton, p. 77.
53 Morris, The Long War,
54 Wysong, The
Creation/Evolution Controversy, p. 40 citing Dobzhansky, Heredity,
Race and Society, 1952, p. 63, emphasis added.
55 Aldous Huxley, Ends
and Means (London: Chatto & Windus, 1946), pp. 270, 273.
56 R. J. Rushdoony, The
Mythology of Science (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1968), p. 13.
58 A. E. Wilder-Smith,
The Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory:
Information, Sources and Structures (Costa Mesa, Calif: TWFP
Publishers, 1987), pp. iii-iv.
59 Jerry Bergman, The
Criterion (Richfield, MN: Onesimus Publishers, 1984), passim.
60 Ibid., p. vii.
61 Ibid., pp. vii-viii.
62 Ibid., p. xi.
63 Ibid., p. xiii, xv.
64 Ibid., p. xi.
65 Ibid., p. 54.
66 These are taken from
ibid., pp. 4-11, 20-24.
67 Ibid., 56-57.
68 Ibid., 7.
70 Ibid., 28.
71 Mortimer J. Adler,
editor in chief, William Gorman, general editor, The Great Ideas: A
Syntopicon of Great Books of the Western World (Chicago: IL:
Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952), Vol. 1, p. 543.
72 In Sol Tax, ed.,
Evolution After Darwin, Vol. 3 (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press, 1960), p. 45.
73 Colin Brown,
Philosophy and the Christian Faith (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1971), p.
74 Huston Smith, The
Christian Century, July 7-14, 1982, p. 755 citing Studies in
Comparative Religion, Winter 1970.
75 John Randall,
Parapsychology and the Nature of Life (New York: Harper Colophon,
1977), p. 11.
76 J. W. Burrow,
introduction in Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (Baltimore,
MD: Penguin, 1974), p. 24.
77 Newman Watts, Why Be
An Ape?: Observations on Evolution (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott
Ltd., n.d.), p. 97.
78 "Humanist Manifesto
II," The Humanist, September/October 1973, pp. 4-9.
79 e.g., George H. Smith,
Atheism: The Case Against God (Los Angeles: Nash, 1974), pp.
80 Richard Bozarth, The
American Atheist, September 1978 cited by Richard Bliss, "Evolution
Versus Science," Christian Herald, July/August, 1985.
82 Ravi Zacharias, Can
Man Live Without God?, (Dallas: Word, 1994), p. XVII.
83 Ibid., pp. 22-23.
84 Morton O. Beckner in
Paul Edwards, editor in chief, The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (New
York: Macmillan, 1972), Vol. 2, p. 304.
85 Mark Eastman, Chuck
Missler, The Creation Beyond Time and Space (Costa Mesa, CA: TWFT,
1996), pp. 83, 212.
86 Henry Margenau, "The
Laws of Nature are Created by God" in Henry Margenau, Roy Abraham
Varghese, eds., Cosmos Bios Theos, (LaSalle, IL: Open Court, 1992),