Most modern 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.

In the 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

The 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

Wendell R. 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

In his 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 culture."⁵

Molecular biologist Michael Denton also points out the dramatic influence of this dominant theory, even in disciplines outside the natural sciences:

But if 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

One only 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

However, if 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.

In the 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

There exist 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 science.¹³ 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:

Scientific work involves things like observation, formulating a hypothesis, experimental testing to repeat observations, predictability, control, etc.:

One applies 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

The scientific method may be diagramed as follows:

What 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 observes,

In other 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,

Dr. Willem 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 scientific fact.

The 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

Regardless, 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 living world."²¹ Theodosius Dobzhansky, who, according to another leading evolutionist, Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard, is "the greatest evolutionist of our century,"²² 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

Carl Sagan 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 theory."²⁵

The eminent 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

Another 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 evidence:

Consider the 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,

In fact, in the opinion of this erudite scholar,

He concludes,

The history 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:

In other 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.

Dr. 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,

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

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:

For example, 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

The 18th 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 phlogiston theory.⁴⁴ 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 century."⁴⁵

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

In his Origins of Modern Science, Professor H. Butterfield observes how the phlogiston theory actually led to scientists being intellectually incapacitated to deal with the evidence:

In a similar fashion Denton comments,

Thus, the 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.

In the case of evolution, no one questions the basic idea because everyone accepts the basic idea:

Hence the 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 manmade."⁵²

For example, 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.

Many modern 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:

And

Huxley proceeds to identify this liberation as being political, economic and sexual and, no doubt, like many other modern materialists, found evolutionary belief quite satisfying.

To the 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.

For example, 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 Science.⁵⁶ 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

Consider the 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:

Dr. Jerry 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

Prominent 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 the

In doing 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 discrimination."⁶² 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

One 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 told him:

Consider other illustrations of religious bigotry from the evolutionary establishment⁶⁶:

Jim 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 America."⁶⁷

The 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

Even the 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

Mortimer J. 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,

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

Dr. Colin 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

Religion authority Dr. Huston Smith observes,

British scientist John Randall points out, "There can be little doubt that the rise of Darwinism played an important part in undermining Victorian religious beliefs."⁷⁵

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 affairs."⁷⁶

Newman Watts, a London journalist, observed,

As a 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:

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:

The same 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

The only problem is that without God, man is the one who dies, quite literally. As Dr. Ravi Zacharias observes:

And,

Many 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 itself.

Jesus 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.

Yet, in 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,

For 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

As one 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