The Religion of Evolution

Evolutionists, who believe that man's origin can be explained by the theory that he has developed from lower forms of life over eons - billions of years, charge Bible believers with clutching an unfounded "faith" in God and Jesus Christ. This is ironic. Bible faith is grounded upon historical evidence (Heb. 11:1). It is the evolutionist who takes a leap in the dark, believing what he wishes without support of fact. The evolutionary theory seems to adopt mythical proportions in the same vein as ancient legends.

First, evolutionists themselves classify their theorems as a religious faith, equaling a myth. Louis T. More said:

The more one studies paleontology the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion (Dogma of Evolution, 1925, quoted by James Bales, Evolution and the Scientific Method).

Philip Johnson, in his recent devastating look at Darwinism, wrote:

The continual efforts to base a religion or ethical system upon evolution are not an aberration, and practically all the most prominent Darwinist writers have tried their hand at it. Darwinist evolution is an imaginative story about who we are and where we came from, which is to say it is a creation myth (Darwin on Trial, p. 133).

Second, not only is evolution admitted to be religious in its proportions, but also is merely a theory, not fact. This is not parallel to the Bible's definition of "faith" but it is parallel to the conception of biblical faith in the minds of unbelievers. Michael Denton, an Australian molecular biologist, observed, "Darwin's model of evolution is still very much a theory and still very much in doubt: ... it is impossible to verify by experiment or direct observation as is normal in science" (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, pp. 75­76).

Again, Denton wrote:

Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more or less than the great cosmic myth of the twentieth century. Like the Genesis based cosmology it replaced, and like the creation myths of ancient man, it satisfies the same deep psychological need for an all embracing explanation for the origin of the world which has motivated all the cosmogenic myth­makers of the past (p. 358).

Consider what one evolutionist proposed as to the origin of life:

Perhaps the primordial atom that then exploded was but an episode in the eternal (and perhaps cyclical) career of matter/energy. Possibly a supersensuous first cause created that atom just before it blew up. Perhaps the primordial atom came into existence spontaneously, i.e., out of nothingness without cause (acausally), or perhaps it was self-created, whatever that might mean when applied to a primordial atom bent on exploding (Delos McKown, Myth-Maker's Magic, p. 135).

Of course, Dr. McKown's several alternatives are unscientific myths founded upon the imaginative processes of one "bent" on refusing to consider that an all-powerful God created the universe. It seems he is the most magical myth maker of all.

Third, evolutionists even propose a god - after their own will. For example, consider Philip Johnson's observation regarding Francis Crick. Crick is a Nobel prize winning scientist, a co-discoverer of the DNA. Crick has toyed with the idea of "panspermia," the notion that life was "seeded" upon the earth in the long ago by alien space creatures. Johnson writes:

Crick would be scornful of any scientist who gave up on scientific research and ascribed the origin of life to a supernatural Creator. But directed panspermia amounts to the same thing. The same limitations that made it impossible for the extraterrestrials to journey to earth will make it impossible for scientists ever to inspect their planet.... Those who are tempted to ridicule directed panspermia should restrain themselves, because Crick's extraterrestrials are not more invisible than the universe of ancestors that earthbound Darwinists have to invoke (Darwin on Trial, pp. 110­111).

Not only have scientists seriously suggested panspermia, but Darwin himself clothed the process of "natural selection" with the qualities and attributes of an intelligent, creative being such as "scrutinizing," "rejecting," and "preserving" (See Johnson, p. 58).

Fourth, evolutionists even propose miracles, just as long as God is not the miracle worker. Richard Dawkins, an outspoken atheistic evolutionist, has argued that "An apparently (to ordinary human consciousness) miraculous theory is exactly the kind of theory we should be looking for in the particular matter of the origin of life" (quoted by Johnson p. 106). Jacques Monad, another ardent evolutionist, described the "origin of the genetic code" as the major problem for evolutionists. "Indeed, it is not so much a problem as a veritable enigma," he mused.

Thomas H. Huxley, known popularly as "Darwin's bulldog" for his vociferous defense of Darwinism, said he believed that "There is no absurdity in theology so great that you cannot parallel it by a greater absurdity in nature (Life and Letters, I:259).

Francis Crick frankly admitted that, "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going" (Life Itself 1981, p. 88).

The famous American astronomer and naturalist Carl Sagan (deceased) tells us:

[T]he discovery of life on one other planet- e.g. Mars-can, in the words of the American physicist Philip Morrison, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, transform the origin of life from a miracle to a statistic (Intelligent Life in the Universe, 1977, p. 358).

Michael Denton, in his superb work mentioned above, concludes a notice of such admissions as Sagan offered with this:

The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle" (p. 264).

Fifth, evolutionary theory requires an unfounded type of faith for one to accept it. Robert Jastrow is perhaps the nation's most prominent astronomer. In a book entitled God and the Astronomers, Jastrow, who is an agnostic, one who declares an intelligent conclusion cannot be drawn regarding the existence of God, confesses:

There is a kind of religion in science; it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the Universe, and every event can be explained in a rational way as the product of some previous event.... This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid (p. 111­112).

Sixth, as amazing as it may seem, one scientist, W.R. Thompson, who described evolution as a "fairy tale for adults," described what he labeled a "baptism" insisted upon by those who accept the evolutionary dogma. It is the "baptism of our ignorance" in which theorems rise to walk in language of fact.

A seventh consideration is that evolutionists also maintain a creed. James Bales writes in Evolution and the Scientific Method (p. 53):

Since it is admitted that it has not been scientifically established, and since it is admitted that drastic changes have often taken place in these fields of study which supposedly sustain evolution, one would think that the majority of evolutionists would not be so strongly wedded to the hypothesis. However, they are and many of them bow down before the sacred cow of evolution and recite the creed: 'I believe. My faith is the substance of fossils and other evidence which are but hoped for, and other evidence of descent which is not seen in the fossil record, the record in living nature, or the record in the lab. And yet, I do believe that the forces of nature which are now working produced results in the past which we cannot prove they are producing today. I believe in attributing to nature whatever power is necessary for nature to do everything which is required to create through evolution.'

Eighth, one of the editors of the French Encyclopedia, Paul Lemoine, characterized the teachers of evolution as priests. "Evolution is a sort of dogma in which the priests no longer believe but that they maintain for their people" (1937, quoted by Bales, ibid.).

Ninth, why do evolutionists/humanists/atheists advocate their views so ardently, acting as if evolution has already disproved the biblical account of the origin of man? The answer is simple. Conversion. Christians are not the only preachers who seek to convert mankind to a religious system.

Thus, evolution, 1) is a myth, 2) is a theory, 3) proposes a "god," 4) involves miracles, 5) is an unfounded faith, 6) involves a "baptism," 7) maintains a creed, 8) includes priests, and 9) draws converts. The options set before us are only two. "The existence of an intelligent creator is the only alternative to belief in life being created by matter and physical laws alone" (Paul S. Taylor, Origins Answer Book, p. 76). There is no third alternative. However, the concept that between these two choices we can choose between a "religious faith" and "science" is a mammoth-sized mistake. Both options involve religious faith, but only one of the two has any historical footing - the Bible.

Feature Book: Creation Compromises Paperback, 303 pages $12.95 + shipping and tax if applicable Click here to order