(Read Evolution Part 1 First)
Evolution - The Religion of Evolutionism
Darwin, Huxley, Spencer, and other early evolutionists did not start in that direction primarily because of scientific evidence, but because of emotional and spiritual bias against God, the Bible, and Christianity. Holding such an attitude, it was easy for them to interpret physical evidence as favoring a materialistic explanation of things. Evolution became their substitute for God.1 Dr. Davidheiser, who received a PhD in zoology at John Hopkins University, explained in detail why belief in evolution is a faith: "Many phenomena have been observed so regularly to occur under certain conditions that they are taken for granted, and it is not realized that faith in the uniformity of nature is being exercised. But the situation is quite different with regard to the theory of evolution, for many alleged phenomena in the evolution of life are mysterious, and to accept them requires faith." 2
Evolution, it has been said, requires of its devotees a higher degree of faith in the unknown than does creation. Evolutionary doctrine is based on a long series of assumptions, many of them groundless and the others uncertain. Each of these assumptions is treated as if proved as soon as the writer or speaker goes on to the next step. The result is something like building a house at the top of a structure of straws.
But over time, any worldview which is not true will unravel because of the accumulation of counterevidence or the discoveries of contradictions and inconsistencies within the worldview itself. This unraveling will continue until only the core is left; a blind faith with only imaginary connections to the real world. This has happened to many false religions in the past, as well as so-called scientific methods, such as alchemy, and is happening to the belief in evolution today. Dr. William Dembski says: "Darwin’s idea was a good idea while it lasted. But with advances in technology as well as the information and life sciences (especially molecular biology), the Darwinian magic gig is now up. It’s time to lay aside the tricks -- the smokescreens and the hand-waving, the just-so stories and the stonewalling, the bluster and the bluffing -- and to explain scientifically what people have known all along, namely why you can’t get design without a designer." 3
Evolution – Why do Scientists Believe? A Bias Against the Supernatural
Most scientific journals are completely stripped of any hints that anyone anywhere ever believed in creation. The authors don't hesitate to discuss opposing theories, no matter how ridiculous, as long as these don't involve a supernatural being to be considered seriously. Modern science seems so eager to ignore the foundation laid by the great Christian scientists, such as Kepler, Newton, Joule, Boyle, Kelvin, Faraday and Van Leeuwenhoek, who did not shy away from their faith and based their notion of scientific laws on their knowledge that indeed there is a Creator and Lawmaker.
High school and college textbooks follow the trend of the scientific journals. Francis Crick, winner of the Nobel Prize in biology for his work with the DNA molecule, once commented about British schools. He said: "Personally, I myself would go further, and think it is also regrettable that there is so much religious teaching," 4 a view echoed by so many scientists in our time. One wonders, however, if the alternative suggested by these scientists is anything less than another religion. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), is not attempting to hide the objective: "I've become an evolution evangelist."5
"Holding to evolution is unbelief, faith only in negation," wrote T. Robert Ingram.6 He said that while materialistic evolution is often characterized as a religion, by looking deeper, one finds that it is more accurately an "unfaith." And this "unfaith" can be so firmly planted, that nothing -- not even the strongest evidence imaginable -- would make them consider anything else. Says Geoffrey Simmons:
“There are too many missing links, discovery disconnects, anatomical and functional complexities, and unexplained genetic changes, and too overwhelming a number of inexplicable and improbable coincidences, for evolution to be placed among proven scientific theories. An enormous, rapidly growing, tidal wave of missing links is closing in on Charles Darwin’s beach, yet some of the shoreline residents cannot hear the roar. Some may always be deaf.” 7
1 Why Scientists Accept Evolution (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Book House, 1966), by Robert T. Clark and James D. Bales.
2 Evolution and Christian Faith (Nutley, NJ.: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1969), by Bolton Davidheiser.
3 The Design Revolution (IVP, 2004), by Dr. William Dembski.
4 Of Molecules and Man (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1966) by Francis H.C. Crick
5 More Magazine, August 2005.
6 Letter to Editor in Creation Research Society Quarterly (Vol 8. 1971) by T. Robert Ingram
7 Billions of Missing Links (Harvest House, 2007), by Geoffrey Simmons, M.D.
Like this information? Help us by sharing it with others. What is this?