Evolution is atheistic
2. Evolution usually takes the form of a practical atheism
3. Evolutionists' suppression of the teaching of theism is atheistic
5. Evolution is anti-Christian
6. Evolution is a religion
[Home] [Site map] [Updates] [Projects] [Contents; 1. Introduction; 2. Philosophy (1), (2), (3), (4) & (5); 3. Religion (2); 4. History (1), (2) & (3); 5. Science; 6. Environment (1), (2) & (3); 7. Origin of life (1), (2) & (3); 8. Cell & Molecular (1), (2) & (3); 9. Mechanisms (1), (2) & (3); 10. Fossil Record; 11. `Fact' of Evolution; 12. Plants; 13. Animals; 14. Man (1) & (2); 15. Social; 16. Conclusion; Notes; Bibliography A-C, D-F, G-I, J-M, N-S, T-Z] [Book "Problems of Evolution"]
"PROBLEMS OF EVOLUTION": 3. RELIGION (1) 1. Evolution is anti-design 1. Evolution is anti-teleology 2. Evolution is anti-supernatural 3. Evolution is anti-creation 4. Evolution is anti-God (atheistic) 1.
"PROBLEMS OF EVOLUTION": 3. RELIGION (1) 1. Evolution is anti-design 1. Evolution is anti-teleology Originally science was free to ask questions of purpose or teleology, which were assumed to be divine purpose (Kurten, 1976, p.15). However, naturalistic science, under the pretext of seeking to answer how questions, unnecessarily abolished the asking of why questions (Kurten, 1976, pp.15-16). However, in the life sciences, it was found that teleology could not be dispensed with (Kurten, 1976, p.16). Therefore, to ensure that questions of divine purpose could not even be asked, teleology had to be given a very different meaning (Kurten, 1976, p.16).. The term was now understood in terms of adaptation and natural selection" (Kurten, 1976, p.16). That is, if the eye has a purpose to see, it is because it has been fashioned for that function by natural selection" (Kurten, 1976, p.16). However, this is a confusion of different categorises of causation. The existence of efficient and material causes does not necessarily exclude formal and final causes (Wilcox, 1994b, p.169). As Warfield (1908) pointed out, "Some lack of general philosophical acumen must be suspected when it is not fully understood that teleology is in no way inconsistent with-is, rather, necessarily involved in-a complete system of natural causation. Every teleological system implies a complete causo-mechanical explanation as its instrument." That is, a scientific explanation in terms of mechanism (e.g. Darwinian natural selection) does not preclude an explanation in terms of purpose, including divine purpose (Livingstone, 1987, p.117). [top] 2. Evolution is anti-supernatural Evolution rules out a priori supernatural scientific explanations of aspects of life's origin and subsequent development, by defining "science" question-beggingly as "a strict adherence to seeking natural mechanisms and explanations for natural phenomena":"Perhaps most troubling, however, is the attempt by those who prepared the revisions to redefine what constitutes science, from a search for natural explanations of observable phenomena, to one that does not require natural explanations (page xi). The power of science results from a strict adherence to seeking natural mechanisms and explanations for natural phenomena. By removing this critically important caveat from the KSES [Kansas Science Education Standards], the line between science and other ways of knowing becomes blurred. Kansas students will be both confused and ill-served by an explanation of science that allows for supernatural explanations of the natural world." (Cicerone R.J., President, National Academy of Sciences, letter to Dr. Alexa Posny, Assistant Commissioner of Education, Kansas State Department of Education, Topeka, Kansas, October 26, 2005) [top]3. Evolution is anti-creation It almost goes without saying that evolution is anti-creation. Darwin was opposed to all forms of creation (Gillespie, 1979, pp.xi, 3, 19-20, 39), even theistic evolution (Bowler, 1990, pp.158-161). In his Origin of Species Darwin mentioned "creation" or its cognates over 100 times, mostly pejoratively (Jones, 2002). Neo- Darwinism's co-founder Julian Huxley expressed the consensus of the scientific establishment when he declared that evolution and creation were mutually exclusive: "The earth was not created, it evolved. So did all the animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul as well as brain and body. So did religion" (Huxley, 1960, pp.iii:252-253). Dictionaries of biology (Abercrombie, et al., 1990, pp.194-195; Hale & Margham, 1988, p.214; Tootill, 1981, p.108), science (Isaacs, Daintith & Martin, 1991, pp.183, 251-252; Lafferty & Rowe, 1996, p.222) and philosophy (Vesey & Foulkes, 1990, p.108), define "evolution" as being opposed to creation. Leading biology textbooks usually commence their section on evolution with an attack on creation (e.g. Campbell, Reece & Mitchell, 1999, pp.415-417; Mader, 1990, pp.281-283; Raven & Johnson, 1995, pp.7-8; Keeton, Gould & Gould, 1986, pp.12-13; Knox, Ladiges & Evans, p.707; Solomon et al., 1993, p.390; Starr & Taggart, 1998, pp.16, 270-275). Leading evolutionary biology textbooks also usually contain an attack on creation (Dobzhansky, et al., pp.9, 349; Futuyma, 1986, pp.3,15; Ridley, 1996a, pp.41,65-66; Strickberger, 2000, pp.5ff, 53ff). Evolutionists have also written many books attacking creation in defence of evolution (e.g. Berra 1990; Ecker, 1990; Eldredge, 1982; 2000; Futuyma, 1983; Gallant, 1975; Godfrey, 1983; Kitcher, 1982; McGowan, 1983; Montagu, 1984; Newell, 1982; Pennock, 1999; Plimer, 1994; Price, 1990; Selkirk & Burrows, 1988; Strahler, 1999; Wilson & Dolphin, 1983; Young, 1985; Zetterberg, 1983). Evolution is so anti-creation, that leading evolutionists have admitted that even if creation was true, it could not be accepted by them as science (Eldredge, 1982, p.134; Ruse M., 1982, pp.322-323; Futuyma, 1983, p.169; Ruse, 1996, p.301; Pennock, 1999, p.283; Ratzsch, 1996, p.168). Which means that evolutionists would rather evolution be naturalistic and false than supernaturalistic and true!"Darwin's own bulldog, Huxley, as Eldredge reminds us yet again, warned him against his insistent gradualism, but Darwin had good reason. His theory was largely aimed at replacing creationism as an explanation of how living complexity could arise out of simplicity. Complexity cannot spring up in a single stroke-of chance: that would be like hitting upon the combination number that opens a bank vault. But a whole series of tiny chance steps, if non-randomly selected, can build up almost limitless complexity of adaptation. It is as though the vault's door were to open another chink every time the number on the dials moved a little closer to the winning number. Gradualness is of the essence. In the context of the fight against creationism, gradualism is more or less synonymous with evolution itself. If you throw out gradualness you throw out the very thing that makes evolution more plausible than creation. Creation is a special case of saltation-the saltus is the large jump from nothing to fully formed modern life. When you think of what Darwin was fighting against, is it any wonder that he continually returned to the theme of slow, gradual, step-by- step change?" (Dawkins R., "What was all the fuss about?" Review of Eldredge N., "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster, 1985, Nature, Vol. 316, August 1985, pp.683-684) [top]4. Evolution is anti-God (atheistic) 1. Evolution is atheistic The word "evolution" (and its cognates) was first used in the sense of biological change through time as an alternative to Divine creation by the atheist Herbert Spencer (Bowler, 1989, p.9; Gould, 1978, p.36; Savage, 1963, p.4). It was then taken up by the agnostic Darwin for the same reason in his Origin of Species (Darwin, 1859, p.460) and then many times Darwin's Descent of Man (Darwin, 1871, pp.1, 2, 25, 63, 72, 92, 123, etc). The "standard scientific theory" of evolution is "that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process.'" (Shermer, 2002. My emphasis). Dawkins let the cat out of the bag when he observed that "the whole point of the theory of evolution by natural selection was that it provided a non-miraculous account of the existence of complex adaptations" (Dawkins, 1986b, p.249. Emphasis in original). Dawkins had just cited with approval Darwin's response to the geologist Lyell, `I would give nothing for the theory of Natural selection, if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent' (Darwin, 1898, 2:6-7. My emphasis), adding with approval, "For Darwin, any evolution that had to be helped over the jumps by God was not evolution at all." (Dawkins, 1986b, p.249; Dennett, 1995, p.290). Such "guided evolution" would be no less "divine creation" than if it were "instantaneous" (Dawkins, 1986, pp.316-317). In the following quote, Darwin admitted to the Christian botanist Asa Gray that he wrote "atheistically" but then weakly tried to excuse himself by claiming that he "had no intention to" do so and then tried to shift the blame onto God for creating "the Ichneumonidae [a family of parasitic wasps which have an important role in maintaining biological control of flies] with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars" and even "that a cat should play with mice"!:It is revealing that Darwin admitted that his reason for seeing "no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed" was because of his disbelief in "a beneficent and omnipotent God"! That is, Darwin's science was ultimately based on his religious views, i.e. his belief in what God would not do. [top] 2. Evolution usually takes the form of a practical atheism There are two forms of atheism: theoretical atheism, which claims there is no a God, and practical atheism, which does not actually deny that God exists but rather that God does not do anything that has any bearing on human affairs (Mautner, 2000, p.48). While the overwhelming majority of leading scientists are personally atheists or agnostics (Larson & Witham, 1999, p.80), there are few (if any) claims in scientific journals or books that actually claim there is no God, although some effectively do (e.g. Gould, 1976, pp.32-36, 1976; Hull, 1991, pp.485-486). Instead, evolutionists' usual strategy is a practical atheism in which God is simply ruled out as an explanation (e.g. Dawkins, 1982b, p.130). As leading atheist Michael Shermer states, "the standard scientific theory [of evolution is] that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process" (Shermer, 2002; Chapman, 1999; Sagan & Druyan, 1992, p.425). So successful has been this strategy of methodological atheism (or methodological naturalism) that even some philosophers and scientists who claim to be Christians accept and even defend it (Murphy, 1993; Meyer, 1994, p.69; Johnson, 1995b, pp.99-103,196; Livingstone, 1987, p.148). [top] 2. Evolutionists' suppression of the teaching of theism is atheistic While atheism is not officially taught in public schools (e.g. in the USA), if God is omitted from accounts of origins, then students will take that as implying that God had no part in such origins (Smith 2000, p.132), which is effectively atheism. For the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that theism is religious, while its alternative is not, is anything but neutral (Smith 2000, p.133). It is "as if in a debate the judge were to decide for the negative, not because its arguments were stronger but because the affirmative's arguments were ruled out of order" (Smith 2000, p.133). [top] 5. Evolution is anti-Christian"Almost all the participants in these disputes take it for granted that the factual claims of creation and resurrection at the root of Christianity are untrue." (Brown A., "The Darwin Wars: How Stupid Genes Became Selfish Gods," Simon & Schuster: London, 1999, p.154)Darwin stated in his later Descent of Man that his primary objective in writing his earlier Origin of Species was religious: "firstly, to shew that species had not been separately created" and his scientific objective was only secondary: "and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change" (Darwin, 1871, p.92). In his private writings Darwin made it plain that it was Christianity that he was seeking to undermine. In his autobiography, Darwin stated that in the two years (1837-1839) after he had returned home from his 5-year voyage around the world, he had "come ... to see that the Old Testament ... was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian" and because "Christianity is connected with the Old Testament" this made Christianity to Darwin "utterly incredible" and no "sane man" would "believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported" (Barlow, 1958, pp.85-86). Darwin privately admitted that he could "hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true" (Barlow, 1958, p.87). In an 1880 letter to a militant atheist named Aveling, Darwin admitted that he had been working against Christianity: "direct arguments against christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds, which follow[s] from the advance of science" (Desmond & Moore, 1991, p.644). The term "evolution" was deliberately adopted by Darwin's contemporary, the atheist philosopher Herbert Spencer in opposition to the Christian term "creation" (Gould, 1978, p.36). Like Darwin, modern evolutionary biologists see their main rival as the Christian Biblical account of creation" (Mayr, 2001, p.xiv; Dawkins, 1986, p.287). There is a very good reason for this: it is a fundamental assumption by Darwinian evolution (the theory of evolution that is taught in schools and universities) that all mutations in the history of life have been random, in the sense of unguided towards any goal. As Dawkins puts it, "Mutation is not systematically biased in the direction of adaptive improvement, and no mechanism is known (to put the point mildly) that could guide mutation in directions that are non-random" (Dawkins, 1986, p.312). It is an essential link in the chain of Darwinian evolutionist reasoning that nothing else was available to guide mutations in directions that were non-random (Johnson, 1993a; 1993b, pp.153-154, 1993d, 1994c; 1999c). But Christianity claims that God has repeatedly intervened in history, imparting new information and direction to it, culminating in God Himself entering history in the Person of Jesus of Nazareth (Mt 1:23; Jn 1:1,14; Php 2:5-8; 1Tim 3:16; Col 1:19; 2:9) and walking the Earth for over 30 years, less than 2,000 years ago. If Christianity is true then this fundamental assumption of Darwinian evolution that nothing else was available, is simply false: something (or rather Someone) other than unguided natural processes was available (Johnson, 1992d)! [top]
Copyright © 2003-2006, by Stephen E. Jones. All rights reserved. This page and its contents
may be used for non-commercial purposes only.
If used on the Internet, a link back to my home page at
http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones would be appreciated.
Created: 3 November, 2003. Updated: 12 March, 2006.