Why would seemingly intelligent people accept such a theory? Secular humanism absolutely requires that they do so. If the theory of evolution is correct, then man is slowly evolving into a better and higher state and is therefore not in need of a personal Saviour to redeem him. Just in case you think that I may have misinterpreted the evolutionist's position on this issue, allow me to call your attention to Richard Leakey's comments concerning the source of aggression in mankind. "Any aggression we show is the product of our culture and environment, not our nature." (emphasis added) # 1 In fact, the entire premise of Leakey's book The People of the Lake is that the driving force which transformed apes into humans is the natural sense of goodness and cooperation which existed amongst man's supposed ancestors. He believes that this natural tendency to cooperate somehow caused our ancestor's brains to enlarge as they were forced to cope with the increasingly complex society such cooperation fostered. 

Since humanistic evolutionists maintain that man has no original sin, they take the further position that "salvation based upon mere affirmation" in the redemptive sacrifice of Jesus Christ is in reality a destructive philosophy which diverts man's attention from his true source of power. They hold to the belief that instead of looking to God, "reasonable minds look to other means for survival." # 2 Sir Julian Huxley, founder of the American Humanist Association spelled out in no uncertain terms just where it is that mankind must now look when he said, "...man...is not under the control or guidance of any supernatural being... but has to rely on himself and his own powers." # 3 

On the other hand, if the Bible is correct, than man is not evolving, but has in fact gone from a state of perfection to one of sin and degradation from which he cannot be rescued except by the blood of Jesus Christ. Satan has come to kill, steal, and destroy. (John 10:10) As we have so clearly seen up to this point, he has skillfully used the tools of his trade to get many people to believe his theory. I am aware that this is a rather forceful statement, but in reality, the topic we are dealing with is that of life and death. 

Let's put it this way. If you were an astronaut about to take a ride on a Saturn IV rocket, how would you feel if you overheard one of the scientists who designed a major component of that rocket tell his colleagues that the design he came up with for that part had not been completely tested, or for that matter, even thoroughly thought through? Do you think that you would still be willing to put your life in his hands? I believe the intelligent answer to that question has to be "No!" However, when you accept the theory of evolution you are taking a much more dangerous ride. In the process you are putting more than your physical life on the line. Whether you know it or not, you may very well be placing your soul in the hands of just such 'scientists.' 

By stating on in his book that "...the gloves are off," Eldredge acknowledges that the battle line has been drawn between creationists and evolutionists. # 4 Unfortunately, the evolutionists have been very successful up to this point in claiming victims. All you have to do is turn to the supplementary volume to the Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (pages 792 - 793 of the 1976 hardbound edition) to see the inroads that evolution has made into liberal theology. When the liberal theologian assumes that scientific knowledge has rendered belief in the miracle of creation intellectually irresponsible, he is in reality saying that science provides us with knowledge of the limits within which God will always operate. Such a theologian has inadvertently made a god out of scientific knowledge. If in fact an Almighty God does exist, then miracles are generally possible at every moment. 

Make no mistake about it, evolution is a religious belief. Of course most evolutionists would deny this, but as we have done before in this study, let's take a closer look at what evolutionists have actually said. # 5 Concerning the teaching of the Genesis account of creation in science classes (something which I am not advocating, as long as evolution, is not taught there) Eldredge says, "Students should not be asked to believe, but they should be taught those things, such as evolution, that scientists THINK are true of the natural universe." (Capitalization mine, other emphasis his) # 6 Roget's College Thesaurus says that a synonym for the word believe is the word think. The American College Dictionary, 1960 ed. includes in its definitions for the word think, the following: To hold as an opinion: believe: suppose." (emphasis added) 

Since Eldredge maintains that his science is not a "belief system," why then does he use words which are interchangeable such as think and believe? # 7 Why not use the word, "that scientists know are true of the natural universe?" The reason of course is that no true scientist would claim to "know" the reason for the sudden appearance of the multicellular life forms which are found in Cambrian Rock, much less the origins of the universe. (Remember, even Eldredge admits that the appearance of Cambrian life forms is a mystery to his brand of science.) Therefore, he is correct in saying that evolutionistic scientists can only talk about what they think (ie. what they believe) about the natural universe, and belief requires faith. It takes more faith to accept the notion that the undeniable order and symmetry which exists throughout the entire universe is a matter of sheer chance than it does to believe that it came about through the direct action of the Most High God. 

Ps. 14:1 tells us that "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'" While evolutionists are deceived, I would not call them fools. As such, they do have a god. To discover who their god is, we have to travel back in time about 3,000 years. Ancient Greek philosophy developed its own theory for the origins of all creatures. Around 100 B.C., a Roman poet named Lucretius set portions of his theory, which he had borrowed from the Greeks, to rhyme and lyric in order to make it more presentable to the average person of his day. Lucretius was cited approvingly by Professor Sir Gavin deBeer in his biology textbook Adaption when he says, "Chance was exactly what Lucretius invoked .... to explain living creatures." # 8 

Professor deBeer is correct in noting that Lucretius "invoked" chance. To invoke is to "call on a divine being" (American College Dictionary 1960), and it is their "divine being - Chance" that evolutionists call upon. Evolutionists would have us believe that Cecil Alexander's beautiful poem should now read, "All things bright and beautiful, All things great and small, All things wise and wonderful, the lord CHANCE made them all" instead of the "Lord God made them all." Over the centuries, believers in the chance development of the universe and life as we know it, have dressed up their notion in order to accommodate what they perceived as man's increasing sophistication. They no longer use poetry to express this belief in "lord chance", now they call it "evolutionistic science." 

Harlow Shapely, Professor Emeritus of Astronomy at Harvard University expressed his evolutionistic fervor in this manner, 

The evolutionists have replaced the God of creation with the 'creation god', and it is for them that Ro, 12:1 comes into clear focus. 

Again though, there are at least a few brave evolutionists out there who are sheepishly willing to admit the fact that 'evolutionistic science' has all the makings of a religious movement. Anthropology professor Dr. Loren Eisley noted that he and fellow evolutionists were: 

In an unsuccessful attempt to place as much distance as possible between the whole issue of religious morals and the theory of evolution, some evolutionists state that they cannot even begin to comprehend "... (how) the ethical fabric of human social behavior is dependent upon one scenario or another about how we humans got here in the first place." (parenthesis added) #11 In one very limited sense he may be right, but not for the reasons he thinks. The philosophy of evolutionistic humanism is in fact devoid of morals and ethics. Not because there is no relationship between the topic of evolution and the topic of ethics, but because the philosophical foundations of evolution are totally incapable of supporting any system of moral values. Before examining some very concrete examples of evolution's direct relationship to such things as genocide and racism, allow me to point out the predicament which evolutionistic humanists have created for themselves. In so doing, I believe that you will see why it is that their philosophy leads to a total absence of moral values. 

Many evolutionistic humanists regard the universe as a self-existing non-created entity. # 12 Carl Sagan even went so far as to state that "The cosmos is all that there is or ever was or ever will be." # 13 The Humanist Manifestos go on to tell us that "... faith in (a) prayer hearing God ... (who is) able to do something about them (prayers) is ... outmoded." Not only that, but these documents maintain the position that the entire concept of salvation is "... harmful (because it offers people)... false hopes of heaven." parenthesis added) # 14 This view of life causes these same evolutionists to now confidently state that "God has no role in the physical world... there is no organizing principle in the world and no purpose. Thus, there are no moral or ethical laws that belong to the nature of things no absolute guiding principles for human society. (emphasis added) # 15 

‚ Needless to say, evolutionistic humanism has not only removed God from the realm of creation, but it has removed Him from all human endeavors. Here then is the crux of their self imposed problem. Noted humanist historians, Will and Ariel Durant, the 1976 recipients of The Humanist "Humanist Pioneer Award", have acknowledged that as humanists they "...shall find it no easy task to mold a natural ethic strong enough to maintain moral restraint and social order without the support of supernatural consolations, hopes, and fears." # 16 There task however is not only difficult, I dare say it is impossible. 

As historians, all they need to do is examine the aftermath of the French Revolution to see the total breakdown which occurs in a society when it attempts to live by the type of humanistic rationale expounded by today's evolutionists. For that matter, all they need do is to contemplate their own findings which were, "There is no significant example in history ... of a society successfully maintaining moral life without the aid of religion." # 17 If we can find a lesson at all in what history tells us, it is this: Every society which is based upon the philosophy of evolutionistic humanism is bound to ultimately fail because of this philosophy's internal cancer. That cancer is an absence of viable moral values and ethical standards. Such a cancer eats away at the very foundations upon which society must be based if it is going to survive. 

Our forefathers had no difficulty realizing that atheistic humanism could never serve as the foundation for a system of moral values which requires absolutes. Daniel Webster noted that: 

It would appear that just about everyone from our founding fathers to modern day humanistic historians have observed the chilling effect which evolutionistic humanism has upon morals and ethics. But Eldredge appears to give no credence to these facts. Not only does he fail to make the apparently obvious correlation between the two, he even appears make light of Mrs. Nell Segraves for her statement that there is a relationship between drug abuse, prostitution, and other criminal activity and the teaching of evolution. 

Mrs. Seagraves is the mother of the plaintiff in what became known as the "Scopes II trial". Obviously, she has taken the time to think about the logical consequences which follow from the evolutionist's line of reasoning, even if some evolutionists have not. Of what value are the virtues we know as love, charity, friendship, self sacrifice, and loyalty? Such sentiments are nothing more than a cruel joke in a system wherein the only true reality is the survival of the fittest. If man is in fact the product of mere chance, having evolved along with the apes, the fish, the birds, and the reptiles; then his claim to life is no more secure than theirs. After all, doesn't a cattle breeder "cull" his herd to eliminate unwanted strains? As such, abortion is completely justified under this system because all that is being eliminated is 'a blob of tissue' or an 'unwanted animal' that posses nothing more than the potential to be human. But then this system of thought does not discriminate, for it also allows for the killing off of the elderly and the mentally ill. In fact, it provided all the justification needed to kill off an entire race of people. 

Hitler was an evolutionist, and he used this exact same line of reasoning to eliminate 6 million human beings whom he considered genetically inferior to his master race. # 20 Noted British commentator Benjamin Kidd stated that in Germany prior to world War II, "Darwin's theories came to be openly set out in political and military textbooks as the full justification for war and highly organized schemes of national policy in which the doctrine of force became the doctrine of right." # 21 Without a doubt, Hitler had no difficulty recognizing the point that the "ethical principle inherent in evolution is that only the best has a right to survive." # 22 But then Hitler was not the only one to hold to such a perverted view of humanity. 

As a boy, Joseph Stalin shared a book he had recently discovered with a young friend of his. He assured his friend that this book would show him that "... all this talk about God is sheer nonsense." # 23 That book was Darwin's Origin of the Species. It was the philosophy of evolution which Stalin used to justify the brutal imprisonment and murder of more than 4 million Russians. Stalin's actions though were themselves merely the culmination of Lenin's beliefs which he expressed thusly, "Darwin put an end to the belief that animal and vegetable species bear no relation to one another." # 24 Just as you discard an imperfect tomato from your garden, so also have the communists 'discarded' untold millions of their own people who did not meet their standards of perfection. 

Needless to say, in order for communist political systems to not only sanction these types of internal extermination programs, but actually plan them and then carry them out, their philosophical viewpoint must be devoid of any moral standards. They found justification for their position in the writings of Charles Darwin. While you may think that I am stretching things just a bit, I can assure you that I am not. All you need do is examine the facts. On December 12, 1859 Frederick Engles wrote to Karl Marx advising him that "Darwin, whom I am just now reading, is splendid." Marx must have wholeheartedly agreed, for on December 16, 1860, he advised Engles that "... I have read all sorts of things. Among others, Darwin's book of Natural Selection… this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view. (emphasis added) # 25 

While some evolutionists would have you believe that the 'social Darwinism' of Hitler, Stalin, Marx, and Engles was an outdated perversion of true evolutionistic thinking, I urge you to consider that its underlying thought process is alive and well today. Edward O Wilson's book Sociobology is filled with it. As reported in the March 13, 1989 issue of Newsweek Wilson's basic premise is that man's "... social behavior is shaped by the Darwinian struggle to survive and reproduce." # 26 While some evolutionists are upset that such ideas are again being openly discussed, their protests have had no effect. The rationale behind the social Darwinism of the 30's and 40's hasn't changed at all. The only difference between then and now is that different words are being used today to express the very same thoughts expressed by Hitler and Stalin. 

Today Darwin's theory marches on, and as a consequence of the total lack of value it places upon human life, more than 2 million Cambodians were murdered under the regime of Pol Pott. Just as horribly though, more than 20 million American babies have been murdered in its abortion mills because too many Americans have come to believe that we are mere animals as opposed to being created in the image of Almighty God. 

In addition to the relationship between the theory of evolution and genocide, Mrs. Seagrave also clearly understands the relationship between evolutionary thinking and racism. Even Niles Eldredge's colleague, Stephen Jay Gould has acknowledged that "(b)iological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory." (emphasis added) # 27 Just how blatant this racism may have become is found in a quote from the late Henry Fairfield Osborn, the evolutionistic professor of Biology at Columbia University and past President of the American Museum of Natural History's Board of Trustees whom we mentioned earlier in regards to our discussion of the Nebraska Man. He stated that: 

The problem of course is not evolution per se. Evolution is merely a symptom of the sickness, not the disease itself. Quite simply put, where God is absent, evil rushes in to fill the vacuum. Since evolution is the foundational teaching upon which humanism must rest, and humanism absolutely and unquestionably denies God, then it follows logically that where evolution and humanism are believed; crime, genocide, abortion, and other evils reign supreme. And that is exactly the point Mrs. Seagrave was making. 

Obviously she clearly understands the relationship between the amoral teachings and situational ethics of humanism, and the theory of evolution. For this she is held in disdain by a man who says that he cannot understand how ethics and evolution are related; yet who himself says, "Creationism seems to me to threaten the integrity of our children's education, and this threatens the long term well being of our country." # 30 Having previously defined creationism in his book Monkey Business as "creationism -the belief that the cosmos, the earth, and all life are separate acts of a supernatural creator", I can only assume that he feels that by teaching our children that God's Word, as recorded in the entire Bible is true, we are threatening the future of the United States of America. 

Yet look at what the evolutionists have to offer us instead - "Scientists ... (who) are in no position to 'prove anything' ..." and a system which, by their own admission "... can never claim to know the ultimate truth." (parenthesis added) # 31 Evolutionists claim on one hand to be truth seeking scientist, and on the other that "no one has yet invented a way of determining what the truth is when we have it." # 32 Perhaps it is because of statements such as these that Dr Colin Patterson of the British Museum, who is reexamining his own position on evolution, has come to the conclusion that "...evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but it seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge." # 33 

To me it is interesting how evolutionists can ignore or simply forget past statements made by their heros when those comments now point out their own intellectual shortcomings. For example, in all his discussion about the teaching of creationism, Eldredge never once mentions the fact that Clarence Darrow, the ACLU attorney who represented the evolutionists' position in the original Scopes trial, stated that it is the height of "bigotry for public schools to teach only one theory of origins." #34 Even Darwin acknowledged that "(a) fair result can be obtained only by stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question..." # 35 Since most evolutionists clearly insist that only evolution be taught to today's students, they have, by their own words, placed themselves in a position which Darrow classified as bigoted, and Darwin contended was unfair. 

The evolutionist's own statements regarding what science is point out yet another area which contradicts the 'simple to complex' premise of evolution. This area deals with the development of language itself. Evolution would tell us that man could barely speak when he first appeared. He then slowly evolved into the supposedly highly articulate intellectually superior evolutionists which we see today. Yet, linguistic research has shown that there is "...no tribe or people anywhere in the world which does not have thousands of words in its vocabulary and an intricate systematic way of putting words together into phrases and sentences." # 36 

What we find when we examine supposedly primitive tribes is that even their language, which appears rather simple at first glance, is in fact more often than not, the remains of a more intricate complex pattern of speech which that tribe's ancestors used. The words and phrases of the past civilization have been dropped as the functions disappeared from that particular culture which those words described. # 37 Again, we see the breakdown of something, not its evolution. The evidence simply does not establish a general pattern of simple to complex. While it is true that new words may be coined to define new ideas or inventions, it is also true that taken as a whole, the language in which this occurs, actually becomes less complex at the same time. English is a perfect example of this phenomenon. 

In addition, linguists have also discovered that there is no evidence of any common source or historical connection between any of the 50 distinct families of languages which exist in the world today. Remember, this is in spite of the fact that it has been demonstrated that man has had a single place of origin. The fact that no common link exists between these families of languages tends to support not the theory of evolution, but the Biblical account of Genesis chapter 11 wherein we are shown that God totally confused the languages of the world at the Tower of Babal. 

The process of language deterioration continues on to this day. We need look no further than the "Science of Evolution" to establish this principle. When I was in school I was taught that science was the study of natural phenomena. Possible explanations for the occurrence of these phenomena were proposed as hypotheses. After initial testing appeared to verify the hypothesis, it was upgraded to the status of theory. After years of testing by men of science throughout the world using universally accepted procedures, and finding no exceptions to the theory, it was called a fact. My American College Dictionary still carries these different definitions. Eldredge however states that "philosophers of science have argued long and hard over the difference between facts, hypothesis, and theories. But the real point is this: they are all essentially the same, all of them are ideas...." (emphasis added) # 38 

As we have so graphically seen, the evolutionists have completely altered the idea of what the truth is, something every humanist must do in order to justify the situtational ethics he expounds. Now, they are diluting the very language which serves as the basis for modern science. Having diluted the language of science to nothing more than a series of meaningless interchangeable words (which after all is exactly what the deterioration of language does), evolutionists now feel secure in making the following statement: "... (T)he earth simply cannot be a mere ten thousand years old. This is no story concocted by a Creator as part of his creation process. The earth really is incredibly old. And of course the universe is even older - 15 billion years or so." # 39 They can also readily assert that "precious few ideas put forth to date in science have entirely withstood the test of time. Evolution is one, so is the idea that the earth is round... Evolution is a fact as much as the idea that the earth is shaped like a ball." # 40 

When language begins to deteriorate, as the evidence shows that it has, it is a mixed blessing. In this case it serves as additional proof that Darwinian evolution did not occur. However, by using their watered down definition for the word 'fact', the evolutionist feels perfectly free in calling evolution a fact. In reality, Darwinian evolution is nothing more than a hypothesis, and a philosophical one at that. 

The evolutionist's attack on the English language goes even further. After making such a preposterous statement as "evolution is a fact as much as the idea that the earth is shaped like a ball," Eldredge attempts to give the impression of impartiality. He does so by asserting that "the notion of evolution is falsifiable - we can theoretically throw it out should evidence one day point that way." (emphasis added) # 41 This statement is misleading because it conceals the fact that as far as he is concerned, there is no way evolution could be proven false. By equating the roundness of the earth with the theory of evolution, he has pointed out the total inflexibility of his mind set. (Remember, it was this same type of inflexibility which led his predecessors to make false statements concerning the lack of transitional evidence in the fossil record.) 

Eldredge's statements however serve as further evidence of the watering down of scientific terms. As we saw previously, he felt no hesitancy about interchanging the words hypothesis and theory with the word fact, but now he does the same thing with the word notion and fact. First we are told that evolution is a fact, and then we are told that it is a notion. Returning to my dictionary for a moment, I discover that a notion is a "more or less general, vague, imperfect conception or idea of something ... an opinion, view, or belief." If Mr. Eldredge would accept the dictionary definition of the word notion, then I would acknowledge evolution as a notion, for it most certainly is an imperfect conception of the origins of the species which requires a great deal of belief. 

  Printer Friendly Version

2) Humanist Manifesto I & II (New York: Promethas Books, 1973) p. 8 

3) Henry M. Morris - The Biblical Basis for Modern Science, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984) . p. 36 

4) Niles Eldredge - Monkey Business - A Scientist Looks at Creationism (New York: Washington Square Press, 1982) p. 24 

5) ibid p. 146 

6) ibid p. 147 

7) ibid p. 32 

8) David C.C Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (Chicago: Moody Press 1976) p. 98 

9) ibid p. 43 

10) Loren Eiseley, The Immense Journey (New York: Random House, 1957) p.199 

11) Eldredge - op cit. p. 143 

12) Humanist Manifesto, op cit. p. 8 

13) Carl Sagan, "Cosmos", University of Chicago Magazine, Vol 73 (Spring 1981), p. 11 

14) Humanist Manifesto, op cit. p. 13 

15) Francis Schaeffer - The Christian Manifesto (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1981) p. 58 

16) ibid p. 45 

17) ibid p. 45; also Will and Ariel Durant - The Lessons of History, (New York: Simon and Shuster, 1968) p. 15- 

18) Robert Flood, The Rebirth of America, (St Davids, PA: The Arthur S DeMoss Foundation, 1986) p.21,29 

19) Kennedy, D. James, Broadcast WAND TV Channel 17, 9/15/91 

20) Adolf Hitler - Mein Kamf, (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. 1943 ed) pp. 286, 295, 325, 402, 403, 285, 289, see also "The Ascent of Racism" Impact, Vol 16, (February 1987), p. I 

21) Stephen Jay Gould, "William Jenning Bryan's Last Campaign", Natural History, Vol.96 (November 1987), pp. 22-24 

22) Henry Fairfield Osborn - Evolution and Religion, (New York: Scribner & Sons, 1923) p. 48 

23) E. Yaroslavsky - Landmarks in the Life of Stalin (Moscow: Foreign Language Publishing House, 1940) pp. 8-12 as reported in Impact, Vol 16 No 10 October, (1987), p. I 

24) Eduardo del Rio, Marx for Beginners, ( New York:Pantheon Books, 1976) Glossary 

25) Conway Zirkle - Evolution, Marxian Biology, and the Social Scene ( Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1959) pp. 85-87 

26) Geoffrey Crowley, "How the Mind was Designed," Newsweek, Vol 113 No 11 (1989) p.56 

27) Stephen Jay Gould - Ontogeny and Phylogeny (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1977) p. 127 

28) Henry Fairfield Osborn, "The Evolution of Human Races", Natural History Vol.89 (April 1980), p. 129 

29) Eldredge - op cit. p. 145 

30) ibid p. 16 

31) ibid pp. 18, 78, 

32) ibid p 85 

33) Wendell R. Bird, "More on Anti-Darwinian Scientists", Impact Vol 17 No. 2 (February 1988), p. 1 

34) Eldredge - op cit. p. 14; also Flood, op cit. p. 81 

35) Charles Darwin, "Introduction" Origin Of Species (London: John Murry, Albermarie Street, 1859), as quoted in "John Lofton's Journal", The Washington Times (February 8, 1984) p. 2, 

36) Watson, op cit. p. 84 

37) ibid p. 85 

38) Eldredge - op cit. p. 29 

39) ibid p. 104 

40) ibid pp. 22,31-32 

41) ibid p. 22