Articles

“No diety will save us; we must save ourselves.” –Paul Kurtz1 Atheism and Origins “The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe with our conscious selves arose through chance seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God.” –Charles Darwin2 Darwin’s pioneering research into the theory of evolution provided the basis for today’s philosophical naturalism and religious atheism. That is, once Darwin had explained natural selection and species, the need for a supernatural creator or director seemed to diminish -- and in fact, Darwin left his faith and his ambitions to preach Christianity in favor of his research. Why, then, does the natural world which Darwin seems to have explained so well give Charles himself reason for pause? Atheism and Science “More cases of loss of religious faith are to be traced to the theory of evolution. . .than to anything else.” –Martin Lingis4 Evolution, as a theory of our origins, has replaced the idea of a Creator God -- for Darwin and many others since his time. The many cases of lost faith that Lingis refers to are those who have come to see their faith as contradicting science in the ever-raging battle of creation vs. evolution. Why is Creation Science important? The Biblical doctrine of supernatural creation is vitally important as a foundational doctrine of the Christian faith.  At issue is the very integrity and veracity of the Word of God.  It is apparent to discerning Christians that Satan has promoted evolution and its godless philosophy of humanism to attack and undermine the Christian faith in our generation.  Not only has evolution discredited the concept of a divine Creator among the unbelievers, but it has succeeded in diminishing God and His Word in the Christian community.  The net result of evolution’s success can be observed in every facet of our society…from the wholesale slaughter of unborn babies to the pervasive spread of homosexuality, from the disintegration of the traditional family to the moral collapse of a society that has been stripped of its absolute standards of right and wrong. Can Scientists Now Directly Date Fossils? by Brian Thomas, M.S. * A trio of geologists has published what they called the first successful direct dating of dinosaur bone. They used a new laser technique to measure radioisotopes in the bone, yielding an age of millions of years. But this "age" was not only the result of a broken radioisotope system, it was contrived to agree with previously assigned dates for the samples. The scientists analyzed the abundance of radioactive isotopes of certain elements that had leeched into the edges of buried dinosaur bone from the San Juan Basin in northern New Mexico and southern Colorado. Their new technique involved first polishing a slice of bone and then shooting a laser beam onto its surface. The laser dislodged radioisotopes and other relevant isotopes, which were detected and counted. They then used these measurements to estimate an age for the bone. But radiodating cannot proceed without some primary assumptions: the starting conditions of a given sample (e.g., how much of each isotope was present in the beginning), a steady rate of decay of certain radioactive isotopes of elements called radioisotopes, and a lack of tampering with the system (e.g., elements added or subtracted since the radioisotope "clock" first began counting time). Then, the current amount of radioisotope is compared to the amount of stable element into which it is slowly changing. In theory, this ought to supply an age estimate. However, evidence has mounted that radioisotopes underwent a period of radical acceleration of decay in the past.1 This evidence has indicated that radioisotopes have not decayed at a constant rate, and therefore the radiodating "clocks" in general are all broken. One clue that they are broken comes from the evolutionary age disagreements that characterize the whole field of radioisotope dating. For example, an igneous rock from the Grand Canyon—which, unlike sedimentary rock, is a type of rock that has been considered "datable" because the relevant isotopes are locked up in its tiny crystals—was tested by standard means. It formed from lava that spilled down the canyon's side. Amazingly, it was dated at millions of years older than the sedimentary rocks under it!2 The data from one of the San Juan Basin dinosaur limb bones showed a range of "ages" from roughly 15 to 85 million years. The authors tried to explain away the younger-looking numbers by writing in their report in Geology, "This pattern is attributable to a relatively young uranium-gain event."3 Thus, it was taken on faith that the data indicating a younger age do not represent the real age, but instead represent the age of some event whereby uranium was supposedly added to the dinosaur bone millions of years after it had been encased in its Cretaceous sandstone formation. Some of the calculated "ages," though, lined up with the already assumed age of 64 million years, and these data were hand-picked to represent the "age" of the fossil. Thus, the technique was called "the first successful direct dating of fossil vertebrate bone"—a classic case of circular reasoning.3 This new assertion not only ignores evidence that radioisotopes experienced accelerated decay, probably during the Genesis Flood, but also ignores two totally different natural processes that could be used to help verify the researchers' claim that the new technique was "successful." First, as non-mineralized original dinosaur bone, the samples might contain the primary bone materials hydroxyapatite and collagen protein. Collagen is known to decay at a certain rate, even when dry and sterile. Since it is a biomolecule, it spontaneously decays even when encased inside bone or shell. It is no wonder that scientists were not interested in looking for collagen in these dinosaur bones, since no collagen could remain after a maximum of 30,000 years.4 If any collagen whatever is still in the bone, this would falsify their evolution-friendly "age." Also, collagen contains carbon. Thus, if collagen is present, the bones could be carbon-dated. But given the known decay rate of radiocarbon, none of it could remain after 60,000 years. Neither collagen nor radiocarbon was tested in these dinosaur bones. Instead of hand-picking data points from a broken radiodating system and calling that a "successful" determination of age, why not take the scientific high road to legitimacy and perform cross-checks with alternative natural processes? The answer is simple. Any indication that these dinosaur bones are not millions of years old might call the whole evolutionary picture into question, and might therefore offer evidence for a recent creation. And in the world of secular science, that cannot be allowed to happen, even if the data call for it. Why did Jesus die? The sacrificial system and Creation by Roger Birch Published: 6 April 2010(GMT+10) In my article “An Evangelical ‘Litmus Test’” I talked about the watering down of the term “evangelical”. The “litmus test” I suggested as a mark of a true evangelical was an acceptance of a straight reading of Genesis 1–11 since an attack on Genesis 1–11 is basically an attack on the authority of the Bible, and hence God.1 Now many people calling themselves evangelical would dispute such a statement, claiming that the creation-versus-evolution issue is “not relevant” to their faith or that the creation account can be interpreted in different ways. However, I contend that both positions create major theological problems that undermine the gospel at its foundations. Here, I will not delve into the science of creation versus evolution as this is well covered elsewhere, but rather expand the theological issues surrounding a question left open in my previous article, namely, “Why did Jesus die?” No genuine evangelical can suggest that Christology (the study of Christ) is “not relevant” and Millard Erickson states our “understanding of Christ must be central and determinative of the very character of the Christian faith. All else is secondary to the question of what one thinks of Christ.”2 However, a lot of theology has been affected by “science” and Christology, in particular, has ignored issues such as Luke tracing Jesus’ genealogy back to Adam and Paul stating that death only came into the world with Adam’s sin. Christology is a massive subject in its own right, and space precludes too much detail. Suffice to say there are two main approaches to how we look at Jesus, i.e. from man’s perspective (Christology “from below”) or from God’s perspective (Christology “from above”). The former approach, although technically valid theologically, tends to be the domain of liberal scholars who question the accuracy, and even authority of the Bible. Christology from above is more aligned to the evangelical position with its implied acceptance of the Bible as the inspired Word of God and so I will here focus on that approach, and its implications. If we take a “verse count” in the Gospels to suggest what God sees as important, then the primary emphasis is clearly the cross. There is no direct information as to Jesus’ appearance, His likes, dislikes, etc. Two of the Gospels even omit direct details of His birth. Conversely, well over half the chapters of the Gospels are dedicated to the last week of His life, the events immediately leading up to it, or the events following His crucifixion. The creation-versus-evolution debate is often fought on scientific grounds, but what about the impact of the creation account on the topic of Christology and, especially, Jesus’ death? There are three issues in particular that need careful examination: What is death? Why did Jesus have to die? What “CV” did He need to fulfil the requirements needed to die for us? All three topics are major and so the following arguments are, by necessity, very brief but hopefully sufficient to show both their importance and relevance to the creation account. According to both theistic and humanistic evolutionists, death and suffering occurred for millions, or even billions of years before man either evolved or was created by some process omitted from the Bible. However, what is death and how did it originate? Both Genesis and the New Testament (Romans 5:12) state that death entered the world through the sin of one man, with the clear implication there was no death before Adam. So why do we ignore what both Testaments say and take for granted the evolutionary assumption that death is “natural”? Interestingly, evolutionists seem quite happy to accept death as an integral part of the natural selection process, and yet often accuse the so-called “God of the Old Testament” of being cruel for requiring animals’, and then Jesus’ blood to be spilled on our behalf. The reality is, though, that the author and creator of all life—according to the Bible—has the “right” (using modern terminology) to remove that life. When someone finally does what God has done and creates life from nothing, only then can they moralise over who is entitled to dictate the rules as to what happens to that new life form! In fact, the first recorded (or implied) death in the Bible was when God killed an animal (a lamb?) to provide skins for Adam and Eve to cover themselves. By this act, God initiated the sacrificial system that required the spilling of blood to cover sin, a system that is then explicitly mentioned in the Cain and Abel narrative in Genesis 4. Furthermore, the first allusion to Christ crushing Satan is in Genesis 3:15. So, by Genesis 4, there is a linking of sin, death and the sacrificial system plus a reference to Christ coming and, linked with the sacrificial system, the need for Him to die. Now most evangelicals would agree that Jesus Christ had to die and also had to be: a) human; b) divine; c) male; d) first-born; and e) perfect without blemish. But why? Where do we establish these criteria? Standard evangelical theological works will readily provide verses to show Jesus’ humanity and deity, but the latter three requirements are all part of the sacrificial system. If the straight reading of Genesis 1–4 is removed, then not only is there no explanation, or justification for the sacrificial system … but there is also no valid, biblical explanation for Jesus to die. Although the sacrificial system was present from “the beginning”, it is not until Moses that we find any codification and, with that, the “CV” that Jesus had to fulfil to be able to die for us, which provided a unique list of requirements. However, if the straight reading of Genesis 1–4 is removed, then not only is there no explanation, or justification for the sacrificial system (which, like many biblical topics up to and including the Flood is virtually universal), but there is also no valid, biblical explanation for why Jesus had to die. So, just how does Jesus fit the requisites of the “CV” set some 1,500 years before He came? In the New Testament, we find that Jesus was male and first-born (e.g. Luke 2:2), He was born of a virgin with the Holy Spirit being the ‘father’ (Luke 1:26–38) to break the line of inherited sin, and that He was without blemish (Colossians 1:22; 1 Peter 1:19). He was also human and divine so we have a complete match! However, this is where the creation-versus-evolution issue, and the associated issue of long ages, ceases to be “irrelevant” but is inexorably interlinked with the authority of the Bible, Christology and, ultimately, our own redemption. Quite simply, to suggest the account of Adam and Eve (and the associated issue of sin and death) is myth, or needs “reinterpretation”, is both a direct attack on God and the authority of Scripture, and also brings into question the whole purpose of Jesus’ death. It is an attack on both the Old and New Testaments since Luke traces Jesus’ genealogy back to Adam (Luke 3:23–38), Paul refers to Jesus as the “last Adam” (1 Corinthians 15:45) and there are other New Testament references to Adam (1 Timothy 2:13-14; Jude 1:14). Sin, and with it the introduction of death, is also linked with Adam in the New Testament (Romans 5:12). So, if Adam is not a literal, historic figure, then effectively nothing of the Bible can be taken at face value, a fact that atheists seem to appreciate more than many evangelicals! Even worse, the whole justification for Jesus coming to die for us is destroyed and, with it, our redemption. But can God still have used evolution and what about long ages? If Adam and Eve are historic figures, then clearly there is no need for evolution from that point on as evidenced by Jesus’ genealogy in Luke. Furthermore, if there was no death prior to Adam (Romans 5:12), there is no room for evolution at all—it is completely ruled out. That only leaves long ages prior to Genesis 1:2—but for what purpose? If we are to accept the Bible from the creation of Adam onwards, why would we even question God with the remaining few verses? That only leaves long ages prior to Genesis 1:2—but for what purpose? If we are to accept the Bible from the creation of Adam onwards, why would we even question God with the remaining few verses? Why would anyone want to concoct a “gap” between Genesis 1:1 and 2, or want to see the days in Genesis as being “God’s days, not man’s days” or some other “explanation”, denying the straight reading of Genesis? The only reason is purely to adopt a non-biblical, non-supernatural, humanistic worldview into one’s theology, which requires long ages for evolution to work! The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is the “last Adam” (1 Corinthians 15:45) who came to die for our sins and, by dying on the cross, has provided us with the means of being reconciled to God and to be able to spend eternity with Him. As Paul says in Galatians 1:6-7 any other “gospel” is not really a Gospel! Figure 42: Grand Canyon. Probably the most spectacular of the seven wonders of the natural world is the Grand Canyon. It is awesome when viewed from its rim, but even more so from the air. From above, new insights become obvious, as you will see. For example, have you ever wondered how the Grand Canyon formed? Since the late 1800s, the standard answer has been that primarily the Colorado River carved the Grand Canyon over millions of years. If that happened, wouldn’t you expect to find a gigantic river delta where the Colorado River enters the Gulf of California?  It’s not there.  Nor can geologists find it anywhere else.  Where did all the dirt—800 cubic miles of it—go? Notice the four segments of this river near the center of the picture. Compare the thin river with the canyon’s vast expanse. Could that relatively small river carve such a huge, wide, and deep canyon? If so, why has the same thing not happened along dozens of faster and larger rivers? Why do hundreds of large side canyons, with no visible water source to erode them, enter the Grand Canyon? Evolution a Religion? How long were the days of Genesis 1? What did God intend us to understand from the words He used? by Russell Grigg Were the days of Creation Week of 24 hours duration or were they long periods of time? This article will discuss the Hebrew ‘time’ words which the author had available to him and what meaning he intended to convey by his choice of the specific words he used.1 Meaning of yôm When Moses, under the inspiration of God, compiled the account of creation in Genesis 1, he used the Hebrew word yôm for ‘day’. He combined yôm with numbers (‘first day’, ‘second day’, ‘third day’, etc.) and with the words ‘evening and morning’, and the first time he employed it he carefully defined the meaning of yôm (used in this way) as being one night/day cycle (Genesis 1:5). Thereafter, throughout the Bible, yôm used in this way always refers to a normal 24–hour day.2,3 There is thus a prima facie case that, when God used the word yôm in this way, He intended to convey that the days of creation were 24 hours long. Let us now consider what other words God could have used, if He had wanted to convey a much longer period of time than 24 hours. Some Hebrew ‘time’ words There are several Hebrew words which refer to a long period of time.4 These include qedem which is the main one–word term for ‘ancient’ and is sometimes translated ‘of old’; olam means ‘everlasting’ or ‘eternity’ and is translated ‘perpetual’, ‘of old’ or ‘for ever’; dor means ‘a revolution of time’ or ‘an age’ and is sometimes translated ‘generations’; tamid means ‘continually’ or ‘for ever’; ad means ‘unlimited time’ or ‘for ever’; orek when used with yôm is translated ‘length of days’; shanah means ‘a year’ or ‘a revolution of time’ (from the change of seasons); netsach means ‘for ever’. Words for a shorter time span include eth (a general term for time); and moed, meaning ‘seasons’ or ‘festivals’. Let us consider how some of these could have been used. 1. Event of long ago If God had wanted to tell us that the creation events took place a long time in the past, there were several ways He could have said it: yamim (plural of yôm) alone or with ‘evening and morning’, would have meant ‘and it was days of evening and morning’. This would have been the simplest way, and could have signified many days and so the possibility of a vast age. qedem by itself or with ‘days’ would have meant ‘and it was from days of old’. olam with ‘days’ would also have meant ‘and it was from days of old’. So if God had intended to communicate an ancient creation to us, there were at least three constructions He could have used to tell us this. However, God chose not to use any of these. 2. A continuing event from long ago If God had wanted to tell us that creation started in the past but continued into the future, meaning that creation took place by some sort of theistic evolution, there were several ways He could have said it: dor used either alone or with ‘days’, ‘days’ and ‘nights’, or ‘evening and morning’, could have signified ‘and it was generations of days and nights’. This would have been the best word to indicate evolution’s alleged aeons, if this had been meant. olam with the preposition le, plus ‘days’ or ‘evening and morning’ could have signified ‘perpetual’; another construction le olam va-ed means ‘to the age and onward’ and is translated ‘for ever and ever’ in Exodus 15:18. tamid with ‘days’, ‘days’ and ‘nights’, or ‘evening’ and ‘morning’, could have signified ‘and it was the continuation of days’. ad used either alone or with olam could have signified ‘and it was for ever’. shanah (year) could have been used figuratively for ‘a long time’, especially in the plural. yôm rab literally means ‘a long day’ (cf. ‘long season’ in Joshua 24:7, or ‘long time’ in the New American Standard Bible). This construction could well have been used by God if He had meant us to understand that the ‘days’ were long periods of time. Thus, if God had wanted us to believe that he used a long–drawn–out creative process, there were several words He could have used to tell us this. However, God chose not to use any of these. 3. Ambiguous time If God had wanted to say that creation took place in the past, while giving no real indication of how long the process took, there were ways He could have done it: yôm combined with ‘light’ and ‘darkness’, would have signified ‘and it was a day of light and darkness’. This could be ambiguous because of the symbolic use of ‘light’ and ‘darkness’ elsewhere in the Old Testament. However, yôm with ‘evening and morning’, especially with a number preceding it, can never be ambiguous. eth (‘time’) combined with ‘day’ and ‘night’ as in Jeremiah 33:20 and Zechariah 14:7 could have been ambiguous. Likewise eth combined with ‘light’ and ‘darkness’ (a theoretical construction). If any of these forms had been used, the length of the ‘days’ of creation would have been widely open for debate. However, God chose not to use any of these. Author’s Intention The following considerations show us what God intended us to understand: 1. The meaning of any part of the Bible must be decided in terms of the intention of the author. In the case of Genesis, the intention of its author clearly was to write a historical account. This is shown by the way in which the Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostle Paul regarded Genesis—that is, they quoted it as being truth, not symbolic myth or parable.5,6 It was plainly not the author’s intention to convey allegorical poetry, fantasy, or myth. And so what God, through Moses, said about creation in Genesis should not be interpreted in these terms. Moses did, in fact, use some of the above ‘long–time’ words (italicized in the examples below, with root Hebrew words in square brackets), although not with reference to the days of creation. For example, in Genesis 1:14, he wrote, ‘Let there be lights … for seasons [moed]’; in Genesis 6:3, ‘My spirit shall not always [olam] strive with man’; in Genesis 9:12 ‘for perpetual generations [olam dor]’; in Leviticus 24:2, ‘to burn continually [tamid]’; in Numbers 24:20 ‘that he perish for ever [ad]’; in Deuteronomy 30:20, ‘He is thy light and the length of thy days [yôm orek]’; in Deuteronomy 32:7, ‘Remember the days of old [yôm olam]’; and so on. Why did God not use any of these words with reference to the creation days, seeing that He used them to describe other things? Clearly it was His intention that the creation days should be regarded as being normal earth-rotation days, and it was not His intention that any longer time–frames should be inferred. Professor James Barr, professor of Hebrew at Oxford University agrees that the words used in Genesis 1 refer to ‘a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience’, and he says that he knows of no professor of Hebrew at any leading university who would say otherwise.7 2. Children have no problem in understanding the meaning of Genesis. The only reason why other ideas are entertained is because people apply concepts from outside the Bible, principally from evolutionary/atheistic sources, to interpret the Bible. 3. The Bible is God’s message to mankind and as such it makes authoritative statements about reality. If one removes any portion of the Bible from the realm of reality, God may still be communicating truth to us, but the reader can never be sure that he understands it as the author intended. Furthermore, if God’s communication to us is outside our realm of reality, then we cannot know whether any account in the Bible means what the words actually say or whether it means something entirely different, beyond our understanding. For example, if we apply this criterion to the accounts of the resurrection of Jesus, perhaps the words could mean that Jesus did not rise from the dead physically, but in a way beyond our comprehension. When these sorts of word–games are played with the Bible, the Bible loses its authority, we lose the divine perspective on reality, and Christianity loses its life–changing power.8 4. If the ‘days’ really weren’t ordinary days, then God could be open to the charge of having seriously misled His people for thousands of years. Commentators universally understood Genesis in a straightforward way, until attempts were made to harmonize the account with longs ages and then evolution. Conclusion In Genesis 1, God, through the ‘pen’ of Moses, is going out of His way to tell us that the ‘days’ of creation were literal earth–rotation days. To do this, He used the Hebrew word yôm, combined with a number and the words ‘evening and morning’. If God had wanted to tell us it was an ancient creation, then there were several good ways He could have done this. If theistic evolution had been intended, then there were several constructions He could have used. If the time factor had been meant to be ambiguous, then the Hebrew language had ways of saying this. However, God chose not to use any construction which would have communicated a meaning other than a literal solar day. The only meaning which is possible from the Hebrew words used is that the ‘days’ of creation were 24–hour days. God could not have communicated this meaning more clearly than He did in Genesis 1. The divine confirmation of this, if any is needed, is Exodus 20:9–11, where the same word ‘days’ is used throughout: ‘Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, not thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.’ Evolution and Communism Another interesting facet of history is the connection between evolution and communism. With communism the struggle of "race" is replaced by the struggle of "class" as history is viewed as an evolutionary struggle. Both Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were evolutionists before they encountered Darwin's "The Origin of Species" - (Dec 12, 1859) Engels wrote to Marx: "Darwin who I am now reading, is splendid" (Morris 1989, 83 quoting Zirkle). Like Darwin, "Marx thought he had discovered the law of development. He saw history in stages, as the Darwinists saw geological strata and successive forms of life... In keeping with the feelings of the age, both Marx and Darwin made struggle the means of development" (Morris 1989, 83 quoting Borzin). "There was truth in Engel's eulogy on Marx: 'Just as Darwin had discovered the law of evolution in organic nature so Marx discovered the law of evolution in human history'" (Morris 1989, 83 quoting Himmelfarb). "It is commonplace that Marx felt his own work to be the exact parallel of Darwin's. He even wished to dedicate a portion of Das Kapital to the author of The Origin of Species" (Morris 1989, 83 quoting Barzum). Indeed, Marx wished to dedicate parts of his famous book to Darwin but "Darwin 'declined the honor' because, he wrote to Marx, he did not know the work, he did not believe that direct attacks on religion advanced the cause of free thought, and finally because he did not want to upset 'some members of my family'" (Morris 1989, 83 quoting Jorafsky). Other Soviet Communist leaders are evolutionists as well. Lenin, Trostsky, and Stalin were all atheistic evolutionists. A soviet think tank founded in 1963 developed a one-semester course in "Scientific Atheism" which was introduced in 1964. Also, a case can be made that Darwinism was influential in propagating communism in China. Interestingly, according to Morris, Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University, the co-founder of the punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution is a Marxist in philosophy, along with other distinguished Harvard evolutionary scientists and university professors across the country. One has to ask - could a person espouse the Marxist view and tolerate creationism?

While organisms do change through time, this quality of life is driven by a complex cellular machinery. To assume that the sophisticated systems within the cell could have arisen by pure chance requires a tremendous amount of faith in statistical improbability. Our world has many features that testify to the existence of an intelligent designer. God's handiwork is readily evident in nature, and therefore, it may indeed require less faith to believe in God than the possibility that complex structures could simply develop by themselves.

Evolution is a theory of desperation for those that refuse to accept the obvious -- we were created for a purpose. To believe in evolution requires faith because the origin of life and the production of new information through mutation has not been demonstrated under any conceivable circumstance. Is evolution then a science or a religion? Many have stated it is the latter. Evolution has unquestionably been spawned by atheistic philosophy, and is the key instrument used by secular humanism to explain the existence of humans independent of God.

"Humanism is the belief that man shapes his own destiny. It is a constructive philosophy, a nontheistic religion, a way of life." American Humanist Association, promotional brochure.

Creationist

• Darwinism Scientific Theory, Research Program, or Faith by Arthur S. Lodge
• Evolution is a Religious Faith
• Explore the connection between Humanism and Evolution
• Religion and evolution Q&A by Answers in Genesis
• Secular Humanism - Exclusion of God
• Secular Humanism by ChristianAnswers.net

Secular

• A Secular Humanist Declaration
• How Evolution Became a Religion by Michael Ruse. National Post May 13, 2000
• Is Evolution a Secular Religion? by Michael Ruse. Science Vol 299 (5612) 1523. March 2003
• Is Evolution Just Another Religion? by Michael Ruse Metanexus Bios. 3/22/04
• Secular Humanism
• Secular Humanism Right for America

Quotes

[Evolution]“…a full-fledged alternative to Christianity…Evolution is a religion.  This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” Michael Ruse. Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians. National Post (May 13, 2000). pB-3.

“As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people.  One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.” Will Provine, No Free Will. Catching Up with the Vision, Ed. By Margaret W. Rossiter (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999) pS123.

“…evolution is the backbone of biology and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on unproven theory.  Is it then a science or a faith?  Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation.  Both are concepts which the believers know to be true, but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.” L.H. Matthews, "Introduction to Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin (1971 edition), pp. x, xi.

[The theory of evolution] "forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature." Harrison Matthews. Introduction to Origin of Species (1977 edition) p. xxii.

"In fact [subsequent to the publication of Darwin's book, Origin of Species], evolution became, in a sense, a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit with it. . To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all . . If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation, how has it come into being? . . I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is Creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." H.S. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, p. 138 (1980) [emphasis his].

“The theory of evolution is impossible. At base, in spite of appearances, no one any longer believes in it….Evolution is a kind of dogma which the priests no longer believe, but which they maintain for their people.” Paul Lemoine. Encyclopedie Francaise 1937 edition. (President of the Geological Society of France and director of the Natural History Museum in Paris.)

[The Big Bang] “…represents the instantaneous suspension of physical laws, the sudden, abrupt flash of lawlessness that allowed something to come out of nothing.  It represents a true miracle---transcending physical principles….” Paul Davies, The Edge of Infinity (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), p161.

“We have all heard of The Origin of Species, although few of us have had time to read it…A casual perusal of the classic made me understand the rage of Paul Feyerabend…I agree with him that Darwinism contains ‘wicked lies’; it is not a ‘natural law’ formulated on the basis of factual evidence, but a dogma, reflecting the dominating social philosophy of the last century.” Kenneth J. Hsu, "Sedimentary Petrology and Biologic Evolution," Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 56 (September 1986): p730.

“I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.” Rocket scientist Wernher von Braun as quoted by James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard (Arlington, Massachusetts: Refuge Books, 1999), p. 253.

[The Big Bang] “…is only a myth that attempts to say how the universe came into being….” Hannes Alfvén “The Big Bang Never Happened,” Discover 9 (June 1988), p. 78.

“This evolutionist doctrine is itself one of the strangest phenomena of humanity…a system destitute of any shadow of proof, and supported merely by vague analogies and figures of speech….Now no one pretends that they rest on facts actually observed, for no one has ever observed the production of even one species….Let the reader take up either of Darwin's great books, or Spencer's ‘Biology,’ and merely ask himself as he reads each paragraph, ‘What is assumed here and what is proved?’ and he will find the whole fabric melt away like a vision….We thus see that evolution as an hypothesis has no basis in experience or in scientific fact, and that its imagined series of transmutations has breaks which cannot be filled.” Sir William Dawson, The Story of Earth and Man. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1887, pp. 317, 322, 330, 339.

[Darwin, speaking about Huxley:] "My good and kind agent for the propagation of the Gospel, the devil's gospel." Robert T. Clark and James D. Bales, "Why Scientists Accept Evolution", 1988, p. 45.

"Darwin wrote in his autobiography: `I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true ..." M. Grano, "The Faith of Darwinism", Encounter, November 1959, p. 48

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or faith?"  L.N. Matthews, "Introduction" to Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, pp. x, xi (1971 edition)

"... post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. Colin Patterson, The Listener (Senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London.)

"[Karl] Popper warns of a danger: 'A theory, even a scientific theory, may become an intellectual fashion, a substitute for religion, an entrenched dogma.' This has certainly been true of evolutionary theory." Colin Patterson, "Evolution", 1977, p. 150.

"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity - omnipotent chance." T. Rosazak, "Unfinished Animal", 1975, p. 101-102.

"Evolution is sometimes the key mythological element in a philosophy that functions as a virtual religion." E. Harrison, "Origin and Evolution of the Universe", Encyclopaedia Britannica Macropaedia (1974) p1007.

A Belief in Evolution is a basal doctrine in the Rationalists Liturgy." Sir Arthur Keith. Darwinism and its Critics. (1935), p53

"It is therefore a matter of faith on the part of the biologist that biogenesis did occur and he can choose whatever method of biogenesis happens to suit him personally; the evidence of what did happen is not available." G.A. Kerkut. Implications of Evolution (1960), p150.

"... evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it ...  H.S. Lipson. A Physicist Looks at Evolution. Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, p138 (1980)

"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." Louis Trenchard More, quoted in "Science and the Two-tailed Dinosaur", p33

"The doctrine of evolution is a newly invented system, a newly concerted doctrine, a newly formed dogma, a new rising belief, which places itself over against the Christian faith, and can only found its temple on the ruins of our Christian confession." Dr. Abraham Kuyper, "Evolution" speech delivered in 1899.

"It is a religion of science that Darwinism chiefly held, and holds over men's minds." Encounter, November 1959, p48 .

"Given the facts, our existence seems quite improbable—more miraculous, perhaps, than the seven-day wonder of Genesis." Judith Hooper, "Perfect Timing," New Age Journal, Vol. 11, (1985), p18

"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith." J.W.N. Sullivan, Limitations of Science (1933), p95.

"Today the tables are turned. The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with religious fervor, and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith." M. Grene, Faith of Darwinism," Encounter, November (1959), p49.

"Evolution requires plenty of faith; a faith in L-proteins that defy chance formation; a faith in the formation of DNA codes which, if generated spontaneously, would spell only pandemonium; a faith in a primitive environment that, in reality, would fiendishly devour any chemical precursors to life; a faith in experiments that prove nothing but the need for intelligence in the beginning; a faith in a primitive ocean that would not thicken, but would only haplessly dilute chemicals; a faith in natural laws of thermodynamics and biogenesis that actually deny the possibility for the spontaneous generation of life; a faith in future scientific revelations that, when realized, always seem to present more dilemmas to the evolutionists; faith in improbabilities that treasonously tell two stories—one denying evolution, the other confirming the Creator; faith in transformations that remain fixed; faith in mutations and natural selection that add to a double negative for evolution; faith in fossils that embarrassingly show fixity through time, regular absence of transitional forms and striking testimony to a worldwide water deluge; a faith in time which proves to only promote degradation in the absence of mind; and faith in reductionism that ends up reducing the materialist's arguments to zero and forcing the need to invoke a supernatural Creator." R.L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (1981), p. 455.

"The facts must mold the theories, not the theories the facts . . I am most critical of my biologist friends in this matter. Try telling a biologist that, impartially judged among other accepted theories of science, such as the theory of relativity, it seems to you that the theory of natural selection has a very uncertain, hypothetical status, and watch his reaction. I'll bet you that he gets red in the face. This is `religion,' not `science,' with him." Burton, "The Human Side of the Physiologist: Prejudice and Poetry," Physiologist 2 (1957).

"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have at best a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors." S. Jaki, Cosmos and Creator (1982).

"By calling evolution fact, the process of evolution is removed from dispute; it is no longer merely a scientific construct, but now stands apart from humankind and its perceptual frailties. Sagan apparently wishes to accomplish what Peter Berger calls `objectification,' the attribution of objective reality to a humanly produced concept . . With evolution no longer regarded as a mere human construct, but now as a part of the natural order of the cosmos, evolution becomes a sacred archetype against which human actions can be weighed. Evolution is a sacred object or process in that it becomes endowed with mysterious and awesome power." T. Lessl, Science and the Sacred Cosmos: The Ideological Rhetoric of Carl Sagan," Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71:178 (1985).