Category Archives: Evolution

Bill Lockwood: The Religion of Evolution 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment
The Religion of Evolution- “Either God or Evolution.”

by Bill Lockwood

Evolutionists, who believe that man’s origin can be explained by the theory that he has “evolved” from lower forms of life, frequently charge Bible believers with clutching an unfounded “faith” in God and Jesus Christ. This is ironic. Considering the fact that Bible faith is grounded upon historical evidence (Heb. 11:1) and it is the evolutionist who takes giant leaps into the dark, believing what he wishes without support of evidence, it is amazing that the evolutionary theory has become the modern cultural myth in the same vein as ancient legends.  This cultural myth is the modernist religion.

First, many evolutionists classify their own theories as religious faith equaling a myth. In 1925 Louis T. More said, “The more one studies paleontology the more certain one becomes that evolution is based upon faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion” (Quoted by Bales, 1976, p. 47).

Philip Johnson, in his devastating review of Darwinism, wrote,

The continual efforts to base a religion or ethical system upon the 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. (1991, p. 133)

Second, evolution as admitted to be only a theory, not a fact. This is not parallel to the Bible’s definition of faith, but it is parallel to the modern misconception 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 till very much in doubt … it is impossible to verify by experiment or direct observation as is normal in science.”

Again, Denton wrote,

Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic 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 myth-makers of the past …” (1985, p. 358)

If this is not shocking enough, consider what one hardened atheist/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 the super-sensuous first cause created that atom just before it blew up. Perhaps the primordial atom cane into existence spontaneously, i.e., out of nothingness without any cause (acausally), or perhaps it was self-created, whatever that might mean when applied to a primordial atom bent on exploding. (1993, p. 135).

Each of McKown’s alternatives is very unscientific! This is the material of which myths are made when one is “bent” on refusing to consider that an all-powerful God created the universe.

Third, some evolutionists even propose a god—after their own will. Consider Philip Johnson’s observation regarding Francis Crick. Crick is a Nobel prize winning scientist, a co-discoverer of DNA. Crick toyed with the idea of panspermia—the notion that life was “seeded” upon the earth in the long ago by alien space creatures.

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 extra-terrestrials 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 extra-terrestrials are not more invisible than the universe of ancestors that earth-bound Darwinists have to invoke. (1981, p. 110-11).

Not only have scientist seriously suggested panspermia, but Darwin himself clothes the process of “natural selection” with the qualities and attributes of an intelligent, creative being such as a “process” that “scrutinizes”, “rejects,” and “preserves.”

Fourth, evolution even proposes 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 EXACLTY the kind of theory we should be looking for in the particular matter of the origin of life.”

Jacques Monod, an ardent evolutionist of yesteryear, 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, who vociferously defended 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.”

The famous late American astronomer and naturalist Carl Sagan said, …the 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’ (1977, p. 358).

Michael Denton concludes his work mentioned above with 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” in order for one to accept it. Robert Jastrow admits as much.

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 … (1978, p, 111-12)

Sixth, one scientist described what he called a “baptism” for those who accept evolution. That scientist was W.R. Thompson who called evolution a “fairy tale for adults.” The baptism to which he referred was the “baptism of ignorance” in which theorems rise to walk in language of “fact.”

Seventh, evolutionists maintain a creed. James Bales, long-time professor at Harding University, observed,

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 the 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 the 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 in order for nature to do everything which is required to create through evolution. (p. 53)

Eighth, one leading evolutionist of a century ago characterized teachers of evolution as priests. Paul LeMoine, one of the editors of the French Encyclopedia, was he who made that characterization. “Evolution is a sort of dogma in which the priests no longer believe that they maintain for their people (1937, in Bales, 1976).

Ninth, evolutionists practice their own conversion. As a matter of fact, all evolutionists, humanists, atheists, agnostics, and other classes of unbelievers, advocate their views so ardently so as to convert the unsuspecting. Those whom they seek primarily to convert are Christians and those who believe in the biblical account of Creation. This is because the “existence of an intelligent Creator is the only alternative to belief in life being created by matter and physical laws alone” (Taylor, 1991, p. 76).

There is no third alternative. Either God or evolution. However, the concept that of these two choices we have options between a “religious faith” and “science” is a mammoth-sized mistake. Both involve religious faith, but only one has any historical footing—God’s Book, the Bible.

James D. Bales, Evolution and the Scientific Method, 1976.

Francis Crick, Life Itself, 1981.

Michael Denton, Evolution, A Theory in Crisis, 1985.

Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 1978.

Philip Johnson, Darwin on Trial, 1991.

Delos McKown, The Myth-Maker’s Magic, 1993.

Carl Sagan, Intelligent Life in the Universe, 1977.

Paul S. Taylor, The Origins Answer Book, 1991.

Did the Cosmos Arise from Nothing? 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

Did the Cosmos Arise from Nothing?- “Something pretty mysterious. No science.”

by Bill Lockwood

If the general theory of evolution is true, then the earth and all that is in it, the entire cosmos, popped into existence from pure nothingness. This is how many internationally-acclaimed evolutionary biologists argue. They suggest a very unscientific beg

inning, better known as unsupported faith, defined as a “fairy tale” by their own reasoning.

A year ago, famed atheist Richard Dawkins, in a debate with Cardinal George Pell, once again asserted this “fairy tale.” Pell challenged the “something from nothing” claim that only physicists can understand but can’t demonstrate scientifically. Dawkins responded by proposing a “primeval simplicity” for the origin of the universe. No science at all. Only wishful thinking—the kind of story that should begin with “once upon a time.”

Here are Dawkins’ words: “Of course, it’s counterintuitive that you can get something from nothing. Of course, common sense does not allow you to get something from nothing. That’s why it’s interesting. It’s got to be interesting in order

to give rise to the universe at all. Something pretty mysterious had to give rise to the origin of the universe.”

Something pretty mysterious. No science. No formulas from experimentation. No physical proof. Simply guesswork. Material for legends. Yet, since the story-teller is enrobed in a scientific lab coat, people must always believe it.

But not this audience. Dawkins sou

ght to “explain” what was meant by “nothing.” “You can dispute what is meant by nothing, but whatever it is, it is very, very simple.” At this point in the debate, the audience laughs. But scientists who propose fairy tales are not used to being laughed at. So, Dawkins retorts, “Why is that funny?”

As Gary DeMar commented, “Science has become mysticism. It’s akin to the New Age nonsense of ‘the sound of one hand clapping.’ How many times have you heard atheists argue that they can’t believe in an invisible God. But it’s OK for atheists to argue that the cosmos came into existence out of nothing. ‘A physicist said it. I believe it. That settles it.’”

Socialism: The Devil’s Gospel 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

Socialism: The Devil’s Gospel- “Our society seems to be going the way of all the earth—in a hand-basket…”

by Bill Lockwood

Genuine biblical principles of Christianity are frequently corrupted when the ill-informed blend deviant concepts with them. The resulting combination usually is more fatal than bald error because people are more willing, perhaps innocently, to adopt the hybrid. They cannot see the underlying fallacy. For example, the simple biblical teaching of creation is soiled by those who wish to mix with it the general theory of evolution. The result? Theistic Evolution. In the same vein, naturalistic theories of mankind have spoiled the pure sterling fundamentals of giving resulting in socialism. Consider both of these dangerous hybrids, emphasizing the latter.

Evolution

Charles Darwin, the popularizer of the theory of evolution, wrote to his evangelist, T.H. Huxley, on August 8, 1860. Referring to the general theory of evolution he said, “My good and kind agent for the propagation of the Gospel—i.e., the devil’s gospel” (Francis Darwin, Editor, Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, 1898, II, p. 124). As a scientist Darwin thought he knew, through the theory of evolution, all about life’s forms and particularly its origins. For the philosophy of evolution endeavors to explain the universe, our solar system, life’s origin and its manifold forms, the past, the present, the future, morality, and society in terms of natural processes. Consistent evolutionism erases the supernatural and explains all in terms of the natural.

As Bert Loewenberg put it: “Once a man was swept into the evolutionary orbit, the logic of science became applicable to all forms of human activity. The logic of science applied not only to rocks but to animals, not only to animals but to man. Hence the logic of science and the dynamics of evolution applied to mind, to morals, and to society. This was the Darwinian revolution. It was not a revolution in science alone; it was a revolution in man’s conception of himself and his works” (Darwinism: Reaction or Reform?)

Due to the influence of evolution, even the biblical teaching of mankind, as made in the image of God, was re-created into the humanistic model of a mere matter-machine that reacts, not to ideas and doctrines, but to mere physical pressures. “The Devil’s Gospel.” Medicate the man with chemicals, but certainly do not hold persons accountable for their actions.

Socialism

The political left is all about “Social Justice.” What exactly is Social Justice? Putting it most succinctly, the National Association of Scholars says the term is understood to mean the “advocacy of egalitarian access to income through state-sponsored redistribution.” Egalitarianism means that all outcomes will be equal. The wealthy need be less so. Families in poverty need to share in the former’s wealth. This is to be accomplished through the all-powerful state. After all, property is not to be privately acquired or owned but should be the commonwealth of all.

Now we know why the Al Sharpton’s of the world blame “the system” for the deaths of people like Michael Brown, the thug who was the catalyst for the Ferguson, MO riots. This he did at the Brown funeral. Sharpton is preaching the Devil’s Gospel of Socialism.

Socialism is constructed upon two main pillars. One, the collective ownership of goods and properties; and Two, that human behavior is solely determined by what one owns or is able to “access” in a society. Improvement of society therefore is tied to material possessions and the “collective ownership” concept justifies the strong arm of government making this happen.

How is this in reality “The Devil’s Gospel” of materialism? Because it causes man to look outside of himself and to blame others (or society) for his problems and ignore personal sin. Materialists and socialists therefore love to harangue the “injustices” of the system. However, the root cause, the heart of man out of which are determined the issues of life, is left unnoticed.

This is like a drug addict who blames the drug dealer for his problem or blames the system that has not removed drugs from society. The missing ingredient in this diagnosis is the all-important one: Personal Responsibility or Personal Behavior. Our society seems to be going the way of all the earth—in a hand-basket—and the Al Sharpton’s of the world are pleased to dither in false diagnoses.

But he is not alone. Even the National Council of Churches majors in the “devil’s diagnosis” of materialism by demanding a re-distribution of goods and services all across the spectrum of America. That the purity of God-inspired free-will giving has been confused with socialism of the first order by the National Council of Churches as well as other religious institutions and individuals who name the name of Jesus Christ, it does not speak well of our understanding of biblical principles.

Government re-distribution of America’s resources, even to non-citizens of America, is in reality The Devil’s Gospel of Socialism. Government thievery with the veneer of Christianity. Nothing to do with the Bible. At least Donald Trump sees this much.

Richard Dawkins Cannot Live with His Own Theory 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

Richard Dawkins Cannot Live with His Own Theory

by Bill Lockwood

With all the authoritarian haughtiness of a religious priest he claims to despise, evolutionist Richard Dawkins publicly rebukes Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson for his belief in Creationism. As unbridled arrogance does to every heart in which it resides, Dawkins cannot see that the worldview which he champions logically disallows such criticisms. If Dawkins is right that naturalistic evolution is a fact then Carson can no more help himself from arriving at his conclusions than a rock rolling down a hill can freely choose to stop rolling.

Interview on CNN

Dawkins was recently interviewed on CNN by Fareed Zakaria. Reflecting upon Creationists generally and Dr. Ben Carson specifically, he lamented: “This fills me with despair. This is not something you believe in or not. I mean, this is a fact. It is a fact. It’s just as much of a fact as the Earth goes around the Sun. You can’t not believe it unless you’re ignorant.” Dawkins could barely contain himself. After adding how “deeply depressing” was this situation, he continued: “I mean, that’s a disgrace. … [F]or a very senior eminent distinguished doctor as he is to say that is even worse. Because of course, evolution is the bedrock of biology and biology is the bedrock of medicine.” “He clearly doesn’t understand the fundamental theorem of his own subject,” he continued. “That is a terrible indictment.”

This is mild-mannered Dawkins. The Oxford professor had this to say in 1989 regarding the ‘Ben Carsons’ and creationists of the world: “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”

Filled with Despair?

Why should the professor be filled with despair? The “Fundamental theorem of his own subject” (evolution) is that matter in motion is the sole reality. We must assume that he understands its implications—unless the “terrible indictment” falls upon his own head. What is that fundamental theorem of matter in motion? Everything in the universe has strictly material origins and is explained solely on mechanistic grounds.

For example, Thales, the ancient Greek philosopher, sought to explain natural phenomena without recourse to “the gods.” His oversimplification was apparently that everything is composed solely of water. This extreme position differs not from the Dawkins’ of the world who propound the theory that everything is reducible to chemistry and all motions are explained by mechanics. It is a philosophical assumption of what Elton Trueblood called the “Nothing But …” theory.

Therefore, per Dawkins’ own system, which eliminates everything except “matter in motion,” thought processes in the brain are explained by the same assumptions. Logic and reasoning have nothing to do with anyone’s beliefs. Why then, be frustrated or filled with despair, Richard Dawkins? The movement of atoms in Carson’s brain are no more responsible for the electrical impulse called “Creation” any more than the movement of grey matter in yours can help becoming an evolutionist.

And all of this time you supposed evolutionary theory was based upon scientific fact to which all reasonable minds must come! No, no. The only way to change the functioning of a mechanistic machine such as the brain is to either bang it on the head or add different chemicals. I guess in the end Dawkins’ despair and frustration with Creationists is to be explained on the same basis. No reasoning. No rational conclusions drawn from evidence. Just chemicals squirting through the labyrinths of grey matter in the Dawkins cranium. He cannot help it. Does Richard Dawkins ‘understand the fundamental theorem of his own subject?’ Apparently not.

Back to Homepage

Myth-Maker’s Magic 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

Myth-Maker’s Magic

by Bill Lockwood

Delos McKown, long-time head of the philosophy department at Auburn University in Auburn, Alabama, wrote an atheistic screed entitled The Myth-Maker’s Magic.  An ardent evolutionist, McKown chided creationists in the following. “…the more we understand our brains by ‘chemicalizing’ their functions, the more the person is ‘biologized,’ and the greater our success in mapping the human genome, with its myriad markers of predilection and vulnerability, the more difficult it will be to see human beings as a little lower than the angels.  A little higher than the animals, but of their kind, is more like it! Furthermore, some studies in neurophysiology indicate that our brains select among alternatives before delivering to consciousness intuitions of choice. If so, what of the vaunted ‘free will’ upon which so much of Western religion, morality, and jurisprudence is based? With notions of deity held hostage to cosmology, with the alleged spark of divinity in us deeply doubted, and with free will at risk, what stock can we place on intimations of immortality? Precious little, if any, it would seem” (p. 31).

Here we have a good sample of one who adheres to a Naturalistic Religion which looks to science for its complete picture of reality.  Unfortunately, his kind is numerous and predominant in the scientific, legal, educational and religious fields.  See where his religion takes him!

First, man is merely an animal.  Perhaps a higher form of animal, “but of their kind!” is how McKown puts it. If man is composed of no more than that which biology can examine, man is no more than an animal.

Second, there is no ultimate morality.  The word “morality” may be used by evolutionists, but it is emptied of all meaningful content, equaling no more than the personal tastes of each individual. At least Dr. McKown is “honest” enough to indicate that the evolutionist view of man calls into question the very concept of “morality.”

Third, mankind’s free-will is removed.  There is here an open confession that man has absolutely no free-will if the evolutionary worldview is correct.  No wonder that most leading evolutionists declare “there are no moral or ethical laws that belong to the nature of things” (William Provine, Cornell University).  So must it ever be with a concept that reduces the mind to nothing more than chemical reactions to stimuli.

Fourth, rationality is denied.  Rationality says that men should draw only those conclusions warranted by the evidence.  As Lionel Ruby put it, “We ought to justify our conclusions by adequate evidence.”  The very study of “Logic” is an examination of the “science” of correct reasoning by which men draw proper conclusions from premises.  Isn’t it strange that those who adopt these evolutionary positions style themselves “free-thinkers” in our society?  If their position is true they are not free at all!

Such are the lengths men will go once they deny the historical evidence of the New Testament and our Lord Jesus Christ.  Remove God from the equation of man’s existence and one end’s up with a worldview that denies every aspect of his own essence. Yet prominent culture molders say they believe these ideas. Powerful indeed is the evolutionary myth!

Back to Homepage