Tag Archives: Evolution

Bill Lockwood: The Religion of Evolution

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.

Scientific Socialism

Scientific Socialism “This labeling became a weapon.

by Bill Lockwood

One of the lesser remembered items regarding communism is that Karl Marx, the founder of modern forms of communism, dubbed it Scientific Socialism. Marxism, as a philosophy, was claimed by Marx to be “scientific.” This label was habitually used by him “to distinguish himself from his many enemies. He and his work were ‘scientific,’ they were not” (Paul Johnson, Intellectuals). This labeling became a weapon. With the seeming onslaught of socialism engulfing America today, we would do well to learn the lesson of “labeling.”

Karl Marx

First, by expressing his theory as “scientific socialism” Marx was expressing his kinship with Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. “He felt he had found a scientific explanation of human behavior in history akin to Darwin’s theory of evolution.” However, just as today, Darwin’s theory was the unprovable thesis that began on the assumed premise that the explanation of the world had nothing to do with God. Communism begins and ends with atheism. This goes a long way in explaining how American culture has changed into an irreligious one.

After reading Darwin’s Origin of the Species, Karl Marx wrote to Friedrich Engels. “Although developed in a coarse English manner, this is the book that contains the foundation in natural history for our view” (Quoted by Richard Weikart, From Darwin to Hitler, Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany).

As pointed out by Weikart, “many pacifists, feminists, birth control advocates, and homosexual rights activists … were enthusiastic Darwinists and used Darwinian arguments to support their political and social agenda.” Darwinism, like Marxism, is an entire worldview. As German biologist Arnold Dodel stated in in 1904, Darwinism is a “new worldview” which actually “rests on the theory of evolution. On it we have to construct a new ethics … All values will be revalued.”

Magnetic Pull

Second, to label Marxism “science” exerted a “magnetic pull” on the intellectual class of the United States which had already rejected a God-centered worldview. Many Americans, from the Civil War period forward, adopted a materialistic view of the world. This included President Woodrow Wilson, who was himself a “historical materialist.” This notion basically states that material conditions alone determine the course of history. Man’s spiritual nature is excluded from consideration. This concept appealed to elitists such as Wilson who was bred in the halls of higher education. It appealed to their vanity.

As a matter of fact, Darwin’s theory of evolution was and is at the bottom of the entire “progressive” movement—which is nothing less than socialism. This doctrine of “historicism,” Wilson’s faith, is described as the evolutionary theory applied to history and politics (Ronald J. Pestritto, Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism). This, in turn, was rooted in Hegel’s philosophy; precisely the scholastic who influenced Karl Marx. There is little difference between Marx’s dialectic, which he borrowed from Hegel while emphasizing that economic conditions of men determine the course of man’s development and Wilson’s historicism, which posited that history must run a predetermined materialistic course and one cannot transcend one’s historical environment (Pestritto). For Marx, all of reality was framed in “economics”; for Wilson, all of reality was framed in the historical time-frame from which one could not escape.

All of this is simply materialism—there is no reality beyond the material world—but labeling it “scientific” gave it an air of snobbish superiority. After all, once one sides with the “infallibility” of “science,” the “theories” spawned in those halls are beyond review by the rest of us ordinaries.

Ironically, Marx was anything but a scientist. He not only was temperamentally unfit to be a scientist, for there was nothing scientific about him, but in a “deeper sense he was not really a scholar at all.” Marx was not interested in finding truth, but merely in proclaiming theories whether they squared with reality or not (Johnson, 54).

Marx, along with his fellow communists, were only interested in devising weapons for building a totalitarian dictatorship and for “fomenting unrest and ill will between man and man everywhere in the world.” And wherever class warfare rages there is the hobgoblin of communism—scientific socialism.

Popularity of Naturalism

Popularity of Naturalism- “Faith in naturalism is in reality extremely naïve and prejudiced…”

by Bill Lockwood

David Elton Trueblood, professor of the Philosophy of Religion at Stanford University, explained in his 1942 book The Logic of Belief: An Introduction to the

Philosophy of Religion, the extreme popularity of “naturalism” as a guiding concept of life. Naturalism is the philosophic principle that everything is accounted for on a naturalistic basis—matter and motion are the sole realities. To say that this continues to be the dominant theory of life and existence in our culture is to understate the case.

Faith in naturalism is in reality extremely naïve and prejudiced, perhaps even more so than the “naïve spiritualism” of ancient Greece that uncritically ascribed all phenomena in the world to the gods and goddesses behind the scenes. It might be noted that Christianity is far different from this for it begins with history and historical investigation.

Why the Popularity of Naturalism?

Trueblood gives four basic reasons why naturalistic theory has become so popular. First, the success of the scientific method. Consider how mankind has been able to change the face of the earth over the past 300 years. We can produce machines that fly and buildings that stand. “But the claim that naturalism is implicit in natural science, often assumed without argument, is far from self-evident and requires careful analysis.” (94)

Second, distrust of authority. Authority as a means of discovering truth is in disrepute, largely due to the claims of the Roman Church throughout the Middle Ages, which persecuted those who desired the Word of God in order to read it for themselves. Heavy-handed tactics and theories borne in Catholic Councils asserted that even secular governments were to be subject to the Holy Roman See.

However, as Trueblood correctly points out, the authoritative decrees of Rome have been replaced by the “scientific community” and consequently, authoritative means of arriving at truth are as popular as ever. The Roman “priesthood” has been replaced by the scientist wearing a lab coat. “The authority of some distinguished scientists is accepted unquestionably by millions who have no means of testing for themselves the scientific beliefs they ingenuously hold” (95). What a tragic irony! The naturalistic mentality believes that the way of authority is bound up with a theistic interpretation of the universe!

Third, the wide acceptance of evolution as an explanatory principle. Important it is to note here that the general theory of evolution does not spring from science itself. As one can see from ancient Greek history, evolution is far older than modern science plus it is far more philosophic than scientific. “The notion that all life has been derived from a single unicellular organism is an interesting and useful concept, but it is purely speculative and lies in an area in which scientific demonstration is entirely out of the question. It may be a reasonable faith, but nothing more.” (95)

Darwin’s theory, which is not the only evolutionary concept, believes that all the changes in species, throughout all time, have come about purely by natural selection, i.e. with no instrumentality of mind or purpose. Thus, reference to divine Mind is not necessarily refuted, but thought to be rendered unnecessary. However, modern man has allowed this philosophy of naturalism to undergird all forms of thought and education—from biology to history to literature to government.

Fourth, the desire for simplification. Man’s tendency is to inquire into origins armed with naturalistic assumptions and then be satisfied that a complete explanation has been found. For example, “we investigate the history of morals and we find, supposedly, that in the beginning morality was nothing but a set of taboos or fear of tribal chieftains. We conclude that all morality, even in its developed form, is really nothing but taboos and has no objective reality.” (96)

So also, investigation into history of religions seems to say that religion arose out of primitive fears of the unknown. “Consequently the religion of civilized men is really nothing but superstitious fears.” Trueblood quips in response, “By the same argument science could be reduced to primitive magic.” (96)

For example, the Old Testament book of Daniel includes the words from which we get “pharmacology” and “astronomy.” However, at that time, an astrologer and an astronomer were the same thing. Astronomers and astrologers were those who were considered to be interpreters of “signs, omens and dreams by which the gods revealed their will.”

Various classes of these omen-readers included magicians, theosophists, and astrologers. Though this is the root of science, no astronomer today would rely upon magical reading of omens to discover the heavens! So exactly, because most religious beliefs of the ancients arose out of primitive magic does not mean that all religious belief can be boiled down to that simple formula. Modern man desires oversimplification.

In fine, naturalism, though the dominant philosophy of academia, is naïve. Trueblood adds one more interesting note in explanation. “This contemporary naturalism deserves to be called naïve naturalism just as that of the early period of Greek philosophy does, but for an added reason. This reason is that the current naturalism is very largely accepted by those who do not realize that it is a philosophy; they do not know that it is thoroughly possible, with intellectual integrity, to accept the methods and conclusions of modern science and yet espouse a world view which is sharply at variance with that which is currently popular.” (93,94)

The Impact of Evolution on the Humanities and Science

The Impact of Evolution on the Humanities and Science

by Bill Lockwood

Beneath the above title, John N. Moore, professor of science at Michigan State University, offered a broad range of cultural themes that have felt the brunt force of Darwinian evolution. Below are condensed notes from his work with insertions of my own.

First, Literature. Even prior to Darwin’s first book (1859) English novelists seemed to opt for an “evolutionary” model regarding the origin of man. After Darwin’s second book, The Descent of Man, the 19th century “intellectuals” were in perfect accord with Darwin’s scheme. George Bernard Shaw, Beatrice and Sidney Webb, of the Fabian Socialists—and even Karl Marx constructed evolution into social theories such as socialism.

Second, Philosophy. If there was a slow gradual change over eons of time that produced mankind, then all mammals, of which man is a part, have a common ancestry. If that be true, then all values are relative and there are no absolutes. John Dewey, the “father of modern American education” is one of these. Listen today to the philosophers to realize that they believe in no absolute moral standards.

Third, Psychology. Modern psychiatry, except for biblically-based counseling, is grounded squarely on the concept enunciated in the Humanist Manifesto (1933, 1973, 2000), that man is a mere “matter machine.” As one psychologist put it, man is simply a “bunch of chemicals running around in a bag.” The DSM-IV (2004) manual (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) attacks the biblical concept that man has a separate “spirit” that is answerable to God as “foolish and obsolete.” If this be the true nature of man, his “disorders” are fixed by adding more chemicals, which is precisely what is occurring in our society.

Fourth, Biology. One has only to read the writings of such leaders as Julian Huxley, Theodosius Dobzhansky, and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin to verify the infusion of evolutionary thinking in all facets of biology and associated sciences and in the mass communications media as well (Moore). A more modern evolutionary writer is George Gaylord Simpson. All of these demonstrate the “ubiquitous application of evolutionary thought.”

Fifth, Education. The “father” of modern education, John Dewey, was an ardent supporter of the evolutionary hypothesis. Little wonder that the myth of evolutionary origins of mankind has so infiltrated modern education that it is difficult to avoid such from grade school to graduate school. Unsurprisingly, Dewey was a Humanist who did not believe in God.

Sixth, Theology. Many are shocked that this field has been completely captured by evolution. Modern graduate students are frequently required to begin their textual researches based upon the concept that the text of the Bible is not God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16,17), but the result of an evolutionary change that occurred over the “growth” of a period of years.

Socialism: The Devil’s Gospel

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.