Tag Archives: Evolutionary Myth

The Impact of Evolution on the Humanities and Science 0 (0)

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.

Myth-Maker’s Magic 0 (0)

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