Evolution is Just a False Religion

2007-12-15T19:07:00.000-08:00

Evolution Is Religion, Not Science
Henry M. MorrisEvolutionists often insist that evolution is a proved fact of

science, providing the very framework of scientific interpretation,
especially in the biological sciences. This, of course, is nothing but
wishful thinking. Evolution is not even a scientific hypothesis, since
there is no conceivable way in which it can be tested.
THE RELIGIOUS ESSENCE OF EVOLUTIONISM

As a matter of fact, many leading evolutionists have recognized the
essentially "religious" character of evolutionism. Even though they
themselves believe evolution to be true, they acknowledge the fact that
they _believe_ it! "Science", however, is not supposed to be something
one "believes." Science is knowledge -- that which can be demonstrated
and observed and repeated. Evolution cannot be proved, or even tested;
it can only be believed.

For example, two leading evolutionary biologists have described
modern neo-Darwinism as "part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most
of us as part of our training."[1] A prominent British biologist, a
Fellow of the Royal Society, in the Introduction to the 1971 edition of
Darwin's _Origin of Species_, said that "belief in the theory of
evolution" was "exactly parallel to belief in special creation," with
evolution merely "a satisfactory faith on which to base our
interpretation of nature."[2] G.W. Harper calls it a "metaphysical
belief."[3]

Ernst Mayr, the outstanding Harvard evolutionary biologist, calls
evolution "man's world view today."[4] Sir Julian Huxley, probably the
outstanding evolutionist of the twentieth century saw "evolution as a
universal and all-pervading process"[5] and, in fact, nothing less than "the
whole of reality."[6] A leading evolutionary geneticist of the present
day, writing an obituary for Theodosius Dobzhansky, who himself was
probably the nation's leading evolutionist at the time of his death in
1975, says that Dobzhansky's view of evolution followed that of the
notorious Jesuit priest, de Chardin:

The place of biological evolution in human thought was, according
to Dobzhansky, best expressed in a passage that he often quoted
from Pierre Teilhard de Chardin: '(Evolution) is a general
postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must
henceforward bow and which they must satisfy in order to be
thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all
facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow.'[7]

The British physicist, H.S. Lipson, has reached the following
conclusion:

In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion;
almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to
'bend' their observations to fit in with it.[8]

The man whom Dobzhansky called "France's leading zoologist," although
himself an evolutionist, said that scientists should "destroy the myth
of evolution" as a simple phenomenon which is "unfolding before us."[9]
Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of
Natural History, by any accounting one of the world's top evolutionists
today, has recently called evolution "positively anti-knowledge," saying
that "all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed
truth."[10] In another address he called evolution "story telling."[11]

All of the above-cited authorities are (or were) among the world's
foremost authorities on evolutionism. Note again the terms which they
use in describing evolution:

Evolutionary dogma
A satisfactory faith
Man's world view
All-pervading process
The whole of reality
Metaphysical belief

A scientific religion
The myth of evolution
Anti-knowledge
Revealed truth
An illuminating light
Story-telling

Charles Darwin himself called evolution "this grand view of life."
Now such grandiloquent terms as these are not scientific terms! One
does not call the law of gravity, for example, "a satisfactory faith,"
nor speak of the laws of thermodynamics as "dogma." Evolution is,
indeed, a grand world view, but it is _not_ science. Its very
comprehensiveness makes it impossible even to test scientifically. As
Ehrlich and Birch have said: "Every conceivable observation can be
fitted into it. --No one can think of ways in which to test it."[12]

RELIGIONS BASED ON EVOLUTION

In view of the fundamentally religious nature of evolution, it is not
surprising to find that most world religions are themselves based
on evolution. It is certainly unfitting for educators to object to
teaching scientific creationism in public schools on the ground that it
supports Biblical Christianity when the existing pervasive teaching of
evolution is supporting a host of other religions and philosophies.

The concept of evolution did not originate with Charles Darwin. It
has been the essential ingredient of all pagan religions and
philosophies from time immemorial (e.g., atomism, pantheism, stoicism,
gnosticism and all other humanistic and polytheistic systems). All
beliefs which assume the ultimacy of the space/time/matter universe,
presupposing that the universe has existed from eternity, are
fundamentally evolutionary systems. The cosmos, with its innate laws and
forces, is the only ultimate reality. Depending on the sophistication of
the system, the forces of the universe may be personified as gods and
goddesses who organized the eternal chaotic cosmos into its present form
(as in ancient Babylonian and Egyptian religions), or else may
themselves be invested with organizing capabilities (as in modern
scientific evolutionism). In all such cases, these are merely different
varieties of the fundamental evolutionist world view, the essential
feature of which is the denial that there is one true God and Creator of
all things.

In this perspective, it becomes obvious that most of the great world
religions -- Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Hinduism, Animism, etc. --
are based on evolution. Creationism is the basis of only such systems
as Orthodox Judaism, Islam and Biblical Christianity. The liberal
varieties of Judaism, Islam, Catholicism and Protestantism, as well as
most modern pseudo-Christian cults, are all based on evolution.

All of this points up the absurdity of banning creationist teaching
from the schools on the basis that it is religious. The schools are
already saturated with the teaching of religion in the guise of
evolutionary "science." In the modern school of course, this teaching
mostly takes the form of secular humanism, which its own proponents
claim to be a "non-theistic religion." It should also be recalled that
such philosophies as communism, fascism, socialism, nazism, and
anarchism have been claimed by their founders and promoters to be based
on what they regard as scientific evolutionism. If creation is excluded
from the schools because it is compatible with Christian
"fundamentalism," should not evolution also be banned since it is the
basis of communism and nazism?

THE SCIENTIFIC IRRELEVANCE OF EVOLUTION

Some people have deplored the questioning of evolution on the ground
that this is attacking science itself. In a recent debate, the
evolutionist whom the writer debated did not attempt to give any
scientific evidences for evolution, electing instead to spend his time
defending such scientific concepts as atomic theory, relativity,
gravity, quantum theory and science in general, stating that attacking
evolution was tantamount to attacking science!

The fact is, however, that the elimination of evolutionary
interpretations from science would hardly be noticed at all, in terms of
real scientific understanding and accomplishment. G.W. Harper comments
on this subject as follows:

It is frequently claimed that Darwinism is central to modern
biology. On the contrary, if all references to Darwinism suddenly
disappeared, biology would remain substantially unchanged. It
would merely have lost a little color. Grandiose doctrines in
science are like some occupants of high office; they sound very
important but have in fact been promoted to a position of
ineffectuality.[13]

The scientific irrelevance of evolutionism has been strikingly (but,
no doubt, inadvertently) illustrated in a recent issue of _Science
News_. This widely read and highly regarded weekly scientific journal
was commemorating its sixtieth anniversary, and this included a listing
of what it called the "scientific highlights" of the past sixty
years.[14]

Of the sixty important scientific discoveries and accomplishments
which were chosen, only six could be regarded as related in any way to
evolutionist thought. These six were as follows:

(1). 1927. Discovery that radiation increases mutation rates in
fruit flies.

(2). 1943. Demonstration that nucleic acids carry genetic
information

(3). 1948. Enunciation of the "big bang" cosmology.

(4). 1953. Discovery of the "double helix" structure of DNA.

(5). 1961. First step taken in cracking the genetic code.

(6). 1973. Development of procedures for producing recombinant
DNA molecules.

Four of these six "highlights" are related to the structure and
function of DNA. Even though evolutionists have supposed that these
concepts somehow correlate with evolution, the fact is that the
remarkable DNA molecule provides strong evidence of original creation
(since it is far too complex to have arisen by chance) and of
conservation of that creation (since the genetic code acts to guarantee
reproduction of the same kind, not evolution of new kinds). One of the
two other highlights showed how to increase mutations but, since all
known true mutations are harmful, this contributed nothing whatever to
the understanding of evolution. One (the "big bang" concept) was indeed
an evolutionary idea but it is still an idea which has never been proved
and today is increasingly being recognized as incompatible with basic
physical laws.

Consequently, it is fair to conclude that no truly significant
accomplishment of modern science either depends on evolution or supports
evolution! There would certainly be no detriment to real scientific
learning if creation were incorporated as an alternative to evolution in
school curricula. It would on the other hand, prove a detriment to the
pervasive religion of atheistic humanism which now controls our schools.

REFERENCES

1. Ehrlich, Paul and L.C. Birch. _Nature_, Apr. 22, 1967, p. 352.

2. Matthews, L. Harrison. "Introduction" to _Origin of Species_. London,
J.M. Dent and Sons, 1971, p. X.

3. Harper, G. W. "Alternatives to Evolutionism." _School Science
Review_ 51, Sep. 1979, p. 16.

4. Mayr, Ernst. "Evolution." _Scientific American_ 239, Sep. 1978, p.
47.

5. Huxley, Julian. "Evolution and Genetics." Ch. 8 in _What is
Science?_. Edited by J.R. Newman. New York, Simon and Schuster,
1955, p. 272.

6. Ibid, p. 278.

7. Ayala, Francisco. "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light
of Evolution: Theodosius Dobzhansky, 1900-1975." _Journal of
Heredity_ 68, No. 3, 1977, p. 3.

8. Lipson, H.S. "A Physicist Looks at Evolution." _Physics Bulletin_
31, n.d., 1980.

9. Grasse, Pierre P. _Evolution of Living Organisms_. New York, Academic
Press, 1977, p. 8.

10. Patterson, Colin. "Evolution and Creationism." Transcript of Speech
at American Museum of Natural History, Nov. 5, 1981, p. 2.

11. Patterson, Colin. "Cladistics." Interview on BBC Telecast, Peter
Franz, Interviewer, Mar. 4, 1982.

12. Ehrlich and Holm, op cit.

13. Harper, G.W. op cit., p. 26.

14. "Six Decades of Science Highlights." _Science News_ 121, Mar. 13,
1982, p. 192.

Evolution is false Religion

Evolution is Just a False Religion