Darwinism is a religion and an excuse for bad behavior.
Aldous Huxley:
Admits motive for anti-Christian bias
Aldous Huxley was a British novelist who wrote Brave New World (1932), and was a grandson of ‘Darwin’s Bulldog’, T.H. Huxley. He was also the brother of the leading atheistic evolutionist Sir Julian Huxley (see quotes: Humanism as religion and Human soul and religion are just the product of religion), and died the same day as Christian apologist C.S. Lewis (see his quotes Materialistic Thoughts and Science began with belief in a Lawmaker), and the assassination of JFK (22 Nov. 1963). He is infamous for his advocacy of a drug-fueled utopia. In his mid-life he got involved in eastern mysticism. Aldous Huxley made this frank admission about his anti-Christian motivation:
"I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. … For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political."
Reference
Huxley, A., Ends and Means, 1937, pp. 270 ff.
Scientists are the high priests of Darwinism
"Anyone who questions man’s reasoning, particularly on the origin of the physical world, faces an arrogance almost beyond comprehension. Many scientists realize the weak underpinnings of scientific models but the spokesmen of naturalism and their media advocates will not abide anything that questions either the supremacy of man, his reasoning power or his conclusions. I have seen media interviewers, who gladly try to tear Christian and conservative guests to pieces, grovel before a scientist who is [one of the] illuminati of evolutionary thought. No one would dare to try to question a living example of the superiority of man’s reasoning power. They are in the presence of a high priest of the one and only knowledge — let all the earth keep silent before him!"
Dr Emmett Williams, Creation Research Society Quarterly, 29(2):84, September 1992.
ALL OF US HAVE WORLDVIEWS...PRESUPPOSITIONS WE BRING TO ANY QUESTION
I have had the pleasure of meeting some very brilliant scientists and theologians, such as Jonathan Sarfati and Gary Bates, Tas Walker, Gary DeMar, Hank Hannegraff and RC Sproul, Jr. among others. Each of these men would agree that their belief in God is a factor in their worldview and their overall system of beliefs. In fact everyone has some kind of opinion about a supreme being, positive or negative and of course often expressed in very different ways. Everyone has an opinion on whether or not there is a supernatural component to existence or outside the scope of existence as part of a greater reality. Everyone has metaphysical things to say about the Universe and life and if anyone claims to have no worldview they are simply fooling themselves. I leave it to your judgment whether Darwinists or Christians have the superior worldview. I do hereby assert that Darwinism is in fact a religion.
One of the most popular religions in the world is Darwinism and it exists and flourishes among scientists. Michael Ruse was professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph, Canada (recently moved to Florida), He was the leading anti-creationist philosopher whose (flawed) arguments seemed to convince the biased judge to rule against the Arkansas ‘balanced treatment’ (of creation and evolution in schools) bill in 1981/2. At the trial, he and the other the anti-creationists loftily dismissed the claim that evolution was an anti-god religion.
Ruse is the rather entertaining source of the repeated claim that he made on camera during the "Expelled" movie about life forming "on the backs of crystals!"
Yet we have the following statement made by Ruse:
"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity."
Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000.There is absolutely no question that the first underpinning of any belief system is the decision to either consider or rule out the supernatural. Darwinism is certainly a religion and a component of many atheist's catechism into their particular branch of humanism.
Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment (the italics were in the original). It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation—regardless of whether or not the facts support it.
‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen [but see the difference between origin and operational science—Ed.].’
Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997
This quote should be recognizable to you as I have used it before. Lewontin asserts that science is not required to have a naturalist materialist point of view but it is instead scientists who prefer to adhere to that point of view because they cannot countenance any other possibility. Again, science should not be limited to only one set of possibilities when investigating things unknown or uncertain."It is no more heretical to say the Universe displays purpose, as Hoyle has done, than to say that it is pointless, as Steven Weinberg has done. Both statements are metaphysical and outside science. Yet it seems that scientists are permitted by their own colleagues to say metaphysical things about lack of purpose and not the reverse. This suggests to me that science, in allowing this metaphysical notion, sees itself as religion and presumably as an atheistic religion (if you can have such a thing)."
Shallis, M., In the eye of a storm, New Scientist, pp. 42–43, January 19, 1984.
In fact, it is fair to say that many scientists clearly have allowed their religion to cloud their ability to think clearly. Richard Dawkins is obviously one such scientist, a fellow so clouded in his thinking that he could say to Bill Moyers of PBS,"Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening."
Oh, okay, we have observed it but it wasn't happening at the time. That sneaky evolution! It either happens so fast we cannot see it or so slow we cannot last long enough to detect it. That Dawkins is a respected Darwinist and that he could make such a statement with a straight face is a sign to me that he simply has allowed his mind to accept anything but God. It appears it is possible to brainwash one's own self!
Dr Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University: "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic" Todd, S.C., correspondence to Nature 401(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999
So Dawkins is certainly not alone. I am reminded of Luke 16 when Jesus taught about a beggar in paradise and a rich man in the place of torment, especially verses 27 to 31:"He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'
"Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'
" 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'
"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "
If Richard Dawkins has made up his mind that there is no God, no proof or evidence will change his mind. "The fool has said in his heart, 'there is no God.'"Charles Lyell and James Hutton whose uniformitarian views of the rock records helped Darwin formulate his particular hypothesis did admit that he had a particular objective in mind when he posited (incorrectly) that the rock formations found around the world had been formed by long-term steady accumulations of debris over millions of years. His aim was to "free science" from God and the Bible. Now this is rather ironic in that belief in God and the Bible had led scientists to believe that logical and orderly processes could be found in nature to explain how things worked. What follows is a list of prominent Theists and Bible-believers who helped shaped modern science:
Early
- Francis Bacon (1561–1626) Scientific method. However, see also Culture Wars:
- Gerardus Mercator (1512–1594) Cartography; inventor of the Mercator projection, the standard map for navigation because a course at a constant bearing corresponds to a straight line. He wrote “When I saw that Moses’ account of the world’s origin was in many ways different from that of Aristotle and the other philosophers, I began to doubt their teaching and set about studying nature’s secrets instead.” He was in prison for 7 months suspected of being a Lutheran and his great life’s work, his atlas, contained a thesis on the first chapter of Genesis where he defended God’s word against the philosophers. (Thanks to Catherine Olaussen, Norway)
- Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) (WOH) Physics, astronomy (see also The Galileo ‘twist’, The Galileo affair: history or heroic hagiography?, and Galileo Quadricentennial: Myth vs fact
- Johann Kepler (1571–1630) (WOH) Scientific astronomy
- Athanasius Kircher (1601–1680) Inventor
- John Wilkins (1614–1672)
- Walter Charleton (1619–1707) President of the Royal College of Physicians
- Blaise Pascal and article from Creation magazine (1623–1662) Hydrostatics; barometer
- Sir William Petty (1623 –1687) Statistics; scientific economics
- Robert Boyle (1627–1691) (WOH) Chemistry; gas dynamics
- John Ray (1627–1705) Natural history
- Isaac Barrow (1630–1677) Professor of mathematics
- Nicolaus Steno (né Niels Stensen, 1631–1686) Stratigraphy; see also Geological pioneer was a biblical creationist.
- Thomas Burnet (1635–1715) Geology
- Increase Mather (1639–1723) Astronomy
- Nehemiah Grew (1641–1712) Medical doctor, botany
The age of Newton
- Isaac Newton (1642–1727) (WOH) Dynamics; Calculus; Gravitation law; Reflecting telescope; Spectrum of light (wrote more about the Bible than science, and emphatically affirmed a Creator. Some have accused him of Arianism, but it’s likely he held to a heterodox form of the Trinity—See Pfizenmaier, T.C., Was Isaac Newton an Arian? Journal of the History of Ideas68(1):57–80, 1997)
- Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646–1716) Mathematician
- John Flamsteed (1646–1719) Greenwich Observatory Founder; Astronomy
- William Derham (1657–1735) Ecology
- Cotton Mather (1662–1727) Physician
- John Harris (1666–1719) Mathematician
- John Woodward (1665–1728) Paleontology
- William Whiston (1667–1752) Physics, Geology
- John Hutchinson (1674–1737) Paleontology
- Johathan Edwards (1703–1758) Physics, Meteorology
- Carolus Linnaeus (1707–1778) Taxonomy; biological classification system
- Jean Deluc (1727–1817) Geology
- Richard Kirwan (1733–1812) Mineralogy
- William Herschel (1738–1822) Galactic astronomy; Uranus (probably believed in an old-earth)
- James Parkinson (1755–1824) Physician (old-earth compromiser*)
- John Dalton (1766–1844) Atomic theory, gas law
- John Kidd, M.D. (1775–1851) Chemical synthetics (old-earth compromiser*)
Just before Darwin
- The 19th Century Scriptural Geologists, by Dr Terry Mortenson
- Timothy Dwight (1752–1817) Educator
- William Kirby (1759–1850) Entomologist
- Jedidiah Morse (1761–1826) Geographer
- Benjamin Barton (1766–1815) Botanist; Zoologist
- John Dalton (1766–1844) Father of modern atomic theory; chemistry
- Georges Cuvier (1769–1832) Comparative anatomy, paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
- Samuel Miller (1770–1840) Clergy
- Charles Bell (1774–1842) Anatomist
- John Kidd (1775–1851) Chemistry
- George Young (1777–1848) Geology
- Humphrey Davy (1778–1829) Thermokinetics; safety lamp
- Andrew Ure (1778–1857) Chemistry
- Benjamin Silliman (1779–1864) Mineralogist (old-earth compromiser*)
- Peter Mark Roget (1779–1869) Physician; physiologist
- Thomas Chalmers (1780–1847) Professor (old-earth compromiser*)
- David Brewster (1781–1868) Optical mineralogy, Kaleidoscope (probably believed in an old-earth)
- William Buckland (1784–1856) Geologist (old-earth compromiser*)
- William Prout (1785–1850) Food chemistry (probably believed in an old-earth)
- Adam Sedgwick (1785–1873) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
- John Murray (1786?–1851) Geology
- George Fairholme (1789–1846) Geology
- Michael Faraday (1791–1867) (WOH) Electro magnetics; Field theory, Generator
- Samuel F.B. Morse (1791–1872) Telegraph
- John Herschel (1792–1871) Astronomy (old-earth compromiser*)
- Edward Hitchcock (1793–1864) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
- William Whewell (1794–1866) Anemometer (old-earth compromiser*)
- William Rhind (1797–1874) Geology
- Joseph Henry (1797–1878) Electric motor; galvanometer
Just after Darwin
- Richard Owen (1804–1892) Zoology; Paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
- Matthew Maury (1806–1873) Oceanography, Hydrography (probably believed in an old-earth*)
- Louis Agassiz (1807–1873) Glaciology, Ichthyology (old-earth compromiser, polygenist*)
- Henry Rogers (1808–1866) Geology
- James Glaisher (1809–1903) Meteorology
- Philip H. Gosse (1810–1888) Ornithologist; zoology
- Sir Henry Rawlinson (1810–1895) Archaeologist
- James Simpson (1811–1870) Gynecology, Anesthesiology
- James Dana (1813–1895) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
- Sir Joseph Henry Gilbert (1817–1901) Agricultural chemist
- James Joule (1818–1889) Thermodynamics
- Thomas Anderson (1819–1874) Chemist
- Charles Piazzi Smyth (1819–1900) Astronomy
- George Stokes (1819–1903) Fluid Mechanics
- John William Dawson (1820–1899) Geology (probably believed in an old-earth*)
- Rudolph Virchow (1821–1902) Pathology
- Gregor Mendel (1822–1884) (WOH) Genetics
- Louis Pasteur (1822–1895) (WOH) Bacteriology, Biochemistry; Sterilization; Immunization
- Henri Fabre (1823–1915) Entomology of living insects
- William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824–1907) Energetics; Absolute temperatures; Atlantic cable (believed in an older earth than the Bible indicates, but far younger than the evolutionists wanted*)
- William Huggins (1824–1910) Astral spectrometry
- Bernhard Riemann (1826–1866) Non-Euclidean geometries
- Joseph Lister (1827–1912) Antiseptic surgery
- Balfour Stewart (1828–1887) Ionospheric electricity
- James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879) (WOH) Electrodynamics; statistical thermodynamics
- P.G. Tait (1831–1901) Vector analysis
- John Bell Pettigrew (1834–1908) Anatomist; physiologist
- John Strutt, Lord Rayleigh (1842–1919) Similitude; model analysis; inert gases
- Sir William Abney (1843–1920) Astronomy
- Alexander MacAlister (1844–1919) Anatomy
- A.H. Sayce (1845–1933) Archaeologist
- John Ambrose Fleming (1849–1945) Electronics; electron tube; thermionic valve
The modern period
- Dr Clifford Burdick, Geology
- George Washington Carver (1864–1943) Inventor
- L. Merson Davies (1890–1960) Geology; paleontology
- Douglas Dewar (1875–1957) Ornithology
- Howard A. Kelly (1858–1943) Gynecology
- Paul Lemoine (1878–1940) Geology
- Dr Frank Marsh, Biology
- Dr John Mann, Agriculturist, biological control pioneer
- Edward H. Maunder (1869–1931) Astronomy
- Prof. Nicolae Paulescu (1890–1960) Human physiology, medicine
- William Mitchell Ramsay (1851–1939) Archaeology
- William Ramsay (1852–1916) Isotopic chemistry, element transmutation
- Charles Stine (1882–1954) Organic Chemistry
- Dr Arthur Rendle-Short (1885–1955) Surgery
- Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgery
- Dr Larry Butler, Biochemistry
- Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatology (deceased 1997)
- Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer
The Atheists Know … Why Christianity has to Fight Evolution
"Christianity has fought, still fights, and will continue to fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing."
Reference
G. Richard Bozarth, ‘The Meaning of Evolution’, American Atheist, p. 30. 20 September 1979.
Evolution incompatible with Christianity
"People seem to think that Christianity and evolution do or can go together. But I suggest this is only possible for the intellectually schizophrenic. Biological theory does not require or allow any sort of divine guidance for the evolutionary process …"
David Oldroyd, The (Australian) Weekend Review, 20–21 March 1993, p. 5. (David Oldroyd was associate professor in the School of Science and Technology Studies at the University of New South Wales, Australia.)
Eventually a logical man must look carefully at Genesis and decide whether the meaning of the words are literal or figurative. Bible exegetical rules indicate that the days of creation are 24 hour days.OT Professor Todd Beall:
take Genesis 1 as written, rather than crave secular respectability
Todd Beall, Ph.D., Professor of Old Testament, Capital Bible Seminary, Lanham, MD:
In fact, it is fascinating that the day-age advocates insist (correctly) that Gen 1 speaks of the days in sequential action, while the framework hypothesis advocates insist (correctly) that the days of Gen 1 are literal 24-hour days. Only the literal 24-hour day view holds that the days are both sequential and literal 24-hour periods. …
Why not take the words of Gen 1 at face value, as simple, straightforward sequential narrative of God’s miraculous creative activity? If that causes some intellectuals to label us as “narrow-minded clowns”, then so be it. The claims of Christ are narrow (John 14:6: “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no man comes to the Father but by Me”); the gospel is narrow; and the cross is regarded as foolishness by the wisdom of this world (1 Cor 1:18–31). But it is true nonetheless. Heb 11:3 says that “by faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.” Do we really think that contemporary science is more authoritative than God’s revelation? Sometimes our intellectual pride may get in the way of our faith: if the inerrant Scripture in Gen 1 states that God created the world in six literal days, then why should we not simply accept it, rather than try to find all kinds of ways to explain it away? Sometimes the plain, simplest, most natural reading of the text is, indeed the best. Such is the case with Gen 1, despite all the attempts to explain it in some other, more complicated way.
Related articles
- Christians should believe six-day creation regardless of “academic respectability”—Doug Wilson
- “The treason of the intellectuals”—R.C.Sproul
- Fidelity to God—J.P. Moreland
Reference
- Todd Beall, Christians in the public square: How far should Evangelicals go in the Creation-Evolution debate?, Evangelical Theological Society, 15 November 2006.
The atheistic anti-creationist Eugenie Scott, leader of the anticreationist National Center for Science Education, tacitly admitted that if students heard criticisms of evolution, they might end up not believing it!
“In my opinion, using creation and evolution as topics for critical-thinking exercises in primary and secondary schools is virtually guaranteed to confuse students about evolution and may lead them to reject one of the major themes in science.” Larry Witham, Where Darwin Meets the Bible, p. 23, Oxford University Press, 2002.]You wonder if Eugenie was named for Eugenics, one of the tenets of thought that is peripheral to Darwinism and in fact may be an unavoidable conclusion drawn from Darwin's writings.
"Since Darwin’s death, all has not been rosy in the evolutionary garden. The theories of the Great Bearded One have been hijacked by cranks, politicians, social reformers—and scientists—to support racist and bigoted views. A direct line runs from Darwin, through the founder of the eugenics movement—Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton—to the extermination camps of Nazi Europe." Martin Brookes, ‘Ripe old age,’ New Scientist 161(2171):41, 1999.
Sir Arthur Keith was a British anthropologist, an atheistic evolutionist and an anti-Nazi, but he drew this chilling conclusion:
"The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution." Keith, A., Evolution and Ethics, Putnam, NY, USA, p. 230, 1947.The legacy of Darwin includes Eugenics (as practiced in the United States by advocates such as the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger) and ethnic cleansing as practiced by Adolf Hitler and his henchmen. Consider that now that our society has been soaked in Darwin for a few decades we have legalized abortion and government-mandated euthanasia either purposefully or simply a side effect of the rationing and waiting lines typical of government-run healthcare that we will have under Obamacare unless it is quickly defunded and repealed.
Darwinism also provided the excuse for the most immoral sexual activities to be practiced and studied by the heinous Alfred Kinsey and the infamous Institute. Perhaps Indiana's best known pedophile, Kinsey is an example of applied Darwinism.
From a debate between two evolutionists. Jaron Lanier is a computer scientist; Richard Dawkins is a professor at Oxford and an ardent atheist.
Jaron Lanier: "There’s a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature."
Richard Dawkins: "All I can say is, That’s just tough. We have to face up to the truth."
‘Evolution: The dissent of Darwin,’ Psychology Today 30(1):62, Jan-Feb 1997.
That's just tough. Darwinism means the end of morality because there are no absolutes, there is no purpose to life, there are no consequences for actions beyond those that cannot be avoided in this lifetime. Darwinism means no basis for calling an action either good or evil and if taken to the extreme it means no free will. Darwinism leads to the conclusion that we are all simply what we have evolved to be and we suffice to give life to the next generation as a reason for living if that is indeed reason enough.The greatest joke?
"I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has." – Malcolm Muggeridge, well-known British journalist and philosopher—Pascal Lectures, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
Sadly, if Darwinism is a joke then mankind and morality and millions of unborn children are the butt of said joke. Tragedy would be a better term. Darwinism is the excuse for the lack of moral standards, the abandonment of our traditional belief systems and the acceptance of various behaviors once considered unmentionable. Not my idea of a joke.