“And of the children of Issachar, which were men that had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do; the heads of them were two hundred; and all their brethren were at their commandment.” I Chronicles 12:32
Long before Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species gave aid, comfort, and “scientific” support for Adolf Hitler’s gas chambers in Germany and Margaret Sanger’s birth control program in America, Karl Marx wrote (January 16, 1861), “Darwin’s [Origin of Species, CK] is very important and provides me with the basis in natural science for the class struggle in history.”¹ Actually, Origin of Species did more than provide justification for Marx’s concept of class struggle; it did so by removing the inconvenience of having to include God in the picture. In other words, Darwin’s theory of evolution provided the added bonus of removing the need for a Creator. Or, in the words of Richard Dawkins, a modern-day apologist of Darwin, Darwins theory “. . . made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”
This was, of course, good news for Russia’s Vladimer Lenin and Joseph Stalin. “Survival of the fittest” applied to the human species obviously fit well as a basis for their concept of the inevitability of the revolt of the proletariat (working class) against the bourgeoisie (upper class). Stalin expressed it this way: “Evolution prepares for revolution and creates the ground for it; revolution consummates the process of evolution and facilitates its further activity.”2
The history student knows a bit about the consequences of those ideas for the Russian people under Lenin and Stalin, the Chinese under Mao, the Cambodians under Pol Pot, and countless others whose leaders have acted in concert with the implications of Darwin’s Origin of Species. While forever unknown in this life, even the most conservative calculations estimate that more than one hundred million lives of men, women, and children have been offered on the altar of Marxism. (Read The Black Book of Communism and From the Gulag to the Killing Fields for confirmation of these devastating consequences.)
It might not be justified to hold Darwin directly responsible for that slaughter, but there can be little doubt that his flawed ideas were a significant contributing factor. Similarly, to hold Darwin directly responsible for what his modern-day disciples have made of Father Charles’ theory of evolution may be unfair; nevertheless, his theory has become the creed for the study of science, the adoption of which has resulted in serious consequences for the study of science itself. It is this to which we will focus our attention in this article.
Darwinists often charge that adherence to a Christian world-view retards scientific advancement. A cursory study of history proves otherwise. one needs only to look at scientific work that predated Darwin. Study, for example, the scientific development that resulted from the work of Copernicus (astronomy), Bacon (father of experimental science), Brahe (astronomy, math, physics), Kepler (math, physics), Galileo (physics, math, astronomy), and Newton (physics), professed Christians all, to demonstrate the foolishness of such a notion. Take note of the fact that these scientists believed in a God of order who created an orderly universe, which, they believed, revealed the work of an allwise God. They labored to discover what the all-wise God had done. Clearly their work flourished, founded on that premise.
Interestingly, a better case can be made that adherence to the evolutionary world-view has retarded scientific advancement. Some worldly scientists have recognized the problem. One expressed it this way: “Fundamental truths about evolution have so far eluded us all, and that uncritical acceptance of Darwinism may be counterproductive . . . .”3 Another, L.L. Cohen, writes,
It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end, no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin’s pronouncements and predictions.. Let’s cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back.4
To empathize better with Cohen’s lament, consider the millions of hours wasted and billions of dollars spent in the last one hundred plus years to confirm as true that which is false. The search for those pesky missing links in the fossil record continues, as does the endless pursuit of other nonexistent evolutionary proofs.
Philip E. Johnson proposes an alternative to this foolishness in his book Reason in the Balance. Concerning the discipline of biology, Johnson opines,
“…biology will not only survive but prosper if it turns out that genetic information really is the product of preexisting intelligence. Biologists will have to give up their dogmatic materialism and discard unproductive hypotheses like the prebiotic soup, but to abandon bad ideas is a gain not a loss. Freed of the metaphysical chains that tie it to nineteenth-century materialism, biology can turn to the fascinating task of discovering how the intelligence embodied in the genetic information works through matter to make the organism function. In that case chemical evolution will go the way of alchemy—abandoned because a better understanding of the problem revealed its futility—and science will have reached a new plateau.5
Reason in the Balance
The title of Johnson’s book suggests that there is more at stake here than the mere wasting of resources and the retardation of scientific advancement; and it involves the supposed conflict between science and religion.
The prevailing viewpoint of worldly science declares “..that ‘religion’ is based on faith rather than reason, and that persons who believe in God are inherently unwilling to follow the truth wherever it may lead because that path leads to naturalism.”6 The implication is that religious belief is mere subjective feeling, whereas belief in evolution is objective fact. Nothing could be further from the truth. Johnson makes this clear by presenting a convincing case that demonstrates that, at bottom, science rooted in evolution is also “faith-based” because it is founded on the philosophical assumption of naturalism. And what, pray tell, is naturalism?
Rather than put words in their mouths, listen to the believers in naturalism as they speak for themselves. The atheist philosopher and apologist for evolution Paul Kurtz, in his defense of naturalism, states that “. . . naturalism is committed to a methodological principle within the context of scientific inquiry, i.e., all hypotheses and events are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events. To introduce a supernatural or transcendental cause within science is to depart from naturalistic explanations. On this ground, to invoke an intelligent designer or creator is inadmissible.”7 1981 Humanist of the Year, Carl Sagan, sums it up in this manner: “The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.”8 Kurtz and Sagan hereby demonstrate that, at bottom, naturalism is a philosophical view that acknowledges only natural elements and forces, denying the existence of the supernatural.
A question must be answered, however: Does worldly science prove naturalism or does it merely assume it? Johnson demonstrates the latter and in the process concludes, “If science now teaches that naturalism is true, and if science is unimpeachable, then theists ought to face the consequences instead of pretending that they can go on as if nothing had happened. But maybe naturalism is false. It seems that the rulers of science are terrified at the prospect of having to address that possibility.”9
While modern-day evolutionists may be hesitant to consider the possibility that their naturalism-based theory of evolution is not proved by science, apparently their spiritual father was not. In a letter to a certain Dr. Gray, Darwin wrote, “. . . I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.”10 In another letter, this one to C. Lyell, Darwin had this to say, “. . . thinking of so many cases of men pursuing an illusion for years…often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a phantasy.”11 Furthermore, Darwin candidly expressed a concern that apparently plagued him but does not seem to be an issue for his disciples when he wrote: “With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind [including the philosophy of naturalism? CK], which has been developed from the minds of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkeys mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?”12
In his candor Darwin appears to approach the thinking of Johnson that the theory of evolution puts reason in the balance: Is man going to act in concert with the evolving “convictions of a monkey’s mind” or as a rational, moral creation of God?
The answer to that question makes all the difference. Romans 1:28 makes this clear: “And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient.” Then follow all those “things” in verses 29-32. Note especially three of the things listed as those “which are not convenient”: deceit, haters of God, and inventors of evil things. How fitting they are as characteristics of Darwin and his disciples. In their rejection of God they have invented their godless theory to deceive; and countless have been the victims.
Little do they realize their own victim status as a consequence of their foolishness, for in confining themselves to a world without God they have cut themselves off from the only source of a correct understanding of the universe in which they live. Few would disagree that to ignore reality is irrational, and that is exactly God’s judgment, as expressed in Romans 1, on Charles Darwin and his modern-day disciples.
A science of Consensus
Is it any wonder, then, that worldly scientists have in some instances turned to consensus science (that is, what the majority of scientists believe must be the correct view) in areas that cannot be scientifically proven? The fact of the matter is that belief in evolution is consensus science. Evolution (macroevolution) has never been proven. Rather it has been accepted on the basis of the philosophy of naturalism because the alternative (the existence of God) is unthinkable.
And so the tyranny of consensus has raised its ugly head in the world of science. In some cases it has even resulted in science bowing to the pressures of politics. The recent man-made global warming consensus, which declared scientific discussion on the matter closed, is a high profile example. But there are others.
Take for example the case made by President Obama in 2009 for federal money to be used to promote medical research through the harvesting of stem cells of human embryos. Dr. Randy J. Guliuzza writes as follows concerning the speech in which President Obama supported this practice:
The full speech provides evidence that Mr. Obamas words were carefully selected to exploit the accelerating drift of the scientific community’s upper echelons from determining “scientific validity” based on rigorous observation and experiment, to basing it on consensus authority. Thus preserving “scientific integrity” would not mean keeping the scientific process from going awry, but keeping scientific outcomes in line with policy.13
This demonstrates how science can be, and sometimes is, manipulated and twisted to serve political purposes. Modern-day Issachar will not be surprised to see more of this as the rise and influence of the anti- Christian world power continues.
In connection with the above discussed consequences of the Cult of Charles Darwin, it is interesting to note that for the most part they were anticipated over 150 years ago. Consider as an example these prophetic words of Professor Haugton of Dublin after a speech presented by Darwin in 1858: “All that was new was false, and what was true was old. This we think will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism.” Then speaking directly to Darwin, Professor Haugton said, “If your theory accomplishes what you intend, humanity, in my mind, would suffer a damage that might brutalize it, and sink the human race into a lower grade of degradation than any into which it has fallen, since written records tell us of its history.”14
. . . to be continued
*Previous article in this series: January 1, 2012, p. 163.
1 Karl Marx and Frederik Engels, Selected Correspondence (New York: International Publishers, 1942), 125.
2 Joseph Stalin, Works (Moscow and London: 1952/3), vol. 1, 304.
3 Vance Farrell, The Evolution Handbook (Altamont, TN: Evolution Facts, Inc. 2001), 873.
4 Farrell, 860.
5 Phillip E. Johnson, Reason in the Balance (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1995), 92.
6 Johnson, 198.
7 Paul Kurtz, “Darwin Re-Crucified,” Free Inquiry, vol. 18, #2.
8 Carl Sagan, Cosmos (New York: Random House, 1980), 4.
9 Johnson, 192.
11 Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 1887, vol. 2, 229.
12 Charles Darwin, quoted in Francis Darwin (ed.), Life and Letters of Charles Darwin (1903; 1971 reprint), vol. 1, 285.
13 Randy J. Guliuzza, M.D., “Consensus Science: The Rise of a Scientific Elite,” Acts & Facts, 38: 4.
14 Farrell, 883.