iStockphoto darwin-monument

The false gospel of Darwinism

And how you can help demolish its strongholds

By

Published: 24 November 2016 (GMT+10)
Originally published in a CMI newsletter, January 2014.

Despite claims that atheism is irreligious, it requires incredible (blind) faith to be an atheist. One has to believe (take a faith position) that the incredibly well-designed and ordered universe that we readily observe brought itself into existence. But real science continues to reveal ever-increasing complexity at the cosmic as well as the microscopic level, including the genomes of living things. To sidestep the implications of design by the supernatural Creator God of the Bible, even well-respected high-profile scientists and educators are prepared to take another quantum leap of faith in proclaiming that unseen extraterrestrials have completely overcome the known laws of physics to seed and/or oversee life on Earth. Ironically, this would actually make them creationists (though not biblical ones).1 

Like most religious movements, Darwinism had a founder, a messiah type figure, who inspires his followers. For atheism to work, particles-to-people evolution has to be possible. As Richard Dawkins, the modern anticreationist poster boy for the humanists, noted, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”2 Sin (rebellion against God) is still the root issue. If there is no creator, a person can live free from any moral restraints ‘imposed’ by that creator.

The atheist Bible?

Darwin’s ‘statement of faith’, On the origin of Species or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life by means of Natural Selection (emphasis mine), made many predictions or ‘prophecies’ that have not come to fruition. He predicted that discoveries in the fossil record would eventually bear out his theory, yet they have not. Also, Darwin knew nothing about the complexity and inner workings of the cell. By the time of his second book The Descent of Man, his erroneous ideas about alleged human evolution fueled discriminatory racist ideas to an unprecedented level. Even the late Harvard evolutionist professor Stephen Jay Gould noted,

“Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.”3

Modern genetics has of course shown that all humanity is closely related; Darwin was simply wrong!

Like Gould, professor of genetics Richard Lewontin, while admitting his blind faith in Darwinism, candidly revealed that this religion has failed to enrich the lives of its followers and society in general as most religions aspire to do. He said:

“We take the side of [evolutionary] 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 … Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”4

And CMI’s  once wrote:

“If Darwin was right, there is no ultimate meaning or purpose to life except what we choose. You are born, you suffer, you die—that’s it. Perhaps, if you’re lucky, you may get recycled as organic manure—but beyond that, you’re just a number that happened to come up in the great casino of the universe.”5 

Of course, Darwinists would claim this article is off beam because evolution is about science, not religion. But this is a faulty view. Since evolution is a series of alleged past events, it has more to do with history and beliefs than empirical, testable science. This huge blind spot is what, unfortunately, leads to the great faith that many evolutionists have in their religion.

Modern discoveries only continue to challenge evolutionary theory (hence why it keeps being modified) while at the same time, validating Scripture. The Christian faith and its historical record (the Bible) has not been falsified, and neither has its founder, who is the source of all truth and life.

References and notes

  1. In regard to the obvious “Who created the alien creators?” question, the answer they would give is that they must have evolved. It just pushes the notion into outer space where it cannot be tested. Return to text.
  2. Dawkins, R., The Blind Watchmaker, Penguin, London, p. 6, 1991. Return to text.
  3. Gould, S.J., Ontogeny and Phylogeny, Belknap-Harvard Press, pp. 127–128, 1977. Return to text.
  4. Lewontin, R., (Prof. of Genetics), “Billions and billions of demons”, The New York Review, 9 January 1997, p.31. Return to text.
  5. Wieland, C., 101 Signs of Design, Master Books, Green Forest, 2002, p.83. Return to text.

Helpful Resources

Refuting Evolution
by Jonathan Sarfati
From
US $10.00
The Greatest Hoax on Earth?
by Dr Jonathan Sarfati
From
US $15.00
Refuting Evolution 2, updated
by Jonathan Sarfati
From
US $13.00

Reader’s comments

Stephen M.
I'd be extremely happy if so called "separation of church and state" really existed. I'm so sick of Darwinian beliefs being mixed in with almost every scientific article I read or watch on TV these days.
Stephen P.
Surely just from reading the text of Genesis it should be obvious that "a person can live free from any moral restraints ‘imposed’ by the Creator" because this is exactly what Adam did!
So if there is a creator, a person can live free from any moral restraints ‘imposed’ by that creator, and if there is not a creator a person can also live free from any moral restraints ‘imposed’ by that creator...
Lita Cosner
Stephen, Of course one can exist in a state of rebellion against God's law. I would challenge you to find a place in Scripture, however, where that state of existence is called 'life'.
Alan S.
I'm sorry but I can't help thinking that this sentence at the end of your second paragraph is close to being an oxymoron. "If there is no creator, a person can live free from any moral restraints ‘imposed’ by that creator." What creator would that be if there is none? Shouldn't it at least be "any creator"?
Gary Bates
Yes, I would agree that term 'any' creator or 'a' creator might have been preferable. But I don't think I would agree that it is an oxymoron though as that would be suggesting there is a contradiction. We first made the point that if there is a Creator then there are rules. If 'that' Creator does not exist, there are no rules. The word 'that' refers to the article or subject matter made in the sentence that preceded the article. In the publishing realm, many of these things boil down to personal preference, I've found.
Ian T.
Atheists should just try honesty and admit their views are religious. I could offer my services to help them write their bible. It could go like this: In the beginning there was nothing and when nothing came together with nothing, nothing exploded and created everything. Wow, I'm already starting to feel all warm and fuzzy.

Article comments are only available for 14 days from publication.