The Religion of Evolution


I wrote a file several months ago and uploaded it to a few BBSs.

The paper dealt with numerous issues that questioned the validity of

the theory of evolution. At that time, I was very naive. I did not

realize the some evolutionists are very `anti-creationist`. I was soon

to learn otherwise.

I must admit that the original file had statements for which I

quoted no source. Since this was the first time I had done this sort

of thing, I did not realize that, in a `scientific` paper, all

statements should be listed with their source.

That file prompted a very rude reply. When I first read it, I was

amazed and shocked that anyone could have such a blatant disdain for

creationists. At first, it seemed the author had utterly destroyed the

points brought forth in my file. However, as I read the file over and

over, I recognized that there were deep personal beliefs and emotions

present. I had thought that believing in evolution or creation was

merely the judging of evidence. There is much more to it than that.

After a time, the reply became fascinating. I realized that I had

been given evidence of what the result is if a person has deep, devout

(`RABID`) belief in the theory of evolution.

So, rather than to present evidence supporting creation, this

file will instead deal with the RESULT of deep belief of the theory of

evolution. If the manner and attitude of the writer of that reply (a

Mr. Haynes) are any indicator, may God have mercy on us.

At first, I contemplated not revealing Mr. Haynes` name, but

since he is so proud of his ignorant, arrogant beliefs, I decided to

include his name. He was willing to place his reply on a national BBS,

therefore they should be read by all who want to see the result of

deep belief in the fairy tale of evolution. It is a message that every

Christian should see. But be advised that THERE IS SOME PROFANITY in

some of his replies. I considered censoring those things, but I feel

that his `message` should be seen in its entirety.

For the purposes of this paper, the term `evolutionist` means a

person that has the attitudes of the person discussed in the preface

of this document. It means a person that embraces the theory of

evolution, and it means a person who has allowed that belief to form

the basis for his/her philosophy of life. It means a person that

openly laughs at the possibility of a Divine Creator.

I must make one thing very clear. THE RESPONSES PUT FORTH IN THIS




I must ALSO make it VERY CLEAR that I AM A SINNER! I am no better

than anyone else, for ALL HAVE SINNED! Without my faith in Jesus

Christ and His eternal blood sacrifice, I would be just as lost and

just as condemned as any atheist!

I am also NOT `judging` ANYONE! I am not qualified to judge any

man. Only God is. Yet, I feel the things discussed in this paper need

to be read by Christians, especially Christian parents whose children

may be being taught that the theory of evolution is `true`.


Just as the Word of God `sprouts` and grows in the heart of the

believer, I believe that devout belief in the theory of evolution

will, in time, produce similar results in virtually any atheistic

evolutionist. That is because the theory of evolution honestly has

very little to do with science. It is a pagan, atheistic religion. I

believe, in time, it will have detrimental effects on a person`s

philosophy of life.

The term "HUMANISM", or "HUMANIST", as used in this paper, is:

"...a philosophy centered on man and human values,

exalting human free will and superiority to the rest of

nature; man is made the measure of all things: Modern

humanism tends to be nontheistic."

"The New American Desk Encyclopedia", (c) 1989, p.604

And, further:

"Humanism, an educational and philosophical outlook that

emphasizes the personal worth of the individual and the

central importance of human values as opposed to religious

belief, developed in Europe during the Renaissance.....

"The Renaissance humanists were often devout Christians,

but they promoted secular values and a love of pagan


"The founding (c. 1450) of the Platonic Academy in

Florence by Cosimo de'Medici signaled a shift in humanist

values from political and social concerns to speculation

about the nature of humankind and the cosmos.

"Desiderius ERASMUS of the Netherlands was the most

influential of the Christian humanists. In his Colloquies

and Praise of Folly (1509), Erasmus satirized the

corruptions of his contemporaries, especially the clergy."

"By the 18th century the word humanism had come to be

identified with a purely secular attitude -- one that

often rejected Christianity altogether.

"Jean Paul SARTRE developed a scientific humanism

preaching human worth based on Marxist theory...

"The American Humanist Association, which grew out of the

Unitarian movement, holds that human beings can satisfy

religious needs from within, discarding the concept of God

as inconsistent with advanced thought and human freedom."


Thus we see that today`s evolutionist/humanist is nothing new,

but merely a descendant of ancient philosophical beliefs that have

existed since the 18th century and long before. We also see that

ridicule of the `clergy` (or religion in general) is nothing new. One

wonders if today`s humanist is aware of his genealogy, an ancestry

sometimes associated with `pagan antiquity` and `scientific humanism`.

People today speak of this time in history as a `new age`. It is

nothing `new`. It is merely a repeating of ancient paganistic,

atheistic beliefs. Some people of the past worshipped the stars - Carl

Sagan, a devout evolutionist/humanist, speaks of doing the same.

Is man ever `ascending to perfection`? Is he `evolving` to great

heights? No, actually he is sinking into the same atheistic morass the

ancient pagans did. He also shares the same fate.

The terms `evolutionist` and `humanist` often center around the

same system of beliefs. In some instances, the terms are


The above definition is supplied as a source of information. The

term "humanist" applies to many rabid evolutionists. They are persons

who, by virtue of their `superior intelligence`, are `better` than

other people.

True humanists are generally quite egotistic. They love to make

everyone aware of their `intelligence`. They generally are a closely

knit group, because they frankly do not like spending time (or even

speaking) with `stupid`, or `less intelligent` people. They generally

associate only with each other. Usually, this is a good thing,

because the average person gets so fed up with the obnoxious, arrogant

attitude of humanists that they begin dreading to even be in their

presence. I speak from experience.

Humanists are usually very health-minded, even to the point of

phobic fear of illness or death. After all, this life is all they

know. When you die, it`s all over (they think).

"Science" is the alibi used for justifying the religion of

evolution; it is man deifying NATURE and then exalting himself as the

highest `accidental creation` of nature.

Rabid evolutionists are fanatics. They will not stand for any

conflicting religions that would contradict the divine fiats of their

sacred `dogmas` (`spontaneous generation`, `natural selection`,

`accidental formation of amino acids and proteins`, etc.).

Evolutionists like to suggest that creationists are deathly

afraid that evidence `proving` evolution will be found. They like to

assert that such `evidence` would create panic in the Christian world.

That is their assertion, and in a few cases that may be true, but such

an assertion only demonstrates the evolutionist`s ignorance of true

Christianity. The Christian does not base his hopes on what the

fossil record shows, or what the age of the moon is. He bases it on

Jesus Christ. When the evidence demonstrates that creation is `true`,

that is merely `icing on the cake`. Our salvation does not lie in the

fossil record. It lies in the acceptance of the Deity of Jesus Christ.

On the contrary, it is the evolutionist who seeks solace in the

evolutionary scientist, and his doctrines. How else to mollify the

evolutionist`s conscience? If the Biblical account of the history of

man is true, then there IS such a place as Hell. The evolutionist has

a great deal more to lose than the creationist. THAT is what is

terrifying to the evolutionist, although he would never admit it, even

to himself.

For if creation is true (and it is), the evolutionist will face,

at the end of his life, a vengeful God, One Who will make him realize

the consequences of his atheistic, prejudiced life. The evolutionist

will have to account for every `sin` in his life. After denying the

existence of a Creator for his entire life, how is the evolutionist

going to feel when he is forced to stand before the God of the Bible?

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all

ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth

in unrighteousness;

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them;

for God hath shewed it unto them.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world

are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made,

even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without


Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God,

neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and

their foolish heart was darkened.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.."

- Romans 1:18-23

I do not wish that to happen to anyone. Yet it is the inevitable

result of refusing to accept the obvious evidence of the existence of


True evolutionism is a religion for people who believe that

toleration of sin is a sign of REGENERATION, or `progress`. Any

behavior, no matter how perverse or socially offensive, is acceptable.

It is regarded as the `growth of consciousness`.

No training of any kind is necessary to see the error in such

"logic". But since this religious dogma has to be carried out to any

length, no matter how irrational it becomes, we should not be

surprised to find that it is the evolutionists who have held back

"science" since the days of Darwin.

No man with any degree of intellect would base his beliefs in

human destiny on an accident whose chances of occurring are `one out

of ten to the 46,000th power`, for example. No professional gambler

on this earth would bet any amount of money on odds like that. Only an

evolutionist will.

Any Christian reading this will probably come to realize that

beliefs such as those held by true humanists/evolutionists produce a

personality almost EXACTLY OPPOSITE the code of ethics demonstrated by

Jesus Christ.

Christianity promotes humility, acceptance of any man as a friend

regardless of education, race, or ancestry. It also promotes charity,

forgiveness, and belief in God and Jesus Christ, among other things.

What does belief in evolutionism/humanism produce? Read on and


I will now begin quoting Mr. Haynes` statements, along with my

comments regarding those statements.

First, Mr. Haynes declares `how evolution works`:

"Charles Darwin's theories were not entirely correct, and

have since been modified to take into account what science

has learned since then. If you really want to know how

evolution works, learn what is meant by beneficial


Then, later in his tirade, he says:

"You cannot state with certainty that beneficial mutation

has not occurred. You can state that it would be rare.

If anyone was trying to say that it was the sole force

behind the variety of species we see on the planet, I

would not believe them for a minute. But I have never

heard anyone claim that yet, and would be quite suprised

(sic) if they did."

- Dan (The Humanist) Haynes -

Did these two statements come from the same man? First Mr.

Haynes declares that `beneficial mutation` is the basis for how the

theory of evolution `works`.

Then he says that he `would not for a minute` believe that

`beneficial` mutations are the sole force for the variety of species

of life on this planet!

Yet, Mr. Evolutionist can state that it is possible for ONE

"beneficial mutation" can change one species into another!

"If there were a SINGLE significant beneficial mutation

to occur, the NEW SPECIES could replace the old in very

short order." (Emphasis added)

In spite of these contradictory statements, Mr. Haynes proclaims

that evolutionism is `logical`, and creationism is `superstition`.

".....there is no such thing as win or lose in the battle

between logic and superstition...."

Another comment regarding one of the dogmas of the evolutionist

religion follows. When I spoke of the extreme complexity of the ear,

and how it was already `evolved` in the earliest fossil life-forms:

"Again you show a gross lack of knowledge of evolution.

Ears don't appear out of nowhere, they evolve as does

the whole organism, growing in proportion to their

usefulness. On top of which, there is also no opposite

proof, that is that mutation could NOT produce these

organs. Absence of proof is NOT proof of absence, maybe

Mr. Fundamentalist should pick up a good book on basic


I suppose that I should indeed get a book on logic. If ears

`evolve` "in proportion to their usefulness", how is that possible IF

THEY ARE NOT FULLY `EVOLVED`? That is, if they were not fully

`evolved`, with all parts present, they WOULDN`T WORK AT ALL! In

addition, how does an animal `decide` how `useful` its ears are, so

that they will `evolve` to be more useful? This is crazy.

I wonder how useful my lungs have been today? It must have been

tough back when my ancestor was a fish. I wonder how those fish

decided to someday be an air-breathing mammal, and how they made their

gills slowly change into lungs? Pardon my sarcasm, but this is


Next I will illustrate some of the many tactics used by

evolutionists to counteract the statements of creationists.

One tactic used by the evolutionist to dodge statements is to

try and find flaws in statements that are `anti-evolutionary`. For

instance, I quoted the following:

"The vast majority of artists` conceptions are based

more on imagination than on evidence. Artists must create

something between an ape and a man; the older the

specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it."

-- Science Digest Magazine

Mr. Haynes then used a multi-faceted tactic to counteract this,

to me, important statement:

"Goody (sic), a quote with a publishers source (no author

of course, lets (sic) not get our hopes up too high). Of

course the quote says absolutly (sic) nothing in support

of creationism, it just means the pictures in text books

may be wrong. if (sic) you read with comprehension, you

can just barely see the stupidty (sic) in the statment.

(sic) `..artists (sic) conceptions are based more on

imagination than on evidence` American Heritage Dictionary

says - `The ability to form mental concepts; invention`.

The Merriam Webster Dictionary says -"thought, notion,

idea`. Gosh (sic) that almost sounds like the quote is


Mr. Haynes first cites the lack of author. Next he says, "No

Proof of Creation". Then he makes light of the fact that the artists`

renditions in text books `may` be wrong, as if what people are being

taught in the schools is a trivial matter. Next he calls the quote

`stupid` by reading a definition, again trying to turn this direct,

utterly clear quote into question. Finally, he passes judgment; the

quote is no good!

A 12-year-old child could read this statement and understand it.

But Mr. Haynes will not, because it might have made him realize that

the pictures he no doubt studied (and perhaps admired) as `revealed

truths` are nothing but some artist`s conception, having been dreamed

up by examining nothing more than a few teeth.

Another tactic used is to introduce ridicule into the issue at

hand. For instance, when I stated that I doubted the existence of

`good` mutations ( a cornerstone of the theory of evolution), Mr.

Haynes stated:

"Do you like the way real ugly women look when your god

(sic) has allowed them to born without limbs or teeth?

This implies a creator?"

I replied:

"Just because a person might be considered `real ugly`

by you, that does not mean that they are without worth.

In fact, the mention of people being `born without limbs

or teeth` merely offers inescapable proof that these

things, which are the result of genetic mutations, did

not produce modern man as we know him."

Thus we can see how the evolutionist effectively dodged my

statement. By clouding the issue and asking for proof of a creator,

he was at least able to make a comment, even though that comment does

not address the original statement.

I have learned that the avid evolutionist has an answer for

everything. The answer will often be in the form of (another) theory

that `patches up` the original theory of evolution. Evolutionists also

like to speak of theories so as to make you believe that theories are

scientific `evidence`, when theories are often nothing more than an

exercise of someone`s imagination.

In addition, the rabid evolutionist often seeks refuge in

untestable `facts` or the use of terms that are poorly understood by

the layman. This method also has the added benefit of placing the

creationist in a setting where he appears stupid.

When I spoke of the infamous `pepper moth` as not being examples

of evolution, since although they allegedly `changed color`, (but were

still moths), Mr. Haynes replied:

"Evolution says that changes occur in species due to

the improved survivability of some variations. The moths

may have changed color to match the trees. Then again,

you may be correct in asserting that the moths got darker

due to the same external conditions. Okay, we've gotten

this far without problems, I hope. Now if you could just

jump right in here and explain what the moth should

become? Don't hesistate (sic) , I'm sure that there is a

reason why it shouldn't still be a moth. Those poor moths

must be dissapointed (sic), why I hear (sic) that a couple

of thousand of them really wanted to be Doberman

Pinschers, and one of them really wanted to be a person.

Imagine the letdown, to still be a moth after all this


This illustrates another phenomena that evolutionists have

`faith` in. They seem to assume that all life forms have the power to

reason, as human beings do. Thus they can somehow believe that, since

these moths are still moths, that is what these moths `want` to be.

This is strange logic, but one that is carried over throughout the

`reasoning` of the evolutionist mindset.

When I spoke of the absence of species changing into another

species, Mr. Haynes offered the following sarcastic comment:

"Gosh, here is the same analogy again, no dog has ever

evolved to be a horse! I bet those dogs are really pissed,

(sic) staying up late studying all the changes they needed

to make. Practicing bucking all day, trying to eat that

hay crap, (sic) and none of them have made it yet. Must be

why it takes millions of years huh (sic)?"

Another example of twisted logic. I had spoken of how the fig

tree and the fig gall wasp were totally dependent upon each other for

their survival. I suggested that this suggests that they came into

being at the same time.

This posed no problem, when using the `logic` of an evolutionist:

"Fig gall wasps without fig trees could probably evolve

into olive blossom wasps or dog poop eating (sic)

flightless and witless (sic) wasps, you don't seem to be

offering any proof that they couldn't, or that they never

were before."

Another area demonstrates similar `logic`. Evolutionists disdain

anyone using probability studies in reference to evolution. That is,

when someone quotes the likelihood of amino acid sequences `lining up`

as required for the possibility of evolution, they use the same

bizarre `logic` as demonstrated earlier. When I quoted the chances for

one example, Mr. Haynes said:

"Chance crap (sic) again. How long to (sic) you plan

to keep misinforming people with this garbage. It AIN'T

(sic) random and you should know better."

Thus we see more of this idiosyncratic `logic`. To say that these

statistical studies are meaningless because their data are random,

while saying that evolution is NOT random, is to say that SOMEONE had

a hand in `lining up` the required amino acid combinations. If they

are not random, then WHO `told` these amino acids `how` to form cells?

WHO instructed these amino acids how to form the complex combinations

required for life, if the theory of evolution is true? To me, the

answer is obvious.

Still another method of discrediting scientific statements is

through the demand of `sources`. If a creationist makes a statement,

no matter how valid it might be, the rabid evolutionist can dodge it

by demanding the source of the statement. If the creationist has none,

that is sufficient reason for the evolutionist to say `sources or

forget it`. Using this method, the rabid evolutionist was able to

legally disregard much of my file.

"I really must insist you quote your source or don't use

the information. If it has been shown, then I can read

it, test it and determine for myself if that`s what it




"Quote your sources and I will go look it up, maybe you

can convert me. (Actually you could, if you can come up

with repeatable scientific experiments to prove anything

you say)."

Note the attitude of the evolutionist here. He, being `more

intelligent`, demands proof. This arrogance is also a common

characteristic of evolutionists/humanists. Mr. Haynes should be well

aware that `repeatable scientific experiments` of creation are not

possible, but at least this allows him to make a sarcastic comment.

In one statement where I DID quote a source (the author was a

graduate of MIT, a PHD. and a former Colonel in the U.S. Air Force),

Mr. Haynes said:

"Well, excuse me, I could never argue with someone who has

the impressive title of Colonel and a PHD. As a side note,

did you know that the brother of the man who created the

Lear jet (Robert I belive (sic) his name is) has filed

suit against the U.S (sic) government claiming that

humans (homeless people and missing children in

particular) are being traded as a food source for aliens

that come here in spaceships, so that we can get some of

their technology. He has a rather impressive list of

degrees himself, but that does not mean he is rational or

intelligent. (sic) Did you know we had a president who was

shocked when he found out that a full fifty percent of the

people in this country are of below average intelligence?

Just because you are a leader doesn't mean you are smart.

So lets (sic) drop the spiffy credential crap (sic) and

just quote the man, okay?"

Mr. Haynes again uses an illogical, multi-faceted approach to

discredit my statement. It should be obvious to the reader that a

rabid evolutionist will attack any creationist statement, using any

means available. Is this an example of the `objective scientific


The evolutionist/humanist again reveals a contradictory `logic`

in this statement. He judges people largely by their intelligence, yet

my source`s having graduated from M.I.T. is not accepted as proof of

intelligence. What is? Should my source submit to a test by Mr.

Haynes to determine whether or not he is "truly" intelligent?

Still another method of avoiding testy questions is by demanding

proof of creation. Of course, there is no `proof` of creation, at

least to the scientist. As an example, here are some direct quotes

used by Mr. Haynes to disregard some of my statements:

"You come up (sic) with a testable theory for a common

designer and I know of people who would love to try it!"

"....let`s hear some of the proofs for creationism, and

let`s subject them to the test of experiment. The old

saying, put up or shut up."

Yet, when I made the statement that the beauty of the life-forms

on earth were indicative of a Creator, Mr. Haynes said:

"Truly warped. `Beauty is in the eye of the beholder`. To

say that beauty implies a creator also implies that ugly

things (dog turds (sic), Roseanne Barr and Edsels have no

creator. Evolutionary scientists ignore beauty because it

has no relavence (sic) whatsoever to the question at hand.

Don't try to misled (sic) the audience, stick to the


Thus we have another dodge-the-issue tactic. But he is right,

evolutionary scientists DO ignore beauty. They ignore it because it is

a constant reminder that a Being infinitely greater than they created

this complex, magnificent, beautiful solar system.

It is amazing how we give so much glory to, say, the painter of

the Mona Lisa, without recognizing HOW MUCH GREATER the design of the

WOMAN HERSELF is than the crude likeness of her on canvas is!

Evolutionists who deny the Creator are quick to say that they've

never seen the designer! Neither have they seen Leonardo Da Vinci, the

makers of "Stonehenge", or even the maker of the crude arrowhead, but

they insist in these instances that the design shouts out the

existence of its designer.

Another tactic used to dodge annoying statements is to make light

of past evolutionary blunders, such as:

"Piltdown man was an acknowledged hoax. True. So?"

Thus Mr. Haynes makes light of an elaborate hoax, used to further

belief in the theory of evolution. After being taught as `fact`,

Piltdown man was shown to be a valueless hoax, an exercise in

someone`s imagination. That is true of most if not all of the

evolutionist`s "Missing Link" scenarios. Yet these grave scientific

errors have been taught as fact to hundreds of thousands of people.

The evolutionist acts as if this is just a `minor flaw` in the theory

of evolution.

Another example:

"Evolution does not meet your personal expectations

for a uniform fossil record. So?"

This comment was in reply to my statement that the fossil record

does not show the thousands of transitional forms that should be

there, if evolution were true. The absence of proof has not dampened

the spirits of the devout evolutionist.

We have now seen several of the tactics used to discredit any and

all statements made by creationists.

Does belief in the theory of evolution equate human value with a

person`s intelligence? To some people, the answer is yes. Another



smarter or, as we in the real world say it, evolve, then

they could begin to discern common features between the

I'm hungry grunt and the I'm going to kill your mother

grunt, and use rules to simplify them." (Emphasis added)

Next, what are the uses of theoretical concepts in science? A


"Once again for the few who are still reading this, is an

explanation of the basic process here:

1. Scientists propose theories

2. Theories are tested

3. If theory fails to properly explain any set of

circumstances, go back to step one with a new theory.

4. If the theory proves capable of explaining all previously

known data write it down as a scientific "fact". Find

something else to theorize on, or generate a new theory and

go back to step 1 to see if there are other possible


FYI, "Science" is defined in Webster's Third New International

Dictionary as "a branch of study that is concerned with observation

and classification of facts and especially with the establishment or

strictly with the quantitative formulation of verifiable general laws

chiefly by induction and hypotheses."

The "Scientific Method", as defined by the same source, is "the

principles and procedures used in the systematic pursuit of

intersubjectively accessible knowledge and involving as necessary

conditions the recognition and formulation of a problem, the

collection of data through observation and if possible experiment, the

formulation of hypotheses, and the testing and confirmation of the

hypotheses formulated."

If this procedure were applied to the theory of evolution, it

would have been discarded immediately. Yet it has not been, because

the religion of evolution has many fanatic disciples.

Yet this evolutionist said:

"If the superstition of creation achieves an equal

position in science books with the CENTURIES OF WORK AND


THEORY, then it will be quite impossible to explain to

children reading those books that one is fact and the

other is fiction. And with the "fact" of creation so

established, it can be argued that everything from the

neccessity (sic) of burning of witches (sic) to the

wisdom in censoring free thought is also a `fact`, since

it too has its source in this book of `facts`."

(Emphasis added)

I didn`t know that "CENTURIES" of testing had gone into the false

theory of evolution, since it was proposed in 1859. It has been about

132 years since its introduction; but it has been "TESTED FOR

CENTURIES"? HOW has it been `tested`? That is an outright LIE!!!

"Biologists are simply naive when they talk about

experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. IT

IS NOT TESTABLE. They may happen to stumble across facts

which seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts

will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will

undoubtedly by deprived of continuing research grants."

(1980 Assembly Week address:

Professor Whitten, Professor of

Genetics, University of Melbourne)

(Emphasis added)

One figure of speech that was in my original file was that people

try to `sell` the theory of evolution. This statement really upset Mr.

Haynes. He of course denied it. Yet I wonder, if his reply is true,

why he would spend four hours writing (by his own admission), just to

make a statement that attempts to condemn the possibility of creation?

And why be so sarcastic in doing it?

"Nobody is trying to sell evolution, it is a fact that is

standing on its own quite nicely thank you. But there are

certain people, of which Mr. Fundamentalist is obviously

one, who think that their ideas should be sold as science

without having to face the scrutiny of experiment and

rigorous proofs. These people wish to corrupt science

books with ancient superstitions without supplying the

rigorous proof that all other science book data is

subjected to."

Wait a minute. Didn`t Mr. Haynes admit a few paragraphs ago that

`Piltdown Man` in science text books was a hoax? Is this an example

of the `rigorous proof` used to collect science book data? How


Finally, what is Mr. Haynes` attitude toward creationists, (or,

more specifically, Christians)? That was made abundantly clear.

First, a quote:

"Evolution does not require or disprove a creator, it

merely states what is the most likely sequence of events

to get to our current state. It says nothing about gods or


So, do other statements made by Mr. Haynes include the

possibility of his believing in God?:

"Wonderful. Lets (sic) see, what the author advocates here

is believing the writings of a group of barely literate

nomads, of which we have only a single work that has been

passed down through the centuries by many different

cultures. Each culture, and for that matter each writer

that is represented in the bible has changed things to

accommodate accepted beliefs at the time and place of the

writing. There are dozens of serious studies of the bible

(sic), most of which pose serious questions as to the

veracity of the information it contains. Almost all the

stories in the book are obviously adaptations of fables

that have been passed down from other cultures and


(A quick note: It is interesting that Mr. Haynes called the

authors of the Bible `barely literate`. That is interesting because

one of the Apostles, Luke, was a physician. But this statement DOES

demonstrate Mr. Evolutionist`s total ignorance of the Bible. (Anyone

who doubts the credibility of the authors of the Bible should read

"Evidence That Demands a Verdict", by Josh McDowell.)

"Perhaps you could also quote the source that proves that

its (sic) possible for the cosmic muffin (sic) to fart

(sic) life into existence out of absolutely nothing..."

"God created the universe because this book written by

primitives says so. I could claim that the Pop-Tart fairy

grabbed Elvis' ghost by the ears and squeezed until his

eyeball popped out and formed the earth, which compared to

the creationists (sic) claims (sic) is (sic) closer to

science (Elvis and Pop-Tarts really exist(ed) whereas

evidence of J.C. (Jesus Christ) and his 12 groupies is

about as substantial as the bigfoot shopping mall

described in the lates (sic) issue of National Globe and

Examiner at your local grocery store checkout counter)."

"....note that, like UFO groups, fundamentalists have been

known to selectively edit the more outrageous claims made

by the most fervent adherents. I don't see any sign of the

white supremecy (sic) claims that you will hear if you

attend one of their little get togethers (not that a

godless slime like myself would actually be able to pass

as a chosen one and actually get into on (sic) of them of

course, but I may have sneaked in with my battery powered

holy aura generator)."

"Fundamentalist (sic) belive (sic) in ghosts, devils,

magic and anything else proposed in the ancient

manuscripts they follow. And they also believe that they

have the right to supress (sic) any facts that may not

support those superstitions, along with supressing

(sic) anything that does not go along with their

interpretations of those manuscripts."

"....your line that some cosmic muffin walked up one day

and said "Gee, I think I'll make a universe, stick some

critters (sic) on a planet, hide some rocks that look just

like bones in the ground, then sit around and watch

while the innocent children of these critters die in

house fires and car wrecks. Then maybe I'll send my kid

down there and let them nail him up. Then just when they

get comfy, I'll flood 'em (sic) out, give 'em (sic) a

couple of thousand years and then fry their asses

good". Yessiree (sic), thats (sic) a lot easier for

ME to beleve (sic)..."

"You can belive (sic) in me 'cause (sic) I belong to the

religion that worships a god that is 66% stronger than any

other god..."

"Is your bible (sic) the one source of truth. Then what

about the koran? talmud (sic)? how (sic) about Greek

mythology? I Ching? Aesops fables? Monty Python? Gilbert

and Sullivan? How about the UFO's, I hear they even know

how to take apart human bodies and put them back together


"The creationst (sic) will accept NO revisions to the bible

(sic). The bible (sic) is the literal word and must be

accepted in its entirety, no matter how many times it

contradicts itself and all the other accounts of history.

The creationist believes in banning books and authors that

dare to challenge its authority and actively advocates the

forced teaching of its views in schools without allowing

opposing viewpoints. Nice open minded people you hang out

(sic) with."

"Have you revised anything in the bible (sic) lately, other

than ignoring the parts about sack cloth and ashes and

giving away all your worldy (sic) goods and going out to

spread the word of your god (sic)?"

"Well, Mr. Fundamentlist (sic) and cohorts, you may have

made a mistake here. Ignorant people often own TV sets, so

Billy Grahm (sic) and Reverend Ike and the like can preach

the fundamentalist crap (sic), and get paid incredibly

large sums of money to do so. It works. But it only works

because television is a one way medium. The intelligint

(sic) people watching who know they are frauds can only

change channels. The computer in general and the BBS's

where you post this drivel in particular, are two way

channels. You can spout the superstitions and the rhetoric,

spread the lies and try your best to fool people, but when

you do, the rebuttals will have just as much "air time" as

you do! When you add that to the fact that the people using

these computers are generally smarter than the average

bear, you have your worst nightmare, an edacated (sic)

audience that is able to communicate its doubts and


"If just one person thinks "Why DO children die horrible

deaths in the presence of this all powerful god" (sic)?

then I will have done more good than all to (sic)

pogroms, crusades and witch trials the fundamentalists

have ever embarked upon."

"Look to the middle east, and the war we are involved in.

Look at the killings that have gone on for centuries over


have a sacred book, one that also prohibits killing other

people." (Emphasis added)

"If you are one of the many who think it neccesary (sic)

for you to enforce and spread your beliefs throughout

the world, then I hope you also take the time to spread

the parts of the bible (sic) that call for animal

sacrifices, holy wars, the burning of witches and the

killing of the unclean and incestuous, and the hating of

certain races because their ancestors pissed off (sic)

the cosmic muffin."

It is difficult for me to believe that someone could so ignorant

of God as this man is. THIS is an example of the "modern man", one of

the "highest members" of the evolutionary "ascent to perfection"? Is

this what we want our children to become? May God have mercy on us.

There is the question that begs to be asked: "What percentage of

evolutionists have the attitude of Mr. Haynes?" More than you might

realize, although of course it is possible to keep one`s deepest

beliefs `hidden`.

Just as Christians cannot discuss the things of the Kingdom of

God with the unsaved, I believe that evolutionists, when alone, may

more freely discuss the many aspects of their atheistic religion.

Here is one example of a nationally-published magazine whose

evolutionistic/humanistic views are plain:


"NEW YORK (AP) -- A widely published writer on scientific

topics says Scientific American magazine wooed him, then

left him at the altar because he believes in the biblical

account of creation.

"Forrest M. Mims III alleged Wednesday that an editor at

the respected publication asked if he'd like to take over

its column about amateur experiments and rejected him

after learning of his beliefs.

"`I've wanted this opportunity for 20 years,` he said. `To

have the opportunity and then lose it because of what I do

on Sunday is absolutely incredible.`

"He (Mims) said he canceled practically all his writing

assignments and was flown to New York, where Scientific

American staffers congratulated him for getting the job.

"But the editor who invited him there suddenly grew cold

when Mims mentioned he'd written for Christian magazines

on such topics as "how to organize bicycle trips for

church kids," the writer said.

"The editor asked if Mims accepted Darwin's theory of

evolution, Mims said. `I replied that I did not.`

"Later, he said, the editor warned him he would be fired or

docked in pay if he "ever wrote anything about creationism

for any magazine." The editor ended the meeting by telling

Mims he had not made up his mind whom to hire, Mims said."

- The Associated Press



After writing the first part of this paper, I downloaded a file

from another BBS, giving `answers` to some of the claims of

creationists. I will include parts of it to again demonstrate the

personality of the devout evolutionist. I am going to make this brief,

because this file is getting too big!

But, to give an EXCELLENT example of the `double-talk` used by

evolutionists, consider the next two statements:

Creationist statement:

"Evolution isn't a science because you can't observe

things that happened millions of years ago."

Evolutionist reply:

"Buy (sic) you can observe the RESULTS of things that

happened millions of years ago. And then, by using basic

scientific knowledge, extrapolate back."

Impressive answer, wouldn`t you say? YET when this evolutionist

decided to criticize a scientist`s research because it was in

opposition to the theory of evolution, the shoe is suddenly on the

other foot:

"The....failure of Barnes` research was that he took data

from a short period of time and simply extrapolated it

backwards to obtain a reliable estimate at a time remotely

removed from the data. ANYONE COMPETENT IN ANALYZING




RELIABLE IT BECOMES. Barnes extrapolated 150 years' worth

of data back 10,000 years! In real life, one would be

surprised if extrapolation of these data more than a few

hundred years back were accurate."

(Emphasis added)

So, how reliable is the data if one takes data from 1991 and

extrapolates it back 20,000,000,000 years, as evolutionists do? Does

the second statement above mean that evolutionists are incompetent in

analyzing scientific data? Actually, being biased, they are


Creationist`s statement:

"Sun is shrinking by ~5 feet per hour. i.e losing 0.01%

per year. 6,000 creation = ~6% shrinkage, but 20,000,000

years ago the sun touched the earth and 100,000 years ago

the sun was twice as large (making life impossible)."

Reply #1:

"I am interested in how you decide that this is a steady-

state system?"

The evolutionist here ducks the issue by saying that the sun is

not a `steady-state system`. It is true that stars DO change with the

passage of time. But once a star has begun its `life`, according to

my `New American Desk Encyclopedia`, it remains in a relatively steady

state for many millions of years. Thus, if the sun is BILLIONS of

years old, it would have been in a relatively steady state for many

millions of years. Therefore, 26 million years ago the distance from

the sun to the earth would have been zero inches.

In addition, he also makes the comment regarding `steady-state


"Point of fact, matter IS being created currently."

Well, I looked in my American Desk Encyclopedia for a definition

of `steady-state system`. To my great surprise, (not really), it is

not a `law`, but (ANOTHER!) THEORY:

"...proposes that the universe has existed and will exist

forever in its current form, the expansion being caused by

the continuous creation of matter so that the average

density and appearance of the universe remain the same at



This is nothing but another unfounded fairly tale, dreamed up by

some evolutionary scientist. But it illustrates how belief in the

myth of evolution has warped the thinking of modern-day scientists.

Yet this THEORY does effectively remove God from the scheme of

things. God is not necessary, because, wonder of wonders, THE UNIVERSE


To give an example of how to learn how life began on earth, the

evolutionist recommended the following reading materials:

"The Evolution of Ecological Systems"

May, Scientific American, Sept 1978

"Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life"

Dickerson, Scientific American, Sept 1978

"The Evolution of the Earliest Cells"

Schopf, Scientific American, Sept 1978

"The Evolution of Multicellular Plants and Animals"

Valentine, Scientific American, Sept 1978

"Life in Darwin's Universe"

G. Bylinsky, Omni Sept 79

Do you get the feeling that the writers of these books/articles

just might be prejudiced toward evolution? Incidentally, I didn`t know

that the universe belonged to Darwin, did you? I honestly believe that

Darwin is regarded as a `god` to some of his modern-day disciples.

As for so-called `transitional fossils`, the evolutionist proudly


"The fossil record will never be complete, but it is

certainly more complete than it was in Darwin's day.

Darwin`s prediction that the "holes" would be filled has

come true. Transitional fossils now exist for all

vertebrate groups. Transitional forms also exist for most

major invertebrate groups and for most groups of plants."

That is quite a definite statement, isn`t it? One would think

that evolution has surely been `proven`, if you were to hear someone

declare this with `certainty`.

However, what about the following comment by Dr. Colin

Patterson, curator of the British Museum of Natural History? In a

personal letter regarding the lack of `transitional fossils` in his

book, Dr. Patterson wrote:

"....I fully agree with your comments on the lack of

direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my


certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist

should be used to VISUALIZE such transformations, but

where would he get the information from? I could not,

honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to

artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?"

(Emphasis added)

Not to read things into a comment such as this, but the question

begs, "What about the supposed `transitional fossils` that others

claim to have found?" If the curator of the British Museum of Natural

History knows of no `transitional fossils`, do any really exist?

And why did Dr. Patterson say he could not "HONESTLY" provide

such information? That seems an odd word to use.

If this statement is studied, it reveals many beneath-the-surface

feelings. It is almost Biblical in what can be seen `between the

lines`. It makes quite a statement about the alleged `evidence` touted

by evolutionists.

"The realm of nature is so vast, and DARWINIAN FABLES so

easily constructed that virtually any cause can find its

mascot, any group its biological totem."

(Emphasis added)

Howard L. Kaye (Sociology, Franklin

and Marshall College)

In his article, "The Uses and Abuses of Biology" ( Wilson

Quarterly , 11 (1): 80-93, 1987), Kaye discusses the inevitable

influence of personal desires and world views on biological science.

He writes:


"In spite of the claims to greater rigor and objectivity

by which contemporary molecular biologists and

sociobiologists have tried to distinguish their writings

from those of the Spencers and Huxleys of the past, their

efforts, too, constitute SCIENTIFIC MYTHOLOGIES (p. 88)."

(Emphasis added)

Kaye concludes:

"..seemingly extrascientific elements may, at times, prove

invaluable to the scientific enterprise. Yet, however much

the triumphs of science may seem to confirm the ideas and

interests that helped to inspire them and to encourage

their extension into myth, they cannot grant to such

social and PHILOSOPHICAL SPECULATIONS the status of

objective, empirical science" (p. 93).

(Emphasis added)


Evolutionists/humanists generally like to give the impression

that they literally `know everything`. What does the Bible say about

the `wise` of this world?:

"Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth

to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he

may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness

with God.

For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own

craftiness. And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of

the wise, that they are vain."

I Corinthians - Chapter 3:18-21


Not all philosophers have been saddled with the necessity of

finding a way to `fit` their research into the framework of the theory

of evolution, however.

"When I see the blindness and the wretchedness of man,

when I regard the whole silent universe and man without

light, left to himself and, as it were, lost in this

corner of the universe, without knowing who has put him

there, what he has come to do, what will become of him at

death, and incapable of all knowledge, I become terrified,

like a man who should be carried in his sleep to a

dreadful desert island and should awake without knowing

where he is and without means of escape. And thereupon I

wonder how people in a condition so wretched do not fall

into despair. I see other persons around me of a like

nature. I ask them if they are better informed than I am.

They tell me that they are not. And thereupon these

wretched and lost beings, having looked around them and

seen some pleasing objects, have given and attached

themselves to them. For my own part, I have not been able

to attach myself to them, and, considering how strongly it

appears that there is something else than what I see, I

have examined whether this God has not left some sign of


I see many contradictory religions, and consequently all

false save one. Each wants to be believed on it's own

authority, and threatens unbelievers. I do not therefore

believe them. Every one can say this; every one can call

himself a prophet. But I see the Christian religion

wherein prophecies are fulfilled; and that is what every

one cannot do."

- Written by Blaise Pascal, note #693

in section XI of Pensees', which I

copied from the "Great Books of the

Western World"

Sir Isaac Newton, the great scientist who invented Calculus,

codified the physical laws of motion, gravitation, and thermodynamics,

stated the same thing in these words:

"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and

comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion

of an intelligent and powerful being...This Being governs

all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over


- The Great Books of the Western

World, Volume 34, pages 369-



The Religion of Evolutionary Beliefs

Next I will discuss `The Religion of Evolution`. With the true

evolutionist, man is the `highest` creature in the universe, and, the

more `intelligent` a person is, the `higher` he is. Thus, there are some

people who are `better` than other people.

With the creationist, God is the highest Being in the universe. In

the Creator`s eyes, all men are equal.

Most of all, the religion of evolution demands FAITH! The Bible

says that faith in God and Jesus Christ is an absolute requisite.

Evolutionists may laugh at what seems to them belief in a book of `myths

and fables`.

However, the religion of evolution demands even more faith than does

Christianity! To be an evolutionist, you must believe:

a faith in L-proteins that defy chance formation; a faith

in the formation of DNA codes which if generated spontaneously

would spell only pandemonium;

a faith in a primitive environment that in reality would

fiendishly devour any chemical precursors to life;

a faith in experiments that prove nothing but the need for

intelligence in the beginning;

a faith in a primitive ocean that would not thicken but would

hopelessly dilute chemicals;

a faith in natural laws including the laws of thermodynamics and

biogenesis that actually deny the possibility of the spontaneous

generation of life;

a faith in future scientific revelations that, when realized,

always seem to present more dilemmas to the evolutionist;

faith in probabilities that treacherously tell two stories - one

denying evolution, the other confirming the Creator;

faith in transformations that remain fixed; faith in mutations

and natural selection that add to a double negative for


faith in fossils that embarrassingly show fixedness through time,

regular absence of transitional forms and striking testimony

to a world-wide water deluge;

a faith in time which proves to only promote degradation in the

absence of mind;

and faith in reductionism that ends up reducing the materialist's

arguments to zero and forcing the need to invoke a supernatural


And Christians trust in faith? This is certainly an ironic state of

affairs, isn`t it? The Christian can visit the Holy Land and see the

palace of King Herod, who killed many babies is his attempts to kill the

baby Jesus. The Christian can see and walk up the very steps that Jesus

Christ did to enter the temple to preach His Gospel.

But the evolutionist can do nothing but read books full of fairy

tales, concocted by mere men. The evolutionist can only admire and study

the latest theories. He will have to be satisfied with imagining them;

since most of them cannot be demonstrated, that`s the best he can hope

for. But he shouldn`t be too caught up in them, because, often, the

slightest brush with reality is enough to cause them to disintegrate,

forcing the formulation of another theory. These the evolutionist will

eagerly grab up and thus have something new to believe in.

Perhaps no book, other than the Bible, has had a greater affect on

human society than Darwin's 'The Origin of Species.' The evolutionary

fantasies of Darwin have been used to justify some of the most terrible

attitudes and activities in the past 125 years in the name of "science."

"Evolutionists are a group of persons who

believe quite openly in mathematical miracles.

They advocate the belief that, tucked away

in nature, outside of normal physics, there is

a law which performs miracles, provided the

miracles are in the aid of biology. This

curious situation sits oddly in a profession

that for long has been dedicated to finding

logical explanations for Biblical miracles."

- New Scientist Magazine

November, 1981

Some will object to referring to the theory of evolution as a

religion. However, just as the existence of God cannot be demonstrated

in a laboratory, neither can the theory of evolution be demonstrated.

The theory of evolution cannot be proved, or even tested; it can only

be believed.

"Science", however, is not supposed to be something one "believes".

Science is knowledge - knowledge that which can be demonstrated and

observed and repeated. Since the theory of evolution cannot satisfy this

requirement, it is not a true science. It is a belief, a humanistic


A prominent British biologist, a Fellow of the Royal Society, in

the introduction to the 1971 edition of Darwin`s `Origin of the

Species` said that "belief in the theory of evolution" is "exactly

parallel to belief in special creation", with evolution merely "a

satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature."

Oxford zoologist, Mark Ridley, defiantly declared:

"If the creationists want to impress the Darwinian

establishment, it will be no use prating on about

what the fossils say. No good Darwinians belief in

evolution stands on the fossil evidence for

gradual evolution, so nor will his belief fall by


(Ridley, M., 1981, New Scientist 90:830-832)

Isn`t that an incredible statement? This man is declaring that his

belief in the theory of evolution does not depend on the fossil record,

which is where the greatest `proof` of the theory of evolution should


In writing the obituary for Theodosus Dobzhansky, the famed

evolutionist, an evolutionary geneticist said that Dobzhansky`s view of

the theory of evolution was exactly the same as that of Pierre de

Chardin, the notorious Jesuit priest. The geneticist said that "Evolution

is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, and 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."

Note the phrase `all systems must henceforward bow`. All information

must be seen through the eyes of belief in the theory of evolution. These

men have undergone a transformation, a change in philosophy that has

affected their very soul.

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


"In fact, evolution has become 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."

These men are truly devout members of their humanistic-

evolutionistic religion. They will even `bend` the results of their

research in order to serve their philosophy, the theory of evolution.

G.W. Harper calls the theory of evolution a "metaphysical belief".

Ernst Mayr, the outstanding Harvard evolutionary biologist, calls

evolution "man's world view today". Sir Julian Huxley, probably the

outstanding evolutionist of the twentieth century saw "evolution as

nothing less than `the whole of reality`".

Therefore, does belief in the theory of evolution affect a

scientists`s opinion? In some cases, it does:

"Facts do not `speak for themselves`; they are read in

the light of theory. Creative thought, in science as much

as in the arts, is the motor of changing opinion. Science

is a.... human activity, not a mechanized, robotlike

accumulation of objective information, leading by laws of

logic to inescapable interpretations.'

- Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of

Geology and Paleontology,

Harvard University

To me, that statement is saying that the existence of a theory, even

if unproven or unprovable, is to be used to `interpret` scientific

information. In addition, this man seems to be saying that science

should not necessarily use laws of logic to reach interpretations. What

should they then use? Their belief in a myth?

The evolutionist`s faith in the theory of evolution affects their

conduct, enabling them to look at data and reach a conclusion that is

plainly illogical.

The creationist looks at a rose or the butterfly and muses, "Isn`t

it amazing what God has created?". The obvious design of the many forms

of life, the beauty of the creatures, the balance of the system, all

these things sometimes fills the creationist with a sense of awe.

The evolutionist looks at the same things and muses, "Isn`t it

amazing what mutational accidents and chance have produced?". The

accidental design of the many forms of life, the accidental beauty of the

life-forms, the accidental balance of the accidental system, all these

things sometimes place the evolutionist in a sense of awe at what the

theory of evolution has accidentally produced.

This, I believe, is a valid comparison. It is not meant to be

sarcastic or cynical. It demonstrates that the theory of evolution is a

religion, with the same feelings present on either side of the coin.

Despite the shortcomings of his theory, how did belief in the theory

of evolution affect Charles Darwin? Darwin expert Neal Gillespie, in his


that "Darwin clearly rejected Christianity and virtually all conventional

arguments in defense of the existence of God and human immortality."

"(Robert Proctor) shows how the major German societies

of physical anthropologists collaborated with the SS

program of race hygiene, helping to make a racial policy..

...Eugene Fischer, the most distinguished of German

physical anthropologists, regarded by many as the founder

of human genetics, was particularly helpful in these

efforts...But surely American physical anthropologists

spoke out clearly against the Nazi perversion of their

science? They did not."

- Matt Cartmill, "Misdeeds in

Anthropology, " Review of Bones,

Bodies, Behavior: Essays on

Physical Anthropology, (Science

(v. 244, p. 858)

"I have done a great deal of work on Darwin and can say

with some assurance that Darwin also did not derive his

theory from nature but rather superimposed a certain

philosophical world-view on nature and then spent 20 years

trying to gather the facts to make it stick."

George Grinnel, Author of


The Harvard Evolutionist Steven Jay Gould, says that following the

publication of Darwin's 'Origin of Species' in 1859:

"Subsequent arguments for slavery, colonialism, racial

differences, class structures, and sex roles would go

forth primarily under the banner of science."

Gould, Stephen Jay, 'The Mismeasure

of Man' (W.W. Norton and Company,

New York, 1981) p. 72.

`Survival of The Fittest` became the aspect of Darwinian religion

used most by those who attempted to justify their political views.

In their text book, 'Civilization Past and Present,' authors Wallbank and

Taylor said that Darwin's theory of the survival of the fittest:

"...became a vogue that swept western thought in the late

nineteenth century. It also became a convenient doctrine

for justifying various economic and political theories."

Wallbank, Walter T. and Alastair M.

Taylor, 'Civilization Past and

Present,' 4th ed. (Scott, Foresman

and Co., 1961), Vol. 2, p. 361.

"The book, 'The Americans,' describes the use of Social

Darwinism, at the time of the American industrial

revolution, to justify the abuses of capitalism and the

protestant work ethic, but nothing is mentioned of its

role in the defense of racism, sexism, fascism and


Jordan, Winthrop D., Miriam

Greenblatt and John S. Bowes, 'The

Americans,' (McDougal, Little and

Company, Evanston, IL, 1985) pp.


Some industrialists did in fact take advantage of certain

implications of Darwin's theory to condone their unethical practices.

In his autobiography, the great captain of industry, Andrew Carnegie,

described his conversion to evolutionism on reading Darwin, and its

effect on his own world view:

"I remember that light came as in a flood and all was

clear. Not only had I got rid of theology and the

supernatural, but I had found the truth of evolution. 'All

is well since all grows better,' became my motto, my true

source of comfort. Man was not created with an instinct

for his own degradation, but from the lower he had risen

to the higher forms. Nor is there any conceivable end to

his march to perfection."

Hofstadter, Richard, 'Social

Darwinism and American Thought,'

(Beacon Press, 1955) p. 45.

Evolutionism soothed the consciences of the big industrialists in

their dealings with competitors, and it also aided those who took

advantage of the poor. Evolutionism discouraged efforts to improve the

working and living conditions of the poor, the sick and the children

because, after all, it was "natures way" that the strong should prevail

over the weak and even eliminate them. After all, `survival of the


Some have argued that such views are an unfortunate use of Darwinism

that was never suggested by Darwin himself, but this is not true. Robert

D. Clark says that:

"Darwin often said quite plainly that it was wrong to

ameliorate the conditions of the poor, since to do so

would hinder the evolutionary struggle for existence."

Clark, Robert E.D., 'Darwin: Before

and After,' (Poternoster Press,

1958) p. 120.

Again it is often argued that Darwin would never have supported this

interpretation of his theory, but in the sixth chapter of his 'Descent of

Man,' Darwin said that the time would come when the white races of the

world would destroy the black race. Darwin wrote that eventually,

evolution would increase the gap between the human and the ape by the

anticipated extinction of such evolutionary "intermediates" as

chimpanzees and blacks:

"The break will then be rendered wider, for it will

intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may

hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon,

instead of as at present between the negro or Australian

and the Gorilla."

Darwin, Charles, 'Descent of Man,'

1871, p.201

"Darwin's cousin, Sir Francis Galton, carried his uncle`s

ideas to their logical conclusion and became the father of

the American eugenics movement."

"Galton, Sir Francis." 'The

Encyclopedia Britannica,' 1964 ed.

Eugenics is the so-called "science" which seeks to improve the

biological make-up of the human species by selective breeding. Galton

even advocated the regulation of marriage and family size according to

genetic quality of the parents. This was a seemingly logical development

since Darwin believed that the variation he saw among the individuals of

a species was without limit and thus if selective breeding were applied

to humans, as it is to farm animals, the perfect human (superman) was

sure to develop.

This concept of the "master race" was put into actual practice by

Adolph Hitler in Germany through his efforts to create a "pure" Aryan

race while exterminating the Jews who he considered to be inferior. This

`negative publicity` killed the interest in eugenics in America until

recent years. Now, in the end times, with the religion of

evolutionist/humanist views coming into vogue again, there is talk of

doing the same.

Evolutionism has even promoted sexism. For example, one of

America's most distinguished psychologists, G. Stanley Hall, claimed that

suicide rates were higher for women than men because women have a more

primitive `evolutionary status` than men:

"Woman's body and soul is phyletically older and more

primitive, while man is more modern, variable, and less

conservative. Women are always inclined to preserve old

customs and ways of thinking. Women prefer passive

methods; to give themselves up to the power of elemental

forces, as gravity, when they throw themselves from

heights or take poison..."

Hall, G.S., 'Adolescence: Its

Psychology and its Relations to

Physiology, Anthropology,

Sociology, Sex, Crime, Religion,

and Education,' (D. Appleton and

Company, New York, 1904) Vol. 2,

pp. 589 and 784.


Darwinism was also used by the Nazis and others to justify the

aggressive militarism which plunged America into the Second World War.

Friederich von Bernhardi was a German soldier who wrote the book `Germany

and the Next War' which praised the virtues of war in strong evolutionary

terms. Of this book, the anthropologist Ashley Montagu says:

"'War,' declared Bernhardi, 'is a biological necessity;'

it is as necessary as the struggle of the elements of

Nature;' it 'gives a biologically just decision, since its

decisions rest on the very nature of things. The whole

idea of arbitration represents a presumptuous encroachment

on the natural laws of development, for what is right is

decided by the arbitration of war.' In proof thereof such

notions of Darwin's as The Struggle for Existence, Natural

Selection, and the Survival of the Fittest are invoked.

According to Bernhardi, it is plainly evident that anyone

who makes a study of plant and animal life that 'war is a

universal law of nature.' This declaration and

fortification of Germany's will to war - for it had the

highest official sanction and approval -was published in

1911. Three years later the greatest holocaust the world

had ever known was launched..."

Montagu, Ashley, 'Man in Process,'

(World Pub. Co., 1961), pp. 76-77.

Hitler based his fascism on evolutionary theory as is evident from

his speeches and his book 'Mein Kampf.' Robert E.D. Clark has pointed

out that in the great number of books covering every phase of the Hitler

regime, there is hardly any mention of the influence of Darwinism, which

Clark attributes to the fear of being considered `anti-evolutionary`

(Clark, pg. 117).

Benito Mussolini was also intensely influenced by Darwinism which he

thought supported his belief that violence is basic to social

transformation. Clark says that:

"Mussolini's attitude was completely dominated by

evolution. In public utterances he repeatedly used the

Darwinian catchwords while he mocked at perpetual peace,

lest it should hinder the evolutionary process."

Clark, pg. 115

The Prussian militarist, Heinrich von Treitsche, used the concept of

the "survival of the fittest" to actually glorify war and to raise the

interest of the state over the individual:

"The grandeur of war lies in the utter annihilation of

puny man in the great conception of the State, and it

brings out the full significance of the sacrifice of

fellow countrymen for one another. In war the chaff is

winnowed from the wheat."

Von Trietsche, H.G., 'Politics,'

Translated by B. Dugdale and T.

de Bille (Constable and Co.), Vol.

1, pp. 66-67.

The intent is not to blame Darwin for all war but if survival of the

fittest is to be applied to man and taken literally, even brutal

militarism seems a logical consequence. After all, when God is removed

from a man`s beliefs, man will ALWAYS revert back to his old `sin


Frederich Engels, one of the founders of Communism, wrote to Karl

Marx, December 12, 1859, "Darwin, whom I am just now reading, is


Zirkle, Conway, 'Evolution, Marxian

Biology, and the Social Scene',

(University of Pennsylvania Press,

1959), p. 85.

Karl Marx wrote back on December 9, 1860, "Although it is developed

in a crude English style, this is the book which contains the basis in

natural history for our views." (Zirkle, pg. 86)

Marx again wrote to Engels on January 16, 1861, "Darwin's book is

very important and serves me as a basis in natural selection for the

class struggle in history...not only is a death blow dealt here for the

first time to 'Teleology' in the natural sciences but their rational

meaning is emphatically explained." (Zirkle, pg. 86)

The three things then for which Marx was most indebted to Darwinism


1) an atheistic "explanation" for the origin of the Cosmos

2) the struggle for existence

3) the progressive development and improvement of man

Communism cannot tolerate an allegiance to anything higher than the

state so it demands atheism. Marxism also insists that man`s `well-

being` is progressively improved through a blind process of class

struggle and revolution. Marx had such a high regard for Darwin's

contributions to the development of Communism that he wanted to dedicate

his book 'Das Capital` to him, but Darwin declined the offer.

A quote by Leon Trotsky (Marxist and follower of Lenin) concerning

Darwinism and evolution. It is particularly eye opening since several

advocates of the 'punctuated equilibrium' theory of evolution are avowed

Marxists. These advocates include Steven Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin.

Note particularly Trotsky's use of 'equilibrium' in this passage.

"The Darwinian theory of the origin of species encompasses

the entire span of development of the plant and animal

kingdoms. The struggle for survival and the processes of

natural and sexual selection proceed continuously and

uninterruptedly. But if one could observe these processes

with ample time at one's disposal--a millennium, say, as

the smallest unit of measure -- one would undoubtedly

discover with one's own eyes that there are long ages of

relative equilibrium in the world of living things, when

the laws of selection operate almost imperceptibly, and

the different species remain relatively stable, seeming

the very embodiment of Plato's ideal types. But there are

also ages when the equilibrium between plants, animals,

and their geophysical environment is disrupted, epochs of

geobiological crisis, when the laws of natural selection

come to the fore in all their ferocity, and evolution

passes over the corpses of entire plant and animal

species. On this gigantic scale Darwinian theory stands

out above all as the theory of critical epochs in plant

and animal development."

"Portraits, Personal and

Political", by Leon Trotsky.

George Breitman and George

Saunders, eds. New York :

Pathfinder Press, 1977.

These quotes were originally written in 1919 but not published until

1922. Now compare Trotsky's view with that of Stephen Jay Gould!

"Eldredge and I refer to this scheme as the model of

punctuated equilibria. Lineages change little during most

of their history, but events of rapid speciation

occasionally punctuate this tranquility." "The process may

take hundreds, even thousands of years; you might see

nothing if you stared at speciating bees on a tree for

your entire lifetime. But a thousand years is a tiny

fraction of one percent of the average duration for most

fossil invertebrate species..."

"Eldredge and I were fascinated to learn that many

Russian paleontologists support a model similar to our

punctuated equilibria."

"The Panda's Thumb". New York : W.W.

Norton, 1982. In: "The Episodic

Nature of Evolutionary Change," p.

184-185. Originally published in

'Natural History' magazine.

It might be argued that this paper blames Darwinism for too many of

the great social mistakes and atrocities of our century and that, in any

event, Darwin really did not intend for his theory to have social

implications. That may be true, but in a letter to H. Thiel in 1869,

Darwin seems to indicate that he fully appreciated the social

implications of his theory:


"You will really believe how much interested I am in

observing that you apply to moral and social questions

analogous views to those which I have used in regard to

the modification of species. It did not occur to me

formerly that my views could be extended to such widely

different and most important subjects."

Darwin, Francis, editor, 'The Life

and Letters of Charles Darwin' (D.

Appleton and Co., 1896) Vol. 2, p.


Perhaps the most serious impact of Darwinism on our society is its

essentially atheistic view of the Cosmos and its origin. This view makes

man the sole judge of what is right and wrong.

Some say that belief in Darwinism does not have to destroy one`s

Christian faith, but it can! Darwin was not a scientist, but a clergyman

in the Anglican church and claimed that before his voyage on the Beagle,

he did not "doubt the strict and literal truth of every word in the

Bible," but after he came to accept the origin of all life by evolution

he said:

"I had gradually come by this time to see that the Old

Testament from its manifestly false history of the world..

was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the

Hindus, or the beliefs of the Barbarian."

Rallings, Christopher, 'The Voyage

of Charles Darwin' (Mayflower

Books, New York, 1979) pp. 161-163.

In his autobiography, written mainly for the benefit of his

children, Darwin said that his study of evolution and the laws of nature

made the miracles of the Bible unbelievable. He concluded:

"Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was

at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no

distress, and have never since doubted even for a single

second that my conclusion was correct. I can indeed hardly

see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true...."

Darwin, Francis 'The Life and

Letters'. pp. 277-278.

In addition, I will now review some of the words and phrases used in

the above quotes:

1. `a faith`

2. `biological miracles`

3. `exactly parallel to belief in creation`

4. `good Darwinian`

5. `evolution is a light which illuminates all facts`

6. `scientific religion`

7. `metaphysical belief`

8. `man`s world view today`

9. `the whole of reality`

10. `an ideology`

11. `philosophical world-view`

12. `..light came on as in a flood and all was clear`

13. `..I had gotten rid of theology`

14. `Woman`s body and soul`

I believe any Christian can see and appreciate the religious

overtones of those words and phrases. Those are some of the same words

Christians use in confessing their faith in God and His Son, Jesus


These men have not merely adopted the belief of science. They have

made a commitment to a religion, and it has affected their entire body,

soul, and spirit.

Indeed, they have truly begun a belief that, in time, is going to

affect their entire being. Without God, they will inevitably revert back

to their own resources. The Bible calls those `resources` man`s "sin

nature", and the path leads to DESTRUCTION.

"Evolution is the root of atheism, of communism, nazism,

behaviorism, racism, economic imperialism, militarism,

anarchism, and all manner of anti-Christian systems of

belief and practice."

From "The Remarkable Birth

of Planet Earth, by H.M.

Morris, pg. 75

Fortunately, not all scientists have remained true to the faith.

Dr. Collin Patterson, Senior Principal Scientific Officer in the

Paleontology Department of the British Museum of Natural History, says

that he "now realizes that evolution was a faith. I had been duped into

taking evolution as revealed truth in some way"; and, "that evolution not

only conveys no knowledge, but conveys anti-knowledge; apparent knowledge

which is harmful to systematics".

As Ehrlich and Birch have said of the theory of evolution: "Every

conceivable observation can be fitted into it. But no one can think of a

way in which to test it."

"The law of natural selection is not, I will maintain,

science. It is an ideology, and a wicked one, and

it has as much interfered with our ability to perceive

the history of life with clarity as it has interfered

with our ability to see one another with tolerance."

"...we were victims of a cruel social ideology that

assumes that competition among individuals, classes,

nations or races is the natural condition of life, and that

it is also natural for the superior to dispossess the

inferior. For the last century and more this ideology has

been thought to be a natural law of science, the mechanism

of evolution which was formulated most powerfully by

Charles Darwin in 1859."

- Kenneth J. Hsu, "Is Darwinism

Science?" Earthwatch (3/89)


There are many books and magazines articles by scientists and

laymen which are highly critical of all aspects of evolution. The

following books should be available in libraries and book stores and

will document the scientific case against evolutionism:

'Evolution: A Theory in Crisis' by Michael Denton (Adler & Adler,


'The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution' by Wm. R. Fix (MacMillan

Publishing Company N.Y., 1984)

'The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong' by Francis

Hitching (Ticknor & Fields, New Haven, 1982)

'Darwin Retried' by Norman Macbeth (A Delta Book, Published by Dell

Publishing Co., New York, 1971).




Index - Evolution or Creation

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 | 180 | 181 | 182 | 183 | 184 | 185 | 186 | 187 | 188 | 189 | 190 | 191 | 192 | 193 | 194 | 195 | 196 | 197 | 198 | 199 | 200 | 201 | 202 | 203 | 204 | 205 | 206 | 207 | 208 | 209 | 210 | 211 | 212 | 213 | 214 | 215 | 216 | 217 | 218 | 219 | 220 | 221 | 222 | 223 | 224 | 225 | 226 | 227 | 228 | 229 | 230 | 231