THE RELIGION OF EVOLUTION
It has long been my contention that evolution is Just another religion. There is no empirical evidence to back it up so it is certainly not a part of science. The evolutionists say that man made God instead of God making man. Who is right? In this chapter I would like to discuss the evolution of religion or the religion of evolution, which is it? The public schools have been teaching for the last fifty years that religion has evolved. We have been taught that man started off believing in many gods, worshiping the rocks, stars, etc, the cave man philosophy, and that he gradually developed monotheism (the belief in one God). Yet archaeology seems to tell us that just the opposite is true. It tells us that man has always been a monotheist and worshipped one God. All of the ancient cultures seem to teach us Just the opposite of what we are being taught in our public schools today.
Religion has not evolved. Man did not create God; God created man. Since evolution is just a religion, it should not be taught in public schools at taxpayers expense unless all religions are going to be taught.
In 1963, the Supreme Court ruled that if a parent or child objects to certain materials being taught in the public schools, the child cannot be removed from the class because that would violate his constitutional rights. The court further decided that the objectionable course or material would have to be removed. This case involved the question of prayer and religion. The precedent can be applied to sex education or any other questionable material. The ruling also said that no government building or facility may be used to commit inhibitions or hostilities to godly religion. There may some reading this who may remember when prayer when was taken out of the public school system. I was only in the fifth grade and did not understand what was going on. Madeline Murray O’Hare did not want her son made to pray in the public school. She said that it was objectionable to her. She claimed that that was an obvious case of the government advancing a religion at the taxpayers expense. She was very successful in getting prayer taken out of the public school system.
Of course, I don’t like what Madeline Murray O’Hare stands for or what she did, but it does bring up an interesting point. If evolution is Just a religion, then it also should be taken out of the public schools. I would like to see some legal action taken to get evolution taken out of the public school system on the grounds that it is Just a religion. The first step is to approach the school board and request that they remove the objectionable materials. Step two is to go to the people who supply the funds for the school, the county commission. Step three is to take the issue to court.
There are basically four options in this issue. The first option is to teach evolution only and ignore creation or any other theories of the origin of the earth. This is what is going on now in the public school system. The option at the other end of the scale would be to teach only creation. This is what was going on in 1925 in Dayton, Tennessee. Tennessee had passed a law that made the teaching of evolution a crime. A young biology teacher in the small town of Dayton was encouraged to create a test case by teaching evolution in spite of the law. The teacher was arrested and tried. The now famous atheist lawyer Clarence Darrow came in as defense for the side of the teacher and evolution. Darrow said that it was unfair to teach only one side of the issue. He said that it was the height of bigotry to prevent students from learning both sides of this issue. Even though Darrow lost the case and the teacher was fined $100, his plea for equal treatment was headed. Slowly the schools began to teach the theory of evolution with the truth of creation.
We are now at the other end of the spectrum. The tides have totally shifted and we are now teaching only evolution. This is Scopes in reverse. The same bigotry that they objected against they now condone since the tales are turned. Even though they can, most public school teachers don’t mention creation. They have been told that it is against the law to talk about creation because it is a religious subject. Evolution is religious also.
There are two middle-ground options available in this issue. The first would be to teach both evolution and creation in the public school classrooms. This was passed as law in the state of Louisiana, but was never enforced because people contested that law. This was contested because the idea of creation has religions connotations and therefore, they contested, it should not be taught in the public school system. They immediately claim the “separation of church and state.” This ideal is not found in the Constitution. It is found in Jefferson’s writings. Even if this true, the courts decided that teachers have the right to give any number of theories on the origin of the earth.
The next option is to leave both of these beliefs out of the public school system. I taught high school science and mathematics. I know that you can teach students many things without mentioning origins and where we came from. It is possible to leave the issue totally up to the home or to the church.
The public school system is right now using option number one, teaching dogmatically evolution. They would never dream of switching to option four of teaching only creation. Since option two of teaching both has not worked, I believe we are left with option three. I believe we should just leave both beliefs out of the public school system. Madeline Murray O’Hare had a very valid point. It is not right to use tax dollars to promote religion, any religion, in the public school system.
Webster defines a religion as “a belief in a divine or super-human power or powers to be obeyed and worshipped as the creator of the universe.” What created the universe? Mas it blind chance, evolution? If so, then blind chance is their creator and they worship chance. Time and matter become the gods of the evolutionist. If you begin taking away time from the evolutionist by saying that the earth is young, that is like taking a pacifier out of a baby’s mouth. If Webster’s definition of religion is correct, then evolution is definitely a part of religion, not science. I taught science for many years, and I am not against real science. However, we have entered the realm of religion when we begin saying that the earth came into being out of nothing.
There is a wealth of information on this subject. Let me share what a few evolutionists have said about evolution. Sir Arthur Keith, an avid evolutionist, said, “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation and that is unthinkable.” This reveals quite a bit about the evolutionists. They believe it only because they do not like the option of special creation. L. H. Matthews, the evolutionist who wrote the preface to the 1971 edition of Darwin’s book, said, “Belief in the theory of evolution was exactly parallel to the belief in special creation with evolution merely a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature.” Evolution is a faith, a religion. Pierre Grasse, the French biologist, said, “Scientists should destroy the myth of evolution.” L. H. Lipsome, the British physicist said, “In fact, evolution in a sense became a scientific religion. Almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to bend their observations to fit in with it.”
Evolution without a question is a religion. It is a religion of humanism. Either man is the ultimate king of the world, or God is the ultimate king of the world. Humanism is the religion of man being the ultimate. Humanist Manifesto One says, “Humanism is a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view as old as human civilization itself.” They admit right up front that it is religious. They go on to say, “In 1933 a group of 34 liberal humanists enunciated the philosophical and religious principles that seemed to them fundamental. They drafted Humanist Manifesto One, which for it’s time was a radical document. This document was concerned with expressing a general religious and philosophical outlook that rejected Orthodox and dogmatic positions and provided meaning and direction, unity and purpose to human life. It was committed to reason, science, and democracy.” It goes on to say that “if no deity will save us, we must save ourselves.” Humanism without a question is religious. Humanists admit to this fact. Here are a few different statements from Humanist Manifesto I & II that further illustrate the religious nature of evolutionism: (the numbers correspond to the actual statement number from Humanist Manifesto I and II by Prometheus Books edited by Paul Kurtz) The first statement is “religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing, not created.” They are calling themselves “religious humanists.” Humanism is a religion. Here in the foundational document of humanism, we see that they regard the universe as self-existing and not created. In other words, they believe in evolution. Matter has always been here and the earth created itself. The second statement is “humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has immerged as a result of a continuous process.” Again referring plainly to evolution. It could be easily proven that the foundation of humanism is evolution and humanism is a religion. Therefore, the teaching of evolution in the tax-supported public school system is the fostering and furthering of a religion. The only religion being promoted at the taxpayers expense is the religion of humanism. We need to put a stop to that. The third statement in the Humanist Manifesto says “holding an organic view of life, humanists find that traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected.” With the phrase “an organic view of life”, they are saying that evolution is the way we got here. The fourth statement says, “We are products of a gradual development.” “Gradual development” again refers to evolution. The eighth statement in the Humanist Manifesto says “Religious humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the end of man’s life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now.” Again, they refer to their philosophy as “religious humanism.” The ninth statement says, “In place of the old attitudes involved in worship and prayer, the humanist finds his emotions expressed in a heightened sense of personal life in a cooperative effort to promote social well-being.” The twelfth statement says, “Religious humanists aim to foster the creative in man and encourage achievements that add to the satisfactions of life.” The thirteenth statement begins “Religious humanism maintains that all associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life.” The last paragraph of Humanists Manifesto One says “So stand the theses of religious humanism.” That is the gist of the Humanist Manifesto.
We go on now the the Humanist Manifesto Two written by Paul Kurtz and Edwin Wilson. It says “salvationism still appears as harmful.” Read this carefully. The idea here is to teach people that Christians are the enemy and that we are standing in the way of progress. I believe we as Christians need to be aware of this message. Most of the programs on television are examples of Hollywood’s definite desire to discredit Christianity. You will not see a preacher portrayed as a God-fearing man. You will see him portrayed as a wild-eyed fanatic killing people, or stealing money from the church or some other evil deed. You will never see the truth in the Hollywood movies about
Christianity. There is a deliberate war being waged against religion in general and Christianity in particular. Other religions such as Hinduism and Buddahism are taught as being okay, even in the public schools. But the idea of bringing in Christianity is utterly despised.
The Humanist Manifesto Two goes on to say “any account of nature should pass the test of scientific evidence. In our judgment, the dogmas and myths of traditional religion do not do so.” If they really mean that “the account of nature should pass the test of scientific evidence”, they should examine and see if evolution will pass the test of scientific evidence. In order for something to be scientific, it has to be observable. Anything outside the realm of observation is not scientific. For something to be scientific, it must be testable. There is no observation to back up evolution and no test has devised to demonstrate it. If evolution occurred in the past, it should have been preserved for us in the fossil record. We have trillion of fossils, yet we have absolutely no evidence of evolution occurring in the past. There is nothing going on in the present that gives evidence of evolution.
Stephen J. Gould and Nyles Eldredge, two famous evolutionists, said, “At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble though it remains the official position of most western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between basic kinds are almost impossible to construct. Even in thought experiments, there is certainly no evidences for them in the fossil record. Curious mosaics like archaeopteryx do not count.” In his review of Steven Stanley’s book Macro-Evolution. D. S. Woodruff said, “Fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to record a single example of a transition.” There is no evidence in the fossil record for evolution. In a Newsweek article entitled “Is Man a Subtle accident?”, November 3, 1980, it is said, “The missing link between man and ape, whose absence has comforted fundamentalist since the days of Darwin, is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that lie between species, the more they have been frustrated.” There have been no missing links. The entire chain is missing!
Evolution is a religion. It does not fit the criteria of science. It is not observable. There is no observation for evolution in the past or in the present. Stephen J. Gould says in Natural History The Return of Hopeful Monsters. “The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change. All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms. Transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.” If the definition of science is observation, classification of data, and experimentation, where is the observation for evolution? Evolution is a religious faith. If the evolutionists want to believe in evolution, they are free to do so. We live in America which is a free country. We are free to choose what we want to believe. What I am upset about is the fact that their faith is being taught as science in the public school system at my expense as a taxpayer. That upsets me greatly!
Romans 1:21 says, “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, And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to bird, and four footed beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, and to dishonor their own bodies between themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections; for even their women did change the natural use into that which is again nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge…”
This last statement says it all. Evolution is a deliberate attempt to eliminate God. It is time for thinking people to dethrone evolution and get some common sense back in the science class.
I write letters to the editor very frequently. Here is one published some time ago that sums up my feelings on the subject.
Evolution isn’t science
Remember the story of tailors who kept asking for more silk and gold to make a royal suit for the king? The deceitful men were pocketing the goods and giving the king imaginary clothes. Anyone who couldn’t “see” the splendor of these “clothes” was obviously not intelligent.
To even dare to suggest that His Highness was not gorgeously arrayed was to invite a barrage of ridicule and scorn. And so the entire kingdom was duped into silence until a small “ignorant” boy cried out, “The kind hath no clothes!”
It is still true today that a few scoundrels can cajole the masses into silence about the obvious using ridicule and derision. For example: It is obvious that evolution didn’t, doesn’t and won’t happen. Design demands a designer. Frogs don’t turn into princes, and “bib bangs” make big messes not neat, orderly universes. There are no facts to support evolutionism. It stands royally naked.
Over 90 percent of the “ignorant” masses believe that the world was created by God. Thousands of taxpayers in this county resent their tax money supporting the humanist religion of evolution in our schools. In spite of this, Katie Knight (science curriculum supervisor in Escambia County) told me that only one person is objecting to the teaching of evolution in our schools…Me.
How long will we let them steal our gold and give us nothing in return? They steal our kids’ class time and brain power promoting this fairy tale of evolution while they keep asking for more gold.
Review the books this year, and voice your complaint. Textbooks are being selected now. Let’s get back to teaching real science and stop letting them tell us that evolutionism must be included.
It is not science and is not even remotely related to science., Even though the socialist tailors insist I’m the one who is blind and give evolutionism royal treatment, I still say, “The king (evolution) hath no clothes!”