Darwinists have multiple labels for their belief system: naturalism, materialism, reductionism, atheism, secularism, humanism. But call it what you will, the theory has two fatal flaws: the lack of evidence for macro-evolution, and overwhelming evidence of design.
As for the first, two big evidence gaps confront proponents of macro-evolution. There is the gap (multiple gaps, actually) in the fossil record, and what could be called the meta-gap, i.e. the issue of how life began. A chasm exists between non-living matter and life.
The second major problem for Darwinists is the overwhelming evidence of design. This is seen in the immense complexity and order of the universe. It is also seen in the beautiful and profound DNA code that shapes all of life. These clearly point, not to time and chance as the Darwinists have argued, but to intelligence, an unseen Designer, an Invisible Writer of Code.
That evolutionists maintain their stance in the face of such serious challenges indicates the truth: they are largely dogmatists. Their theory is not established so much by the evidence as by their naturalistic philosophy. Professor of Law Daniel O. Conkle summarizes in his article “Secular Fundamentalism,” “Those who adhere to comprehensive secular fundamentalism, however, are absolutists in at least one respect: they are not open to the possibility of religious truth and therefore are not willing to consider arguments that depend upon religious perspectives…. [They] actually ignore the cardinal value that they claim to prefer, the value of reason itself.”
Why do Darwinist’s promote their ideology so strongly? I think there are two reasons: their metaphysical bias and their desire for an a-moral universe. Much of what I will share has come from Nancy Pearcey’s brilliant book Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity.
As to the metaphysical bias, consider an observation from Dr. Huston Smith, author, professor and one of the world’s leading scholars of religions. Dr. Smith writes that Darwinists hold their position “more by atheistic philosophic assumptions than by scientific evidence” (Total Truth, pg. 153). Materialists are ideologically driven.
Evolution is accepted by zoologists because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.
Most naturalists feign objectivity regarding their faith in Darwin. But some have actually admitted their subjective bias. In The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins writes: “Even if there were no actual evidence in favor of the Darwinian theory … we would still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories” (Total Truth, pg. 168). Likewise, S.C. Todd, a Kansas State University professor, in a letter published in the journal Nature, states: “Even if all the data pointed to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic” (Total Truth, pg. 168). No minced words there! These devotees would believe in Naturalism even in the face of an intelligent designer. Indeed, they do.
Why? Because the alternative is “unbelievable.” Dr. D. M. S. Watson, Jodrell Professor of Zoology and Comparative Anatomy at University College, London, writes: “Evolution . . . is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or . . . can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.”
Evolutionary biologist Dr. Richard Lewontin clearly states that naturalists deny the evidence of design because “we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism” (Total Truth, pg. 170). He continues “It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation…. On the contrary, we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations” (Total Truth, pg. 171).
In short, Darwinists commit to Darwin, not based on prior examination, but because of an assumption that there is no God. It is this assumption, rather than the evidence, that makes them Darwinists. Or to say it differently, Darwinism is established on ideology rather than on scientific evidence.
But why this ideological bias? I would argue that most people are atheists for moral reason. A universe free from moral restraint allows them license to live without moral scruples. For some, this “freedom” extends even to the pursuit of evil agendas without conscience.
Adolph Hitler said that he was fighting against “… the God of the deserts, that crazed, stupid, vengeful, Asiatic despot, with the power to make laws! … that poison with which both Jews and Christians have spoiled and soiled the free, wonderful instincts of man….” A moral God puts limits on our “wonderful instincts.” For Hitler, those instincts included ridding the human race of the handicapped, “dim witted,” and Jews. And notice who Hitler’s real enemies are : Judeo-Christian monotheists.
We were opposed to morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom.
Aldous Huxley, better known for Brave New World, wrote in another book, “I had reasons not to want the world to have meaning, and as a result I assumed the world had no meaning, and I was readily able to find satisfactory grounds for this assumption… for me, as it undoubtedly was for most of my generation, the philosophy of meaninglessness was an instrument of liberation from a certain moral system. We were opposed to morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom” [emphasis mine]. Ends and Means: An Enquiry Into the Nature of Ideals and Into the Methods Employed for Their Realization, p. 273.
Darwinism is a religious faith meant to replace Judeo-Christian Theism. American theoretical physicist and Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg is not afraid to state his objectives for modern science: “I personally feel that the teaching of modern science is corrosive to religious belief, and I’m all for that” (Total Truth, pg. 171). His intent is to liberate the world from religious bondage.
Michael Ruse, a philosopher of science and an evolutionist, tips his hand: “Evolution came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity. … Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. … If this is not a rival to traditional Judeo-Christian teaching, I do not know what is” (Total Truth pg. 172).
Can it be stated any more clearly that naturalistic science is a religion meant to replace Judeo-Christian theism?
The Humanist Manifesto 1 (1933) is the “Bible” of the secular fundamentalists. It was written to directly challenge Judeo-Christian Theism as a religious faith.
The time has come for widespread recognition of the radical changes in religious beliefs throughout the modern world. The time is past for mere revision of traditional attitudes. Science and economic change have disrupted the old beliefs. … In order that religious humanism may be better understood we, the undersigned, desire to make certain affirmations which we believe the facts of our contemporary life demonstrate.
Notice the clarity; they identify themselves as religious humanists. As such they are atheistic in theology. Further into the document we read the following:
– FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.
– SECOND: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.
Let’s not run in fear from Darwinists!
Western elites in academia, media, and government have all made a religious commitment to materialism. This is why the ex-atheist, former Marxist Malcolm Muggeridge decries in the “The Great Liberal Death Wish” that naturalists would rather die than admit the error of their assumptions.
Let’s not run in fear from Darwinists. Let’s out-think them and demonstrate where their assumptions are false. Let’s show how the natural conclusions of their ideas are disastrous for the human family.
– Darrow Miller
camFebruary 10, 2014 - 10:02 am
“We Deliberately Ignore the Evidence”
This is a very timely piece coming as it has on the heels of the Nye/Ham debate. If that could in fact be considered a debate. I don’t know if it’s really a debate if the sighted debate with the blind.
Regardless, the show illustrated the principles in your article very well; how those principles actually play out in the arena of ideas.
If you can’t debate the ideas adequately then:
1. Attack or belittle the messenger.
2. Appeal to your empty but enthusiastic emotionalism.
3. Appeal to the fear of yet more downturn in the economy.
The people you quoted in your article were at least honest. I believe that is rare for these religious humanists.
adminFebruary 10, 2014 - 1:33 pm
Thanks for your engagement.