CREATION
/ EVOLUTION SERIES
The Religion Of Evolution vs. Creation Science
The Religion of Evolution
Someone will say, “Do you mean that evolution is religious? I thought it was science. And I thought that creationism was religious!”
It is true. Evolution deals more with religious ideas than most people realize, while creationism has solid scientific support. Supposedly, evolution is only concerned with the material universe since spiritual forces cannot be tested. On the other hand, evolutionary philosophers insist on the existence of unseen (spiritual?) forces which control evolution: Natural Selection, Chance, Time, Mother Nature, etc. These are written with capital letters because each one is credited by evolutionists with power which belongs to God. They work “miracles.”
Well-known evolutionist, Steven Jay Gould says, “The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that natural selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well” (Natural History, 6–7/77, p. 28) But what is natural selection that it can create? It is definitely unseen. Is it a spirit? Is it some kind of force? Or is it nothing more than the figment of some scientific philosophers’ imaginations? A pseudo-god which they have created?
Chance is usually associated with mutations. “Miracle Mutations” is the title of an article in Science Digest (2/82). The author correctly points out that “No fossil or other physical evidence directly connects man to ape” (p. 90). Therefore, “Every so often, evolution picks up its genetic jackhammer and transmutes a tiny band of individuals into a dramatically different new species” (p.91). Evolution has the power to change species (like a god)? What is “evolution”? A spirit? A force? Where does it get its power to perform “miracles?” Does it really perform miracles? The answer should be obvious. But it is also obvious that we are speaking here of some unseen power. Evolutionists have gone far beyond the material world into the realm of spirit.
Another evolutionary philosopher has said, “To the geneticist the majestic flow of evolution represents the outward calm of an unceasingly stirring world. Everywhere he discovers chance: chance in the origin of mutations, chance in their consequences upon development, chance in their shuffling into innumerable combinations. Indeed, the realm of chance is awe-inspiring.” (The Scientific Monthly, 10/1/53, p. 196.) That’s pretty heady stuff with which to credit chance. What is chance? A spirit? A force? It is definitely unseen and in this case has religious attributes.
A Noble prize-winning evolutionist says of time as it relates to the spontaneous origin of life, “Time is
BSP 2:2 (Spring 1989) p. 51
the hero of the plot … What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the ‘impossible’ becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles.” (The Physics and Chemistry of Life, p. 12) What is time? A spirit? A force? A measurement? Where did it get the power to work miracles?
Although these are only a few examples of evolutionary religious thought, it should be obvious that evolutionists are philosophers -metaphysicists – who go beyond the physical into the realm of the spiritual to find support for their beliefs. This suggests that evolution deals with religious things.
Finally, the very fact that evolution is in direct conflict with the biblical teachings of creationism makes it clear that it is, indeed, dealing with religion. Otherwise, it would be an innocuous, objective scientific theory, dealing only with the physical world.
On What Basis Can We Say Creation Is Scientific?
There are many reasons. We mention just three:
1. Creation theory says that all life comes from Life. This is good observational science. But why is the second Life a capital %”? The answer is that the first life forms had to come from somewhere. Creationism says they came directly from God (John 1:1–3). That means they had a Designer. This fits the evidence much better than to say they all came about by some indefinable force called “Chance.”
2. Creationists say that all varieties of life were present in the beginning. This is good science, since throughout all human history we have observed “like reproducing like” – a law in genetics. And if this is what scientists observe, then all life forms found today had to be present in the beginning – along with all life forms that are now extinct (90% of what was created originally). Again, creationism fits with scientific observations.
3. According to evolutionary theory, the universe was founded by a “Big Bang” which produced order from chaos. That is, following a gigantic, chaotic, disordered explosion the orderly universe we observed today just “happened.” Order came out of chaos.
But that is simply a myth. The inviolable Second Law of Thermodynamics, which is true everywhere in the universe, says precisely the opposite. Creationists say (and scientists all agree) that: order goes to chaos. Based on this law, then, the universe was made “good” (orderly) and it has become more disordered ever since: the sun is burning out, the earth turns ever more slowly on its axis, the moon is receding from the earth, the earth’s magnetic field is continually becoming weaker, etc.
This article may be too Short to be convincing to many. But we hope the reader will at least realize that there are valid reasons to contend that evolution deals with religion, while creation belief is supported by objective science.
In order to see the fundamental spiritual conflict between evolution and creation and that evolution does deal with religion, note what Julian Huxley has said about the basic thrust of evolution: “Darwin pointed out that no supernatural designer was needed; since natural selection could account for any form of life, there was no room for a supernatural agency in its evolution.” (Issues in Evolution, 1960, p. 45.)