A Religion Based in the World in Which We Live

Rob states, “What our world needs is a 'Reason' based religion that defines universal moral laws and grounds us firmly in the world in which we live.” I assume by “Reason-based,” Rob means a religion in keeping with his naturalistic assumptions and worldview. But if Darwinism is correct, then why does the world need religion? Usually by “religion” we mean a belief in God or a supernatural power to be worshipped. Darwinism, by definition, excludes any appeal to the supernatural and leads to atheism. In fact, according to most Darwinists, religion is the greatest of all evils. I suspect, however, that by “religion” Rob simply means a belief system that carries with it a code of ethics and conduct. Yet the world already has this in Darwinism. Its one universal moral law is “survival of the fittest,” its prophet (or god) is Charles Darwin, and its priesthood or evangelists consist of men like Richard Dawkins and the late Stephen Jay Gould. And this religion is in fact completely grounded in the world in which we live, for it claims that the world is all there is.

Two world-wars begun essentially on the principle of “survival of the fittest,” in addition to the Soviet Union and Communist China, testify that Darwinism and naturalism are in fact grounded in the world in which we live—a world where the strong outcompete or cull out the weak for their own gains. This is Darwin’s first and only universal “moral” principle. But don’t take my word for it, let’s let Darwin speak for himself:

"Each organic being is striving to increase in a geometrical ratio . . . each at some period of its life, during some season of the year, during each generation or at intervals, has to struggle for life and to suffer great destruction . . . The vigorous, the healthy, and the happy survive and multiply." (On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, 1859).

“From the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly flow. (The Descent of Man”)

The following was quoted by Ben Stein in “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”:

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed” (The Descent of Man, 1871, p.168-169).

Some have tried to claim that in the paragraph that followed the one above, Darwin appealed to our human feeling of sympathy that keeps us from putting this principle into practice and actually doing away with all the inferior weak members of society. Let’s see:

“The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.” (The Descent of Man (1871) p.168-169)

So, our evolved human instinct prevents us from doing what the instinct in all other animals causes them to do, in spite of the “bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind.” But where did this “instinct” come from? And why do only we humans have it? And how did that instinctive sympathy evolve, considering how contrary it is to the universal principle of natural selection seen in all other animals? Nonetheless, at least Darwin can be grateful that the “weaker and inferior members of society” usually do not marry and propagate further bad effects on society. But not to worry, for evolved man will eventually succeed in eliminating the inferior races:

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla” (The Descent of Man, 1871, p.201).

Darwin recognized the implications of his own theory far better than most of his disciples. The Darwinist religion (faith, philosophy, belief, theory– call it what you will, just don’t call it science) is clearly “grounded in the world in which we live,” assuming, as Darwinism does, that the world is all there is. In a Darwinist world, there can be no other moral laws besides survival of the fittest. There can be no morality, no right or wrong, nor even any reason for “instinctive sympathy.” Perhaps that’s why Darwin originally entitled his famous work: “The Origin of Species: The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.” That is one “reason based religion” the world could do far better without.

When it come to Evolution, Majority Rules

Today I’ll address two points that Rob makes. He says:

“I would suggest that the scientific method has been carefully constructed over the last five or more centuries by many of the greatest thinkers of our generations. Approximately 95% of the members of the Academy of Scientists believe in evolution and not in 'creation from the dust' by God. I am suspect of the other 5%. The scientific method has led directly to virtually all of our technological advancements as well as those theories we hold as truths.”

I couldn’t agree more with Rob’s first point. The scientific method has indeed been carefully constructed over the last five or more centuries by many of the greatest thinkers of our generations, and that this has led to all our scientific advances. But what Robert fails to acknowledge is that this scientific method was worked out by Christians who would be more in line with today’s creationists than with evolutionists. In fact, I would suggest that if not for the Christian worldview held almost universally in the West during most of the last five centuries, the scientific method could never have arisen at all. It is no mere coincidence that science had its greatest advancement in the West, where the Christian worldview ruled. Christians viewed the world as orderly and designed, ruled by inviolable laws and principles created by a personal Designer God. The Bible testified to an orderly, law-governed creation, and these laws and principles could therefore be studied and examined and worked out. This gave rise to the scientific method.

That the vast majority of the greatest scientific thinkers have been creationists is indisputable. Many publications and websites have provided long (though not exhaustive) lists of these “greatest thinkers” who have held a Christian worldview and belief in the Bible. For a few examples, visit:

http://www.rae.org/influsci.html
http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan/FamousChristianScientists.html
http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v5i10f.htm

Galileo, Copernicus, and Isaac Newton are probably the three men most responsible for the scientific method, and all three were creationists (their beef was with the Roman Catholic Church, not the Bible). Copernicus viewed the universe as "built for us by the Best and Most Orderly Workman of all.” Galileo insisted that the Bible cannot err. In his Principia Newton stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being." Sounds a lot like ID today. We could add Kepler, Boyle, Linnaeus, Euler, Faraday, Babbage, Joule, Pasteur, Kelvin, Maxwell, Werner von Braun and many others.

But, what about today’s scientists? Are creationists or those who believe in Intelligent Design so few and suspect as Evolutionists like to claim? While clearly in the minority, there are thousands of highly credentialed and accomplished scientists who reject Darwinism, and the number is increasing yearly.

A little research on the web will confirm this, not to mention the increasing number of books being published by highly respected scientists. Secular researcher Richard Milton, says, "Darwinism has never had much appeal for science outside of the English-speaking world, and has never appealed much to the American public (although popular with the U.S. scientific establishment in the past). However, its ascendancy in science, in both Britain and America, has been waning for several decades as its grip has weakened in successive areas: geology; paleontology; embryology; comparative anatomy. Now even geneticists are beginning to have doubts. It is only in mainstream molecular biology and zoology that Darwinism retains serious enthusiastic supporters. As growing numbers of scientists begin to drift away from neo-Darwinist ideas, the revision of Darwinism at the public level is long overdue, and is a process that I believe has already started." (Richard Milton, Shattering the Myths of Darwinism , Rochester, Vermont: Park Street Press, 1992, 1997, p. 277.)

In a recent article Dr. Russell Humphreys, physicist at Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico, estimates that there are around 10,000 practicing professional scientists in the USA alone who openly believe in a six-day creation.” (In Six Days: Why 50 scientists choose to believe in creation, edited by John F. Ashton. (1999) Page 284

Several years ago, U.S. News & World Report (June 16, 1997) devoted a respectful four-page article to the work of Dr John Baumgardner, calling him "the world's pre-eminent expert in the design of computer models for geophysical convection." Dr. Baumgardner, a creationist, earned degrees from Texas Tech University (B.S., electrical engineering), and Princeton University (M.S., electrical engineering), and earned a Ph.D. in geophysics and space physics from UCLA.

More recently, perhaps the most eminent scientist of our time is Dr. Francis S. Collins, the director of the National Human Genome Project that cracked the DNA code, something which is considered by many to be the greatest scientific achievement of all time. Collins began his career as an atheist, but is now a creationist. His most recent book is "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief." See interview by CNN at http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html

There’s also the Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity (PSSI) – An organization of about 1000 members who have signed on to publicly declare: “As medical doctors we are skeptical of the claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the origination and complexity of life and we therefore dissent from Darwinian macroevolution as a viable theory. This does not imply the endorsement of any alternative theory.”

I have a number of books on my shelf written by extremely accomplished and credentialed scientists from every major field who reject evolution. I could list dozens, if not hundreds, more if I had the time and inclination. Despite their overwhelming credentials, however, evolutionists will deny all these as being real scientists simply because these men believe in creation. As Robert suggests, that fact alone makes them “suspect” as scientists. This is typical circular reasoning that is so common among Darwinists. They say, “You can’t name any real scientists who are not evolutionists,” and then when you do, they say, “Oh, those are not real scientists because they reject evolution.” Of course, by their own criteria we would have to write off such men as Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Kepler, Faraday, Pasteur, Collins, Baumgardner, etc. as not being real scientists.

Evolutionists cannot argue their case based on the facts, so they appeal to majority rule. So if we wish to play their game, let them acknowledge that only 10% of the American public believes in evolution, so if we want to put it to a vote as Rob suggests, then evolution loses. But since most of those rejecting evolution do not have “science degrees” they are automatically discounted as incapable of thinking critically about the evidence or drawing conclusions. This is nothing more than intellectual arrogance and elitism. This arrogance, coupled with the authoritarianism that forbids any questioning of the majority position, stifles open criticism. Most scientists who reject Darwinism are simply afraid to speak up. Hmm, seems vaguely reminiscent of the Medieval persecution of men who dared to question the majority view of their day, men like Copernicus and Galileo.

Moral Implications of Darwinism

For the past two weeks we’ve discussed the relationship between faith and science. Let me progress today to that aspect of the discussion that deals with morality. Are there any moral implications or consequences to Darwinism? What actually gave rise to this discussion with my friend Robert was my suggestion that the mass murders perpetuated under Marxist regimes are a natural consequence of a Darwinist worldview. This charge greatly raised my friend’s hackles, understandably so. It suggests that Darwinism logically and necessarily leads to untold evils. Robert denies this charge. Before we consider my friend’s arguments, however, let me first refer you to an excellent article on this subject entitled “Why Darwinism Matters,” by Nancy R. Pearcey. You can view this at http://www.arn.org/docs/pearcey/np_dcpolicy0500.htm . It will put to rest any doubts regarding the moral, intellectual, educational, political, philosophical, social, and religious implications of Darwinism. Except for the teachings of Jesus, no philosophy or worldview has had as profound an effect on the world as Darwinism. I maintain that that effect has been wholly negative.

One does not have to be a genius to realize that Darwinism destroys any basis for morality, for purpose in life, for the value of human life, and even for the very existence of truth. If we are but animals, the result of chance mutations in a wholly material world, then human life has no real meaning, nor does it have any value beyond that of a worm or a slug. The theory of evolution is based on the idea that an individual organism’s only purpose is to pass on its genes for the survival of the species. Darwinists contend, by the way, that this even provides a biological justification for rape. They are correct, for if evolution is true there can be no such thing as right or wrong, only beneficial adaptation (see Pearcey’s article). One cannot declare the Holocaust either wrong or imprudent, but only an evolutionary adaptation. It is this very worldview that has given rise to the field of eugenics, as well as the impetus for abortion on demand for the sake of convenience.

Darwinists attempt to argue, however, that we have developed moral principles in order to benefit ourselves as a species (e.g., it is beneficial to raise “good” kids), but the argument is faulty in several ways. First, Darwinism teaches the survival of the most fit (the strongest), not the most congenial or most “good.” Those groups of humans who can obtain the most power would do better to do away with individuals or races that are weaker or more dependent (i.e., the competition). Second, even if one could argue that it is beneficial to be “good” to others, how could you define “good”? Is “good” based on some idea of morality, or simply on pragmatics (who wins out)? And even if one could define “good,” he wouldn’t be able to define “right” and “wrong.” Simply put, Hitler’s policies, from a Darwinist point of view, would have been “good” if only the Christian world would have let him carry them out. Stalin’s cleansing policies were likewise “good.” In the animal world, it is always good to cull the weaker individuals and out-compete the competition. But in the animal world there is no “right” or “wrong,” no “morality.” Since we are but animals, Hitler would have been right if he had succeeded. In Darwinism, “success” is the only measure of what is “right” or “good.”

Robert claims, however, that any 6^th grader knows that more people have been killed in the name of religion than for any other purpose. He says, “Anyone with even 6^th grade history background will understand that Christians and Muslims have been responsible for more torture, oppression, and genocide than any other groups in the last 2000 years. Have you heard of the Crusades or the Inquisition? In Hitler's Germany and in other European countries during World War II, the collection and murder of the Jews was made possible by many hundreds of years of Christian programming (sic) within the populace ('Hitlers Willing Executioners' by D.J. Goldhagen) against the Jews who murdered Christ.” Of course, if Darwinism is true, there is nothing wrong with that, for all that murder in the name of religion would only be another natural result of the evolutionary process, an adaptation of the human species. The reality is, however, that there is just no comparison between the “evil” (murder, killing, genocide, oppression) committed in the name of “Christ” versus that done in the name of Atheistic Darwinism. (I’ll not argue about what has been done in the name of “religion” in general, since I am not defending “religion,” only Christianity in its true, original form as taught in the Bible).Let’s compare the statistics of the murder/mayhem performed by Christians vs. that performed in the name of atheism.

The only significant amount of killing performed under the guise of Christianity occurred during the middle ages, with the Roman Catholic Crusades and Inquisitions, and carried on somewhat by the Reformationists (I’ll deal with Hitler’s motives shortly). Historians shows that the number of dead at the hands of “Christians” throughout history totals to about 264,000 (http://www.newscholars.com/papers/Killing,%20Christianity,%20and%20Atheism.pdf). And even at that, it is plainly obvious to anyone who has read the New Testament that these events were perversions of the teachings of Christ. Jesus taught his followers to love their enemies and pray for them, to bless those who persecute them, to go the extra mile and turn the other cheek, to do good unto all men. And this is what his followers have always done, the exceptional perversion notwithstanding. Further, the so-called Christian wars and killings occurred over a relatively short period of time, long after the time of Christ. For the vast majority of the 2000 years of Christianity, Christians have been characterized as peaceable people who go out and perform loving acts in emulation of their Master.

What about atheism and Darwinism? This worldview (in this form at least) has existed for only a little over 150 years, and less than that as a dominant worldview. What has been the result? To find the answer, we need only look to those political/economic/social systems that have been founded upon atheistic Darwinism: Marxism/Lennism and the former Soviet Union (more than 43,000 million murdered), communist China (38 million murdered), Cuba, smaller communist regimes, and Hitler’s “Third Reich” (6-10 million murdered). I must add here that Robert categorizes Hitler’s murders as being done in the name of religion, even Christianity, but Hitler’s eugenics was based on Darwin’s principles of Survival of the Most Fit, and at best Hitler greatly discouraged religion. Even if Hitler based his policies on “religion,” any 6^th grader who has read the Bible knows it has nothing to do with the teachings of Christ (regardless of what the public schools teach). On the other hand, no one can argue that the aforementioned atheistic social systems were in any way a perversion of Darwinism. They were only doing what Darwin himself recognized was the natural result of his teaching (again, see Pearcey’s article). So what is the score of atheism vs. Christianity?

A perverted, so-called Christianity: 264,000 killed over a period of 2000 years.
Consistent atheistic Darwinism: 141 million killed in less than 100 years (almost 50% of all people killed in all of recorded history!) (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM)

Darwin wins 534:1! And Darwinism has barely gotten started! Nor have we even mentioned the roughly 50 million aborted babies in American alone since Roe vs. Wade, nor the one billion in atheist China, all a result of a naturalistic, Darwinistic worldview (the Bible opposes abortion, Darwinism supports it).

On the other side of the coin, how much good has been done in the name of atheism as opposed to that done in the name of religion (specifically “Christianity”)? How many hospitals, medical missionary programs, food distribution programs, poverty relief programs, addiction recovery programs, outreach missions for the homeless, orphan homes, etc. have been established by atheist organizations? You find these in every town and city in the world, and almost always established by Christians. Jesus taught his followers to go out and do good, visit those in prison, help those who are sick, lift up those who are weak, defend the orphan and widow and helpless. Billions of dollars are donated every year by average (often poor) Christians to help others they do not even know. Are there any atheist organizations doing these things? Perhaps helping the fur seals and laboratory rats (think of PITA), but not humans.

Further, how many lives have been transformed for good by Darwinism? How many drug addicts and alcoholics have recovered by turning to Darwin? How many selfish or violent or prideful individuals have been turned into selfless, peaceable, gentle, humble, loving individuals by Darwin? Does Darwinism teach its followers to “love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Eph 5.22f)? Does Darwinism teach its adherents to “Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you” (Eph 4.32)? Millions upon millions of people have dramatically changed their lives after turning to Christ. Can the same be said of people who have turned away from Christ to Darwin? (I must qualify here that I know there are professing Christians that are intolerable, selfish, prideful, hateful bigots, but I am talking about those who have truly turned to Christ and the Bible, not to “Christianity” – there’s a difference.)

Now, all this is not to suggest that all Darwinists are evil, murderous, oppressors of the weak. There are many in this country who are fine human beings, my good friend Robert being one of them. To Robert’s credit, he donates thousands of dollars and his own time to charitable works. But I suggest that Robert is not living according to the principles of Darwin, but rather living on the shirt-tails of the Christian worldview that has dominated the society in which he was raised. Since America is historically a nation founded by Christians and for most of our history our culture has been based on a Biblical worldview, even atheists in this country will have morals similar to those of Christians. That is simply because most people adopt the morals of the society in which they live. My friend Robert , without realizing it, may simply be a “Christian” in his morals, even if he is a Darwinist in his faith. But for how many generations will that continue? The further any society progresses into atheism, the more immoral it becomes (see comment posted by Gardner Hall, March 27th). And as America has become increasingly secular, postmodern, and Darwinist, the daily news testifies to the results.

On a sidenote, Ben Stein (lawyer, economist, former presidential speechwriter, author, social commentator, and general all-around smart guy who happens to have a home in Sandpoint) is releasing a movie entitled "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," which blows the whistle on the suppression of views critical of Darwinism. You can see a trailer at http://www.expelledthemovie.com/ . It will be opening in CDA at the Riverstone on April 18th.