I would like to share with an essay I recently wrote that debates the possibility of whether or not the Theory of Evolution and the Bible can be harmonized. This is the first part (of 3) of a complete essay.
Harvard’s Steven Jay Gould, one of the most prominent and noteworthy scientists in the field of Naturalism, proclaims that those who profess to believe in the Biblical account of creation are “religious fundamentalists, not scientists… [And] professionally trained scientists, virtually to a person, understand the factual basis of evolution and don’t dispute it” (Ashton). James Sire, a Christian, agrees with him when he writes: “Evolution by natural causes is a fact. Nature did it… [E]volution is a fact. End of story” (99). And he adds that if we venture to question the facts of evolution, we “only give evolutionists further evidence that we Christians are benighted ignoramuses—just as they have always thought” (105). The very foundation of modern science sits upon the shoulders of the Theory of Evolution, so who are we to question it? We must conclude that the idea that God created using naturalistic means is our only and best explanation. But Hank Hanegraaff, a brilliant scientist himself and a formidable textual critic says this alternative is impossible: “If Theistic Evolution is true, Genesis is at best an allegory and at worst a farce. And if Genesis is an allegory or a farce, the rest of the Bible becomes irrelevant. If Adam did not eat the forbidden fruit and fall into a life of constant sin terminated by death, there is no need for redemption” (Hanegraaff 79).
This raises a massive question of authority: is evolution and its ‘overwhelming evidence’ true, or is the historical account of God to be taken literally? As will be shown, the needed answer to our origins, in the end, comes down not to the question of evidence, but to that of authority—to agree with evolution on any level is to call into question God’s character, his Word, and to take an ax to the very foundation of our faith—the Gospel. Although many Christians want to leave this up to science and just ignore Hanegraaff’s bold statement, there are consequences to this carefree attitude. The ideas of evolution (including Theistic Evolution) and the Word cannot be harmonized—they mutually contradict themselves. Logically, one must be right and the other wrong.
The Theory of Evolution as developed by Charles Darwin in 1859 through his book The Origin of Species was a world-changing event that took the world by surprise. Ultimately it fulfilled its goal, to be able to define through natural explanation (by using blind, random processes) human origins without the involvement of an intelligent designer. Today Darwin’s teaching has become the foundation of science, the unquestionable base from which sprouts all other modern science. The overwhelming success of this theory has also given people the grounds to, as Dawkins did, become “an intellectually fulfilled atheist” (Isaak). It can easily be stated that the Theory of Evolution was involved in the growth of every major modern scientific realm.
In the 1800’s, Francis Galton was heavily influenced by his older cousin, Charles Darwin, and went on to develop the idea of Eugenics (which means “well born” in Greek) which unquestionably gave Hitler the intellectual freedom to build his “super race” in Germany, as he outlined in his book Mein Kampf. Because of this, Maser explains that “Darwin was the general source for Hitler’s notions in Biology, worship, force, and struggle, and of his rejection of moral causality in history” (Creation Studies). Eleven million people lay dead because of Hitler’s ideology. Is this an exception?
The father of communism, Karl Marx, used Darwin’s ideas in order to intellectually rid himself of God and to have the grounds to begin killing off Christians in the early Soviet Union. As he was in prison in 1860, he read The Origin of Species and with it began to form his own ideology. Such was his affection to Darwin (whom lived in the same era) that he sent a copy of his book, Das Kapital, with the inscription: “a devoted admirer.” It is also said that Marx wished to dedicate his book to Darwin (MacArthur 15). If it had ended there, there would be no real reason to wonder what the implications of Darwinism were.
In due course, Joseph Stalin came on the scene at the time of WWII, and the deadly ideas of Darwin and Marx combined turned him into the murderer that rid the Soviet Union of thirty million humans (Hanegraaff 12). He was one of the cruelest people to ever live and his fuel was a deep hatred towards God and Christianity. He once stated: “I’ll lend you a book to read, it will show you that the world and all living things are quite different from what you imagine, and all this talk about God is sheer nonsense,” referring of course to The Origin of Species (Creation Studies).
Now in the area of psychology and specifically sexuality, Freud stands out and it is apparent that he based his thought process on Darwin’s as well. He gave the world the sexual freedom it wanted, yet not without driving some modern consequences: divorce, homosexuality, AIDS, and most importantly, abortion. It cannot be argued against the claim that the center of Freud’s ideas came from Darwin (as well as from Huxley and Marx). Forty-three million children and counting are dead because of the intellectual freedom to abort, even though it is morally and scientifically wrong (Hanegraaff 7-8, 12).
A relatively unknown yet interesting character is Thomas Huxley who was also heavily influenced by Darwin (through “survival of the fittest”) and one could go so far as to claim that the modern problems with racism and sexism can be greatly attributed to Huxley and Darwin. Of many shocking things, Huxley wrote that “no rational man…believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man…” (Hanegraaff 9-10). This came from Darwin when he stated that in the future “civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world” (13) and then Darwin makes a claim about sexism: “we may infer… [That] the average of mental power in man must be above that of woman.” Shocking! A look at the once-leading paleontologist H. F. Osborn makes this stand out as a basic characteristic of evolution when he agrees with Darwin and Huxley, saying, “[T]he standard of intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old youth…” (77).
Although these are some side-effects of evolution, the central goal of it seems imply the need to get rid of God and religion in a real way through atheism. To this we must look at men like Friedrich Nietzsche, Karl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens—all atheists who base their claims on the fact of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution (MacArthur 14-16). Nietzsche and Sagan can be seen as a sample. Nietzsche, probably better than anyone, embodied the hatred towards Christianity and God that most Atheists share. He truly was one of the few evolutionists to take it to its logical conclusion: nihilism. It centers on the idea that man has come from nothing and is nothing, so there is therefore no purpose to life whatsoever and man has no value. Sagan put words to this, writing, “Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves” (15). This leads to suicide and utter hopelessness and despair, a modern trend that is on the rise.
How many humans have died because of the ideas of Nietzsche, Freud, Stalin, Hitler, and ultimately Darwin? It may be thought as foolishness to say such a thing, but it is well within the evidence to claim that Charles Darwin, through his influence on modern science, may have been the greatest murderer in the history of the world. In what alone has been covered, he is directly and indirectly accountable for well over one-hundred million deaths worldwide in the last one-hundred and fifty years!
Therefore it should be no wonder that not even ten percent of our country takes the Theory of Evolution (when it excludes God) to be absolutely true. Yet it is taught in our schools as law, and those who stand up to oppose this inhumanely cruel ideology are absolutely crushed.
Biologist Helena Curtis shows this to be true by giving the typical response of a naturalists by stating: “Among Biologists, there is almost-unanimous agreement that evolution has occurred in the past and continues to occur today” (Creation Studies). John Ashton expounds on the idea and restates the position of S.J. Gould and E. Mayr (the leading Naturalists today) in that they don’t believe any scientist would reject the idea of evolution and attempt to describe it by using a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 (Ashton 5). If this is true, then we have serious reasons to doubt whether or not there is a God at all! Even from the Christians we hear the same, as Sire states that “whatever conflict there may be is not between the Bible and science but between our theology and scientific theory,” and later he writes, “there is a massive amount of evidence…pointing to an ancient origin of both the universe and the earth” (101, 103). Their stance is empirical: either you believe in evolution or you are at fault.
Is there an alternative? To be continued…
Note: The works cited will be given at the end of the parts of this essay. Also, this essay cannot be quoted unless it is cited correctly.