Part II - Commandment 1: Thou Shall Have No Other gods before Me

Download The Full Audio MP3 below: Right click then Save Target As
Evolution-Part 2.mp3


In part 1, I ended by saying, “In part II, I will show that a pre-commitment to the theory of evolution is the least of the evolutionist problems.” What then is the biggest problem facing the evolutionist? To answer this question we will need to take a look at history again and to note that Darwin was not the first person to forward a naturalistic explanation of the world and universe. Actually the idea existed long before Darwin ever came on the scene. The title belongs to a long list of philosophers. In 1860, one year after the publishing of “On the Origin” of Species, Richard Owen took offense to the publishing of the book in the Edinburgh Review. Mr. Owen basically said to Charles Darwin, you make it sound like you came up with this theory. Charles Darwin’s naturalistic explanation of the world and the existence of the different species we see was anticipated by philosophers like Kant and Spinoza and Fichte and Hegel, Krause, Feuerbach, Diderot, Buchner, Engels, Lametrie and d’Holbach. All these philosophers had beaten Darwin to the punch. So let’s not mince words here, Darwinism; the theory of Evolution, was philosophical, not scientific in its origin. Darwin merely gave the theory a mechanism, mainly natural selection, through which the things that philosophers had proposed could be accomplished.

So now here we have it, a well respected scientist piggy-backing on the work of Philosophers - talk about strange bed fellows. I am also sorry to say that the product of this un-holy union has been surmounted over and over again by strong arguments, past and present; yet people still maintain it.

The Evolutionist can still not explain:
• The mechanism of evolution
• The taxonomic gaps in the fossil record.
• The appearance of matter
• The emergence of life
• The emergence of self-conscious intelligence
• The emergence of morality
• The eternality of matter given entropy.
The theory of evolution cannot avoid contradictions with known principles of genetics. And so I feel justified in maintaining what I proposed in Part 1, that the evolutionists have a pre-commitment to the theory and are just as dogmatic in their faithful following of the worldview as they were back in the days of Darwin and Huxley.

A prime example of this is one Theodosius Dobzhansky, a modern proponent of the theory of evolution living in “our time” (he died in 1977). He said that I can explain evolution, “If the assumption is made that life arose from non-life only once.” That’s great but talk about a tall order; I can make a million dollars if you give me a million dollars just once. Again this is a modern proponent and one of the best known. Darwin’s theory of evolution merely gives these philosophical pre-supposition a veneer of scientific respectability, but not scientific at its core.

Furthermore we should note that Darwinism is not something men hold to because of empirical evidence. In 1985 Michael Denton wrote in his book, “A Theory in Crisis,” “There can be no question that Darwin had nothing like sufficient evidence to establish his theory of Evolution.” When Darwin published his book, no evolution of species was directly observed in the natural order nor was there direct evidence that natural selection had caused any new biological organisms. Darwin himself wrote that, “The infinitude of connecting links in the natural order was crucial to his theory.” He went on to admit that he was unable to prove even one. Everything the theory called for to be scientific was missing down to the point that when Darwin explained natural selection he said, “let me beg my reader to offer a couple of hypothetical examples.” Does this sound like Science to you? Let me offer you a hypothetical example of how we can cure cancer. The theory of evolution if firmly planted on something other than Science.

Let’s press the theory even more: Have you ever thought of this; the theory of evolution has not been empirically derived but also that it cannot be demonstrated scientifically either? We can’t go back and observe the evolution of the species. We can’t observe the evolution of new species now because it takes such long periods of time to reach fruition. So then the theory must always remain somewhat speculative. In 1977 Stephen Jay Gould wrote in the journal, Paleobiology, “The general preference that so many of us hold for gradualism is a metaphysical stand embedded in the history of western culture. It is not a high order empirical observation induced from the objective study of Nature.” Please note that this man testifies in court cases against the teaching of Intelligent design in schools because it is not science, but that he himself freely admits that the theory of evolution is a philosophical stand not based on observation (metaphysics, the study of being is a branch of philosophy).

But the worst is yet to come because it turns out that when philosophers turned to investigate the theory of evolution as a scientific theory; it was not found to be a scientific theory… at all. We look out at the world and we see a vast number of different types of species, from germs to carrots to birds, flowers, weeds, whales, goats, tigers, eagles, man, woman and on and on it goes. So how did such a profuse variety of species come about? It is actually caught quite nicely in the title of Darwin’s book, On the Origin of Species. That title is actually abbreviated; the title of the book is, ‘On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.’ Given the struggle for existence and preservation in this world, those species which are most fit, those which are best adapted to the environment will survive to reproduce their kind.
The less fit will be replaced by the most fit through the process which Darwin called natural selection. And so organisms will get more advanced over time.

Do you understand what the theory is? What’s the problem with it? Let see if we can put it down with one philosophical shot to the head. Whenever a theory relates one class of things to another, whether by identity or by causation or whatever, the relationship really isn’t that important. Whenever you say, this class of things is related to this class of things (any philosopher will tell you this), the only way to test that theory is to independently verify the different classes. Let me illustrate:
If I were to say to you, all the kindest people in this world are Christians; kind people (the first class) is related to Christians (the second class) by kindness. The only way I can test that theory is by independently verifying the person’s Christianity and the person’s kindness. You show me a kind person and I say to you, she is a Christian and you would say, now wait a minute; you have to first find out if she is a Christian. You bring me a Christian and I say to you, there sits a kind person; you would say wait a second you have to first verify the person’s kindness. You get the point. Let’s go back to evolution; Darwin said that the fittest organisms will survive. But Darwin’s theory never established an independent criterion for what constitutes a “fit” organism. There was not an independent way to test which organism was the fittest organism apart from looking at which animals survived. And thus it is not a testable theory in any scientific sense it is only what is called a trivial verbal truth. That is, you are just repeating your commitment to the idea that only the fittest will survive. So whenever I bring you a survivor, evolutionists will just say, well that’s just because it was the fittest. At that point I will cry out, no, no, no you must first verify it is the fittest. Now I know some of you are screaming out there right now that actually, scientists do have a criterion for what constitute a fit organism. And yes it is true that if you were to dig a little you will find some scientist that have forwarded theories for testing fitness and they have all failed. Furthermore, in the nature of the case, they will always fail. Here is why: Let’s say we are studying a pack of wolves and in this pack we notice one wolf with overdeveloped back legs. That wolf can run faster than any other wolf and so will be a lot more efficient at catching prey and surviving. Conversely, the wolves with the less developed back legs will surely die off from starvation when times are hard; perhaps the Gazelles (their prey) are themselves evolving. Looks like a pretty good scientific theory right; you can test it and so forth? That is until you remember that living organisms are highly developed and interdependent biological organisms and that the highly developed back legs of that wolf might put such a strain on its heart that it might have a heart attack. Incidentally, this happen all the time in the real world. So how are we going to know if the wolf with the highly developed back legs is more fit that the other wolves? It’s all going to depend on if he survives. And we are right back to survival of the fittest which really means the survival of the… survivors.

Darwin never offered the world a scientific theory my friends; although the smoke and mirrors game has been used by its proponents to dress it up as such. This was never a scientific theory. It was a perspective, a philosophy that was imposed on the facts rather than something which arose from or could be tested by the facts. So it might not surprise you, although it ought to anger you that Darwin’s theory of survival or the forming of new species by natural selection has been quietly abandoned by our universities and if the terminology is still used it has been redefined.

The theory of evolution is not scientific, never was and never will be. And I have shown that even as a philosophical world view, cogent logic is noticeably absent from the theory; yet I am sure many of you will take issue with that. I want to hear from you; let’s keep the dialogue going and until part III of the presentation, where I will deal with the evidence behind the theory, until such time, goodbye.

Part I - Commandment 1: Thou Shall Have No Other gods before Me

Download The Full Audio MP3 below: Right click then Save Target As
Evolution - Part 1.mp3


To the left is a picture of the new Holy Scriptures. The textbook for the Atheist; it has become quite a monument in today's society and quite a formidable foe, but is it...

What makes the theory of evolution so formidable is the claim that it is scientific and, like it or not, we live in a time when the scientists of our day speak ex-cathedra; infallibly like the Roman Catholic Pope. Indeed it is true that scientists do important work and have contributed a great deal to our understanding of our surroundings. And so yes, I do place a lot of value on what scientist have to say. Let’s not forget however, that scientists just like the rest of us are susceptible to their own prejudice. All of us, without exception, wear glasses. So then, do the evolutionists wield a big stick? Is the theory of evolution scientific? To answer this question we have to look at what constitutes a study that is scientific. To be sure there are many approaches to science but let me offer five guidelines that are typically employed by scientists when studying a phenomena.

1. The scientist must not go beyond the natural order. Supernatural explanations are strictly prohibited.
2. The scientist must view all facts as a “brute fact.” Not personal or oriented to a goal. In other words, don’t have an ultimate goal when you engage in scientific inquiry. FYI the fancy word for this is teleological: not oriented to a specific goal. Christians believe in a teleological world in that everything in it is oriented to serve God’s glory.
3. Science ought not to be religious in nature. People expect scientists to be open minded and without prejudice.
4. Scientific theories are tested in an observational way; no speculations.
5. Scientific theories are not propounded dogmatically. They are always open to being tested by our observations.
[Taken from Greg Bahnsen’s speech on Evolution.]

I am sure you can probably add a few more guidelines to this list but I think you would all agree that this is a pretty good starting point. Notice how the list restrains the scientist because remember, in this first presentation, we are looking at the history and proponents of the theory of evolution.

The publishing of Charles Darwin’s book, “On the Origin of Species” in 1859, represents a significant turning point in the history of mankind. I think it is right up there with the protestant reformation quite frankly. And it was significant because if man can be understood in a completely naturalistic way, then what need is there for theistic explanations. You see the ramifications here; we get to do away with those pesky Christians once and for all. Charles Hodge, the well known Princeton theologian wrote a book titled “What is Darwinism” and he answered: simply put Darwinism is Atheism. In 1857 Darwin ended a trip he took to the Galapagos Islands then in the two years leading up to his formulation of the theory of evolution, he came to declare in his personal life his rejection of everlasting punishment. Darwin said, “It is a damnable doctrine” to believe that God would damn people for all eternity. He also rejected the Gospels, you know, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and by implication the whole of the New Testament because of the story of miracles they contain [The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, 5th ed. (London, 1869), p. 571.]. Why is all this important? It is important because you should know that Darwin himself was not neutral and objective, he had an axe to grind. He was not indifferent or neutral on religious claims. This same Darwin also said of special creation, and I quote, that it is, “a curious illustration of the blindness of preconceived opinions.” He also said that, “No shadow of reason can be assigned to the belief that variations in the natural order were intentionally and specifically guided.” [The Variations of Animals and Plants Under Domestication (New York: 1868), II, 515-516].I ask you, does this sound like an objective scientist to you? Remarkably we hear this sort of sentiment today. Alfred Wallace, the man who co-formulated the theory of evolution with Darwin, broke with Darwin and declared that natural selection does not apply to man. Wallace said, “A superior intelligence has guided the development of man for a special purpose and for a special reason.” Now pay attention here: When Darwin got wind of this, he called it, “a disdainful anchoring for miracles” and a lack of nerves on Wallace’s part [Morton O. Beckner, "Darwinism," EP, II, 300-301; cf. T.A. Goudge, "Wallace, Alfred Russell," EP, VIII, 276.]. You see from the very beginning evolutionists have made it very clear that evolution is anti religious in its nature. In 1873 President Bernard of Columbia University explained that if evolution were true, the existence of God would be impossible [Cited in Loren Eisley, Darwin's Century (New York: Doubleday & Co., 1958), p. 193.]. The German Materialist Dr. L Buckner went on to say, that is what the theory does, it proves there is no god.

Let me further drive this point home: T.H. Huxley, the man who was called “Darwin’s bulldog,” said (and you are going to love this), “Yet I found that, whatever route I took, before long I came to a tall formidable-looking fence. Confident as I might be in the existence of an ancient and indefeasible right of way, before me stood the thorny barrier with its comminatory notice board - "No thoroughfare - By order, Moses."... The only alternatives were to give up my journey which I was not minded to do - or to break the fence down and go”[Science and Christian Tradition, cited in Jones, loc. Cit.]. When you hear defenders of the theory speak in this way with the linguistic flair that he employs, it should be obvious that when people say the theory of evolution is just a neutral attempt to explain things, that they are not telling you the whole story. Let me quote Huxley one more time: On the Origin of the Species Huxley said, “it is a flash of light which to a man who has lost himself in a dark night suddenly reveals a road that whether it takes him home or not, certainly goes his way” [Life and Letters of T.H. Huxley, ed. Leonard Husley, 2nd ed. (London: 1903), I, 245-246.]. Well, need I say more; Darwinism was going his way. Let me tell you a true story, In 1981 the British Natural History Museum created an exhibit on Darwin's theory. The museum stated that evolution was "one possible explanation" as to "why there are so many different kinds of living things"; it also noted that "the concept of evolution by natural selection is not strictly speaking scientific" because it had not been empirically demonstrated. This honest skepticism caused such anger, there was such an uproar both politically and otherwise that the museum had to eliminate any mention of the problems with Darwinism. This theory is now a god, laying down laws; you shall not have any other gods before me. This is not science and its proponents are more analogous to clergy than they are to scientist. Today this law is still in effect: There is a movie out right now called, “Expelled – No Intelligence Allowed” and in this movie one of the proponents of Darwin’s theory said this, I’m paraphrasing here, “If we allow intelligent design to be taught in schools then the church will seize upon the opportunity to reintroduce religion into our most sacred place for learning. I can’t predict the future, maybe this guy is right but when have scientists ever been concerned about the repercussions of seeking the truth? How is this in any way scientific?

So then, what shall we say to all this? Are the historic and present proponents of Darwin’s theory interested in true science? I think I have pretty much shown, and you might want to debate me on this, that what you smell right now is proof that indeed something is rotten in Denmark. Charles Darwin and followers of his theory aren’t in the least bit concerned about the truth. They have a commitment to the annihilation of all things theistic. In part II of this presentation I will show that a pre-commitment to the theory of evolution is the least of the evolutionist problems (the very thing that is forbidden when doing science) and that the system itself leaves much to be desired, logically speaking. I look forward to your comments and until part II of this presentation, goodbye.

COPYRIGHT 2008 POLITICAL AGENDA