Q. I find it very hard to convince evolution-believing friends that evolution is not science but philosophical or religious faith. Do you have any suggestions?

A. You will find that most people at sometime fall into the illusion of believing that faith is facts because they are so convinced - the evidence notwithstanding - of the truth of their belief. It is usually in the area of faith - where there are no hard facts - that people quarrel the most. This is understandable between religionists - but when scientists claim that their faith is science, then we must take strong exception and expose their lying. And as I am myself a scientist (Biochemist and Systems Analyst) I feel I have the right to make some pretty hard-hitting statements of fact.

Some systems of belief are, as we know, utterly ridiculous and have been long-ago disproved. And yet there are still fools who believe that the earth is flat notwithstanding the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Frankly, I find evolution doctrine one of the silliest (were is not a matter of salvation, the funniest) ideas ever invented by supposedly smart people. American writer Mark Twain (who was, incidentally, an atheist, but a good logical thinker), made sport of the evolutionists in this way:

"In the space of 176 years, the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself 242 miles. That is an average of a trifle over a mile and a third per year. Therefore any calm person who is not blind or idiotic can see that in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi was upward of 1,300,000 miles long and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing rod. And by the same token, any person can see that 742 years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three quarters long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined their streets together and be plodding along comfortably under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen. There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact" (Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried, Delta, New York, 1971, pp.37-38).

Dr. J.C.Whitcomb made this humorous comparison between Hebrews 11:3 and the evolutionists creed:

"By faith, we evolutionists understand that the worlds were framed not by the word of any personal God, but were brought into existence through endless ages of time by purely natural processes, from simple to complex, without any miracles at all, so that all things which are seen were indeed made by previously existing, visible, simpler, physical entities" (The Creator and His Methods, in the series The Bible and Science, Send the Light, Bromley, Kent, England, tape-recording).

The more honest evolutionists (and there aren't many of them) admit:

"The concept of organic evolution is very highly prized by biologists, for many of whom it is an object of genuinely religious devotion, because they regard it as a supreme integrative principle. This is probably the reason why severe methodological criticism has not yet been brought to bear on evolutionary speculation" (Norman Macbeth, ibid., p.127).

We need not be intimidated by the accusation of evolutionists that Creationism is religious whereas Evolutionism is scientific. It's sheer nonsense. The truth of the matter is that both are religious and neither can be proved by the scientific method. What we can do is show that the facts of science fit the creationist model a lot better. The rationale of evolutionists has been repeated often enough and we ought therefore to remind ourselves why evolution exists as a speculation in the first place:

"Our faith in the idea of evolution depends upon our reluctance to accept the antagonistic doctrine of special creation" (Professor L.T.More, University of Cincinnati, in his book, The Dogma of Evolution).

You see, evolutionists don't subscribe to evolution because they sincerely believe the facts fit the evolutionary model better than the special creation one but because they do not want to accept the implications of what would be required of them by God should special creationism be established as the more reasonable hypothesis. It is, in short, nothing less than wilful rebellion and not an honest search for truth. And thus they must live by faith that evolution is true and special creation is not...in order not to have to live the kind of life Yahweh expects of them. And many evolutionists have admitted their preference for evolution because it gives them the imagined "right" to a more promiscuous sex life, with no accountability to a Creator. A poor delusion indeed with terrible consequences in the next life.

"Most biologists accept it [evolution] as though it were a proven fact, although this conviction rests on circumstantial evidence. It forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature" (L.H.Matthews, in the introduction to the 1971 edition of Darwin's, Origin of Species).

We may summarise the biological evolutionary hypothesis as follows: "The fossils hoped for, the evidence of missing links not seen" (cp. Heb.11:1, KJV).

Dr. A.J. Monty White writes:

"In view of evolution's need for faith, it has, naturally, many of the characteristics of a religion. If you believe in evolution, whether you realise it or not, it affects your whole way of life - your unbelief in a personal God who is the Creator of heaven and earth; your unbelief in the Bible as the authoritative Word of God; your unbelief in Jesus Christ [Yah'shua haMashiach], the Son of the living God; your unbelief in salvation by the atoning death of Jesus Christ [Yah'shua haMashiach] on the cross on Calvary; your unbelief in duty towards God and man; your unbelief in a moral code of conduct and so on. You have only to consider the régimes of Fascism (e.g. Hitler) and Communism which are built upon evolutionary ideas to see that this is so. Furthermore, the plain fact that you if you do not accept evolution you are treated as a heretic is proof enough that evolution is a religion" (What About Origins? Dunestone Printers, Kingsteinton, Devon, England, 1978, pp.12-13).

This page was created on 22 January 2001 Last updated on 22 January 2001

Copyright © 1987-2008 NCCG - All Rights Reserved