Loading

Creation Factsheet No. 52: The Faith of the Evolutionist

Factsheet No. 52

THE FAITH OF THE EVOLUTIONIST

Evolutionists often react vehemently when creationists say that they accept their theory by faith, and that both creation and evolution are 'faith positions'. In a joint article, well-known atheist Dr. Richard Dawkins, and the Rt. Rev. Richard Harries, Bishop of Oxford wrote, 'Evolution is not a faith position. Like the 'theory' that the earth is round and not flat, evolution is supported by mountains of scientific evidence.... Evolution is a fact..'1 Despite this claim, many evolutionists have made statements which reveal that evolution is not really science but a religion.

A BELIEF SYSTEM

Professor Michael Ruse has written, 'Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality.... Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.'2 In 1935, Sir Arthur Keith wrote, 'A belief in evolution is a basal doctrine in the Rationalists' Liturgy.'3 In his introduction to the 1971 edition of Darwin's Origin of Species, Prof. Harrison Matthews wrote, 'Belief in the theory of evolution [is] exactly parallel to belief in special creation... a satisfactory faith on which to build our interpretation of nature.' Professor L. T. More of the University of Cincinnati wrote, 'Our faith in the idea of evolution depends upon our reluctance to accept the antagonistic doctrine of special creation.'4 More recently, Scott C. Todd wrote, 'Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.'5 These quotes clearly reveal that evolution is a belief system — a philosophy, but not science!

SOMETHING FROM NOTHING

The 'big bang' theory is often discussed as though it were a proven fact. In reality, it is a faith position. Edward P. Tyron wrote: 'So I conjectured that our universe had its physical origin as a quantum fluctuation from some pre-existing... state of nothingness.'6 (emphasis added). In May 2004 a group of scientists issued a statement attacking the dominance of the big bang model. They wrote, 'The big bang theory can claim no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation', and that only 'fudge factors' keep the theory alive. They claimed that the theory 'relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities — things that we have never observed.'7 But this is really no more scientific than believing that in the beginning God created the universe out of nothing. The question is: which is the more reasonable faith, 'In the beginning nothing exploded' or 'In the beginning God created...'?

LIFE'S ORIGIN

In no area of the origins issue to evolutionists exercise more faith than when they talk about life's origin. Secular scientists must believe that life arose from non-living matter — whether here on earth or somewhere else. Yet, many of them admit there is no evidence for this. Dr. Francis Crick, Nobel Prize-winner, and co-discoverer of the DNA structure, wrote, 'An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions, which would have had to be have been satisfied to get it going.'8

Picture Showing an Explosion in Space

Dr. Harold Urey, and Nobel Prize-winner, wrote: 'We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet.'9 Dr. G. A. Kerkut of Southampton University, wrote, 'It is... a matter of faith on the part of the biologist that biogenesis did occur.'10

The experiments of Francesco Redi in the 17th century and Louis Pasteur in the 19th century demonstrated conclusively that spontaneous generation cannot happen, yet secular evolutionists still believe it did. Why? Dr. George Wald of Harvard University gives the astonishing answer: 'Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds: therefore we choose to believe in the impossible, that life arose spontaneously by chance.'11

Picture of Pasteur Working on an Experiment

Louis Pasteur: showed that life only comes from life

FAITH IN MISSING FOSSILS

Despite claims that 'evolution is a fact', many well-known apologists for evolution have admitted that the evidence they most want is missing, namely a progression of fossils from 'simple' organisms to humans. In his Origin, Charles Darwin wrote that the gaps in the geological record were 'the most serious objection' to his theory. He hoped the missing fossils would be found, but in 1979 Professor David Raup of Chicago wrote, '.. ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time.'12 The fossil record starts abruptly with the 'Cambrian Explosion' — the fossils of a profusion of complex creatures. Dr. Richard Dawkins wrote, 'It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.'13 Surely, then, it is an act of faith on Dr. Dawkins' part to believe that they evolved when there is no evidence that they did.

Picture of the Evolutionary Tree

Molecular biologist Dr. Michael Denton wrote, 'Without intermediates or transitional forms to bridge the enormous gaps which separate existing species and groups of organisms, the concept of evolution could never be taken seriously as a scientific hypothesis.'14 Denton concluded, 'Ultimately, the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century.'15 Our faith is summed up in these words from the Bible; “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.” (Hebrews 11:3)


REFERENCES:

  1. “Questionable Foundations”, Sunday Times (Education Section), 20th June 2004, p. 12.
  2. How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 13th May 2000.
  3. Darwinism and Its Critics (1935), p. 53.
  4. The Dogma of Evolution, 1925, p. 304.
  5. Nature, 30th September 1999
  6. New Scientist, 8th March 1984, p. 15.
  7. www.cosmologystatement.org (also printed in the New Scientist)
  8. Life Itself, 1981, p. 88.
  9. Christian Science Monitor, January 4, 1962, p. 4.
  10. Implication of Evolution, Pergamon Press, p. 150.
  11. Scientific American, 1954.
  12. Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, January 1979, p. 22.
  13. The Blind Watchmaker, W W Norton, 1987, p. 229.
  14. Evolution: a Theory in Crisis, Burnett Books, 1985, p. 158.
  15. Ref. 14, p. 358.

Factsheets published regularly by Creation Resources Trust, P.O. Box 3237, Yeovil, BA22 7WD.

(Registered charity No. 1016666) Further copies can be downloaded from our website. www.c-r-t.co.uk © 2004

Quickly Find the Next Factsheet that Interests You!!