ORG:Evolution is RELIGION not SCIENCE  by Henry M. Morris

   Institute for Creation Research

Dr. Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.

   Evolutionists often insist that evolution is a proved fact of
science, providing the very framework of scientific interpretation,
especially in the biological sciences. This of course, is nothing but
wishful thinking. Evolution is not even a scientific hypothesis, since
there is no conceivable way in which it can be tested.

   THE RELIGIOUS ESSENCE OF EVOLUTIONISM

   As a matter of fact, many leading evolutionists have recognized the
essentially "religious" character of evolutionism. Even though they
themselves believe evolution to be true, they acknowledge the fact that
they believe it! "Science", however, is not supposed to be something
one "believes". Science is knowledge - that which can be demonstrated
and observed and `repeated. Evolution cannot be proved, or even tested;
it can only be believed. For example, two leading evolutionary
biologists have described modern neo-Darwinism as "part of an
evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training". A
prominent British biologist, a Fellow of the Royal Society, in the
Introduction to the 1971 edition of Darwin's Origin of Species said
that "belief in the theory of evolution" was "exactly parallel to
belief in special creation", with evolution merely "a satisfactory
faith on which to base our interpretation of nature". G.W. Harper calls
it a "metaphysical belief". Ernst Mayr, the outstanding Harvard
evolutionary biologist, calls evolution "man's world view today". Sir
Julian Huxley, probably the outstanding evolutionist of the twentieth
century saw "evolution as a universal and all-pervading process and, in
fact, nothing less than "the whole of reality". A leading evolutionary
geneticist of the present day, writing an obituary for Theodosius
Dobzhansky, who himself was probably the nation's leading evolutionist
at the time of his death in 1975, says that Dobzhansky's view of
evolution followed that of the notorious Jesuit priest, de Chardin. The
place of biological evolution in human thought was, according to
Dobzhansky, best expressed in a passage that he often quoted from
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin: '(Evolution) is a general postulate to
which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must henceforward bow
and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true.
Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which
all lines of thought must follow.' The British physicist, H.S. Lipson,
has reached the following conclusion. In fact, evolution became in a
sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and
many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it. The
man whom Dobzhansky called "France's leading zoologist", although
himself an evolutionist, said that scientists should "destroy the myth
of evolution" as a simple phenomenon which is "unfolding before us".
Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of
Natural History, by any accounting one of the world's top evolutionists
today, has recently called evolution "positively anti-knowledge",
saying that "all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as
revealed truth". In another address he called evolution "story
telling". All of the above-cited authorities are (or were) among the
world's foremost authorities on evolutionism. Note again the terms
which they use in describing evolution.

   Evolutionary dogma A scientific religion A satisfactory faith The
myth of evolution Man's world view Anti-knowledge All-pervading process
Revealed truth The whole of reality An illuminating light Metaphysical
belief Story-telling

   Charles Darwin himself called evolution "this grand view of life".
Now such grandiloquent terms as these are not scientific terms! One
does not call the law of gravity, for example, "a satisfactory faith."
Evolutions' very comprehensiveness makes it impossible even to test
scientifically. As Ehrlich and Birch have said: "Every conceivable
observation can be fitted into it. No one can think of ways in which to
test it.

   RELIGIONS BASED ON EVOLUTION

   In view of the fundamentally religious nature of evolution, it is
not surprising to find that most of the world religions are themselves
based on evolution. It is certainly unfitting for educators to object
to teaching scientific creationism in public schools on the ground that
it supports Biblical Christianity when the existing pervasive teaching
of evolution is supporting a host of other religions and philosophies.
The concept of evolution did not originate with Charles Darwin. It has
been the essential ingredient of all pagan religions and philosophies
from time immemorial (e.g., atomism, pantheism, stoicism, gnosticism
and all other humanistic and polytheistic systems). All beliefs which
assume the ultimacy of the space/time/matter universe, presupposing
that the universe has existed from eternity, are fundamentally
evolutionary systems. The cosmos, with its innate laws and forces, is
the only ultimate reality. Depending on the sophistication of the
system, the forces of the universe may be personified as gods and
goddesses who organized the eternal chaotic cosmos into its present
form (as in ancient Babylonian and Egyptian religions), or else may
themselves be invested with organizing capabilities (as in modern
scientific evolutionism). In all such cases, these are merely different
varieties of the fundamental evolutionist world view, the essential
feature of which is the denial that there is one true God and Creator
of all things. In this perspective, it becomes obvious that most of the
great world religions - Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Hinduism,
Animism, etc. are based on evolution. Creationism is the basis of only
such systems as Orthodox Judaism, Islam, Catholicism and Protestantism,
as well as most modern pseudo-Christian cults, are all based on
evolution. All of this points up the absurdity of banning creationist
teaching from the schools on the basis that it is religious. The
schools are already saturated with the teaching of religion in the
guise of evolutionary "science". In the modern school of course, this
teaching mostly takes the form of secular humanism, which its own
proponents claim to be a "non- theistic religion". It should also be
recalled that such philosophies as communism, fascism, socialism,
nazism, and anarchism have been claimed by their founders and promoters
to be based on what they regard as scientific evolutionism. If creation
is excluded from the schools because it is compatible with Christian
"fundamentalism", should not evolution also be banned since it is the
basis of communism and nazism?

   THE SCIENTIFIC IRRELEVANCE OF EVOLUTION

   Some people have deplored the of evolution on the ground that this
is attacking science itself. In a recent debate, the evolutionist whom
the writer debated did not attempt to give any scientific evidences for
evolution, electing instead to spend his time defending such scientific
concepts as atomic theory, relativity, gravity, quantum theory and
science in general, stating tantamount to attacking science! The fact
is, however, that the elimination of evolutionary interpretations from
science would hardly be noticed at all, in terms of real scientific
understanding and accomplishment. G.W. Harper comments on this subject
as follows: It is frequently claimed that Darwinism is central to
modern biology. On the contrary, if all references to Darwinism
suddenly disappeared, biology would remain substantially unchanged. It
would merely have lost a little color. Grandiose doctrines in science
are like some occupants of high office; they sound very important but
have in fact been promoted to a position of ineffectuality. The
scientific irrelevance of evolutionism has been strikingly (but, no
doubt, inadvertently) illustrated in a recent issue of Science News.
This widely read and highly regarded weekly scientific journal was
commemorating its sixtieth anniversary, and this included a listing of
what it called the "scientific highlights" of the past sixty years. Of
the sixty important scientific discoveries and accomplishments which
were chosen, only six could be regarded as related in any way to
evolutionist thought. These six were as follows:

   (1.) 1927. Discovery that radiation increases mutation rates in
fruit flies. (2.) 1943. Demonstration that nucleic acids carry genetic
information. (3.) 1948. Enunciation of the "big bang" cosmology. (4.)
1953. Discovery of the "double helix" structure of DNA. (5.) 1961.
First step taken in cracking the genetic code. (6.) 1973. Development
of procedures for producing recombinant DNA molecules.

   Four of these six "highlights" are related to the structure and
function of DNA. Even though evolutionists have supposed that these
concepts somehow correlate with evolution, the fact is that the
remarkable DNA molecule provides strong evidence of original creation
(since it is far too complex to have arisen by chance) and of
conservation of that creation (since the genetic code acts to guarantee
reproduction of the same kind, not evolution of new kinds). One of the
two other highlights showed how to increase mutations but, since all
known true mutations are harmful, this contributed nothing whatever to
the understanding of evolution. One (the "big bang" concept) was indeed
an evolutionary idea but it is still an idea which has never been
proved and today is increasingly being recognized as incompatible with
basic physical laws. Consequently, it is fair to conclude that no truly
significant accomplishment of modern science either depends on
evolution or supports evolution! There would certainly be no detriment
to real scientific learning if creation in school curricula. It would
on the other hand, prove a detriment to the pervasive religion of
atheistic humanism which now controls our schools.
