THE EFFECT OF DARWINISM ON MORALITY AND CHRIS

Natzal kirjoitti:

THE EFFECT OF DARWINISM ON MORALITY AND CHRISTIANITY

by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.


It sometimes is claimed that one can be both a Darwinist
and a Christian (Miller). Others argue that religion and Darwinism are
incompatible because they are separate fields that should not be intermixed
(Gould). In fact, the Darwinism worldview leads directly to certain clear
moral and religious teachings about the origin, purpose, and ultimate meaning
of life that are diametrically opposed to the Christian, Jewish, and Islamic
faiths. The problem is that Darwinists
"can in good conscience say at one moment that they
do not deal with God or religion, and then in the next breath make sweeping
pronouncements about the purposelessness of the cosmos" (Johnson,
p. 118).
Some scientists are more open and forthright than Miller
and Gould, some even concluding that "there is something dishonestly
self-serving" in the tactic claiming that "science and religion
are two separate fields" (Dawkins, p. 62). Most evolutionists fully
understand what is at stake in the creation/evolution controversy. Futuyma
admits that anyone who "believes in Genesis as a literal description
of history" holds a "worldview that is entirely incompatible
with the idea of evolution." (pp. 12-13). Futuyma then claims that
Darwinists insist on "material, mechanistic causes" for life but the "believer in Genesis" can look to God for explanations.
Historians have documented meticulously the fact that
Darwinism has had a devastating impact, not only on Christianity, but also
on theism. Many scientists also have admitted that the acceptance of Darwinism
has convinced large numbers of people that the Genesis account of creation
is erroneous, and that this has caused the whole house of theistic cards
to tumble:
"If the Bible was wrong in the very first chapter
of Genesis, then the veracity of the entire enterprise was called into
question. Evolution was not just a scientific idea, it was a bombshell
. welcomed by atheists, feared by theists" (Raymo, p. 138).
As a result of the widespread acceptance of Darwinism,
the Christian moral basis of society was undermined. Furthermore, Darwin
himself was "keenly aware of the political, social, and religious implications of his new idea.. Religion, especially, appeared to have much
to lose.." (Raymo, p. 138).
Numerous scientists have noted that one result of the
general acceptance of Darwinism was acceptance of the belief that humans
"are accidental, contingent, ephemeral parts of creation, rather than
lords over it" and humans are not "the raison d'être of
the universe" as all theistic religions teach (Raymo, p. 163).
The Darwinism belief that humans (and all living things)
are nothing more than an accident of history, "cosmically inconsequential
bundles of stardust, adrift in an infinite and purposeless universe"
is a belief that is now "widely embraced within the scientific community"
(Raymo, p. 160). Darwinism was a major factor in causing many eminent scientists
to conclude, in the words of Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg, that the "more
the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless"
(p. 154). Darwinism teaches "that our lives are brief and inconsequential
in the cosmic scheme of things" (Raymo, p. 110), and that life has
no ultimate purpose because there is no heaven, hell, or afterlife and
"nothing we know about life requires the existence of a disembodied
vital force or immaterial spirits, or a special creation of species"
(Raymo, p. 42). Raymo concludes:
"Everything we have learned in science since the
time of Galileo suggests that the [universe is] . oblivious to our fates
[and] that the grave is our destiny" (Raymo, p. 66-67).
One of the most eminent evolutionists ever, Harvard paleontologist
George Gaylord Simpson, taught that, "Man is the result of a purposeless
and natural process that did not have him in mind" (p. 345).
Raymo concludes that Darwin's theory was "not what
we want to hear" because it is difficult for humans who have long
thought of themselves as "the central and immortal apex of creation-the apple of God's eye-to accept that" we are, "unexceptional, contingent,
and ephemeral in the cosmological scheme of things" (p. 129).
Raymo adds that since Darwinism has demolished the belief
that the universe and human beings have an ultimate purpose, our educational
system must inculcate young people in "cold and clammy truths like
descent from reptilian or amoebic ancestors," Raymo then suggests
that although it:
"would be comforting to think, as did our ancestors,
that we live in a nurturing universe, centered upon ourselves.. The truth,
however, is . Evolution is not warm and fuzzy. It can even be capricious
and sometimes cruel" (p. 144).
Cruel or otherwise, Raymo states that Darwinism "is
a fact by every criterion of science" and that our "school kids
do not need intellectual security blankets" (p. 144). The implications
of Darwinism "perhaps the most revolutionary idea in the history of
human thought" are clear.
"We are small, contingent parts of something that
existed long before we appeared on the scene.. We are as incidental to
the cosmos as are ephemeral mayflies to the planet Earth. At first glance, this was shattering news. Indeed, the majority of us have not yet come
to terms with it.. Our lives are brief, our fate is oblivion" (p.
222, emphasis his).
Acclaimed Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins has written
extensively about the implications of Darwinism. In a speech titled "A
Scientist's Case Against God," Dawkins argued that Darwinism "has
shown higher purpose to be an illusion" and that the Universe consists
of "selfish genes;" consequently, "some people are going
to get hurt, others are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme
or reason for it" (Easterbrook, p. 892).
Dawkins believes that people who believe life was created
for a purpose not only are mistaken, but are ignorant: "Only the scientifically
illiterate" believe we exist for a higher purpose. The scientifically
literate know there is no reason "why" we exist, we "just
do" as an accident of history. Dawkins also teaches that no evidence
exists to support theism, and that "nowadays the better educated admit
it" (Easterbrook, p. 892).
The central message of Richard Dawkins' voluminous writings
is that the universe has precisely the properties we should expect if it
has "no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pointless
indifference" (Easterbrook, p. 892). Dawkins even admitted that his
best-selling book, The Selfish Gene, was an attempt to get rid of what
he regarded as an "outright wrong idea" that had achieved a grip
in popular science-namely, the erroneous "assumption that individuals
act for the good of the species," which he believes is "an error
that needed exploding, and the best way to demonstrate what's wrong with
it . was to explain evolution from the point of view of the gene" (Easterbrook, p. 892). Dawkins added that the reason why The Selfish Gene
was a best seller could be because it teaches the "truth" about
why humans exist, namely humans,
". are for nothing. You are here to propagate your
selfish genes. There is no higher purpose to life. One man said he didn't
sleep for three nights after reading The Selfish Gene. He felt that the
whole of his life had become empty, and the universe no longer had a point"
(quoted in Bass, p. 60).
Dawkins obviously is proud of the depressing effect his
writings have on people. Raymo even claims that the dominant view among
modem Darwinists is that our minds are "merely a computer made of
meat" (pp. 187-188), and that "almost all scientists" believe
the idea that a human soul exists is a "bankrupt notion"; and
consequently, the conclusion that our minds are "merely a computer
made of meat" is considered by Darwinists "almost a truism"
(pp. 192-193).
In Futuyma's words, "if the world and its creatures
developed purely by material, physical forces, it could not have been designed
and has no purpose or goal" (pp. 12-13). Furthermore, he notes that the creationist,
"in contrast, believes that everything in the world,
every species . was designed by an intelligent, purposeful artificer, and
that it was made for a purpose . the human species was not designed, has no purpose, and is the product of mere material mechanism . seems to be
the message of evolution" (pp. 12-13).
Is this pessimistic, anti-theistic, and nihilistic view
of humans widespread? One researcher claimed that "ninety-nine percent
of the scientists whom I met in my career . support the view expressed
by Dawkins [that anyone] . who denies evolution is either ignorant, stupid,
insane or wicked" (Rörsch, p. F3). This oft'-made claim is totally
false: an estimated 10,000 scientists in the USA and about 100,000 creation
scientists in the world reject Darwinism, and hold instead to a creation
worldview (Bergman). A question every concerned parent and grandparent
should ask is: "Do we want our children taught that life has no ultimate
purpose, and that our minds are merely a computer made of meat?" The
fact is:
". the philosophy implied by Darwinism, that life
may have no "purpose" in the traditional religious sense, and
that life is ultimately a random process . Darwinism is unique among scientific
theories because it attempts to explain man's origins.." (Leith, p.
9, emphasis his).
Why do so many people believe the pessimistic, nihilistic,
and depressive Darwinist view? One reason is they are convinced that science
has proven Darwinism to be true. Sadly, however, many scientists are unaware
of the large body of evidence supporting creationism. And numerous scientists
recognize that, at best, the view common among elite scientists is unscientific.
Shallis argues that:
"It is no more heretical to say the Universe displays
purpose, as Hoyle has done, than to say that it is pointless, as Steven
Weinberg has done. Both statements are metaphysical and outside science.. This suggests to me that science, in allowing this metaphysical notion,
sees itself as religion and presumably as an atheistic religion" (pp.
42-43).
Darwinists have indoctrinated our society for over 100 years in a worldview that has proven to be tragically destructive. And
they often have done this by a type of deceit that began before the Piltdown
hoax and continues today in many leading biology textbooks (Wells).
___________

Jerry Bergman, Ph.D., is on the Biology faculty at Northwest
State College in Ohio

Acknowledgments:

Bert Thompson, Ph.D., and Clifford L. Lillo for their insight.

References:

Bass, Thomas. 1990. Interview. Omni, 12(4):58-89.

Bergman, Jerry. 1999. "The Attitude of Various Populations
Toward Teaching Creation and Evolution in Public Schools." CEN Tech
J, 13(2):118-123.

Dawkins, Richard. 1999. "You Can't Have It Both Ways: Irreconcilable Differences?" Skeptical Inquirer, July/August, pp.
62-63.

Easterbrook, Gregg. 1997. "Of Genes and Meaninglessness."
Science, 277:892, August 15.

Futuyma, Douglas. 1983. Science on Trial. NY: Pantheon
Books.

Gould, Stephen Jay. 1999. Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion
in the Fullness of Life. NY: Ballantine.

Johnson, Phillip. 1991. Darwin on Trial. Washington, D.C.:Regnery-Gateway.

Leith, Brian. 1982. The Descent of Darwinism. London: Collins.

Miller, Kenneth R. 1999. Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's
Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution. NY. Cliff Street Books.

Raymo, Chet. 1998. Skeptics and True Believers. New York,
NY: Walker.

Rörsch, A. 1999. "Mutation Research Frontiers:
Challenges to Evolution Theory." Mutation Research, 423:F3-F19.

Shallis, M. 1984. "In the Eye of a Storm." New
Scientist, January 19, pp. 42-43.

Simpson, George Gaylord. 1970. The Meaning of Evolution. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Weinberg, Steven. 1977. The First Three Minutes. NY: Basic
Books.

Wells, Jonathan. 2000. Icons of Evolution: Science or
Myth. Washington, D.C.: Regnery-Gateway.

kirjoitti:

Anonyymi

Kirjoita kommentti

5000

Lähetä