The Religion of Evolution

L.C. Eiseley, a noted anthropologist, educator, and scholar, issued this startling commentary,

"With the failure of these many efforts [to explain the origin of life] science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."

Sir Fred Hoyle, a prominent British astronomer and mathematician, observed,

"I have always thought it curious that, while most scientists claim to eschew religion, it actually dominates their thoughts more than it does the clergy."

The Arrogance of Atheism

     Scientists claim to be objective seekers of truth. Some scientists say that overwhelming evidence of God exists, while others claim that there is no scientific evidence for God. The explanation for such a disparity of opinion is personal bias, wrought by human frailties.

Some would wonder why it is necessary to bring up personal flaws in the context of the debate on origins. This is a relevant issue, because human frailties are the very reason why two scientists who are presented with the same data can arrive at opposite conclusions.

     A near universal characteristic of those who espouse atheism is personal arrogance. A deeply-held contempt for the concept of accountability to a supreme being leads one to deny the existence of God. The atheist views the world as unfair, and resents the requirement to adjust his lifestyle to a set of standards that has been revealed to someone else. If there is a God, he demands to see Him face to face or he will not believe. He requires proof according to pre-determined criteria. In so doing, he closes his eyes and imagines that no evidence of God's existence can be given. In assuming such a position, he ignores the observation that nature has no observable capacity to create the complexity that exists. He must reject the logic of some of the most brilliant scientists in history who have concluded that science provides compelling evidence of God. A person who adopts such an extreme position is obviously prideful because it must be assumed that he is right whereas the vast majority of people are wrong.

     The fundamental justification for the rejection of God is because the evidence presented for God is, in the mind of the atheist, overshadowed by what is perceived as overwhelming evidence of a cruel and chaotic world that is interpreted to indicate a lack of intelligent and beneficent design. "All-powerful" and "beneficent" are viewed as mutually exclusive attributes of a supreme being. Such conclusions are ultimately founded on pride, because it is assumed that man adequately understands the purposes of God.

Respected theologians are in widespread agreement that pride is one of the most serious of human weaknesses. The renowned theologian C. S. Lewis wrote,

"Pride leads to every other vice: it is the complete anti-God state of mind.”

     The denial of one's creator is the ultimate manifestation of pride. Despite profound evidence of a creator, atheists choose to deny what they see and imagine that all of the beauty and complexity of the world can be explained without God. They believe that nature proclaims this. This conclusion is made in the face of massive scientific evidence that random forces cannot produce complexity.

     Many atheists display a pretense of open-mindedness, imagining that they are above- all interested in truth. They believe that they are unencumbered by religious preconceptions, claiming to be patiently waiting with unbiased scientific objectivity for evidence of God. Atheists often assert that their disbelief in God is founded on a lack of evidence. Atheism is not neutral non-belief. It is active denial of evidence. It is the natural consequence of profound arrogance and rebellion. In denying what he sees, the atheist also denies and perverts unalterable scientific principles to justify his worldview.

     Many atheists display contempt for the religious beliefs of others. They believe that those who follow a code of ethics as prescribed in the Bible do so for self-serving purposes. The Christian is accused of acting only out of fear of punishment from a wrathful God, or out of a selfish desire for a reward beyond the grave. Many atheists affirm, however, that their morality is founded on pure motives, because beneficent actions are performed without any thought of compensation but only out of a love for humanity and doing good. All of these perspectives are founded on consummate pride resulting in self-deception.

     The arrogance of atheists leads many to deny the enormous evidence of God's creative power in nature. They believe that they can look at great complexity and beauty and conclude that no intelligence produced them. They claim that science adequately explains their observations, when they have no understanding of how such processes would work. They deny what they see, and justify their position by denying their ignorance. They believe that man's intelligence is supreme in the universe, and refuse to consider a higher power. This pervasive attitude among intellectuals results in a completely illogical approach to scientific investigation.

It is commonly assumed that anyone who finds fault with Darwinism is biased by religious beliefs, whereas atheists alone are objective. Of course, such a position is ridiculous and is evidentiary of their consummate pride.

     In a field with essentially no accountability, a lack of ethics coupled with arrogance and consequent self-deception are certain to produce erroneous conclusions. An underlying desire of the atheist is freedom from accountability to a higher power.  In attempting to utilize science, the lack of accountability among evolutionary researchers is evident.  Authoritative statements such as the ages of fossils are made without any scientific documentation or recognition of the limits of man's knowledge.

The arrogance and rebellion of atheism result in perversions of scientific logic. Because no higher authority is believed to exist, there is a refusal to yield to the authoritarian principles of mathematics and probability. The relativistic mindset of atheism has resulted in a belief that mathematical concepts are flexible and can be manipulated to conform to a worldview which requires the repetitive occurrence of extremely improbable events.

     Atheistic scientists have built their entire careers on the pretense of practicing science without accountability. This perspective encompasses an entire worldview. The atheist understands that God cannot be proven. He is therefore free to unleash his denial of God and promote his worldview without consequence. Since God cannot be proven, he chooses to deny evidence because no immediate adverse effect results from a rejection of intelligent creation.

     Not only is arrogance a character flaw, it is a severe stumbling block in the acquisition of scientific knowledge. The atheist believes he knows more than he does.  He places man's intelligence as supreme in the universe.  Because of pride, he cannot consider a level of logic above his own. He assumes that if something is not within man's grasp to understand, it must not be true. While the creationist is ridiculed for believing in myths, he is expected to accept mystical explanations of life which are shrouded in the garb of science. Because the theory of evolution cannot explain how random events can result in complexity, atheists force themselves into imagining that laws of science validate naturalism.

     Many atheists believe themselves to be courageous free thinkers who have cast off the shackles of ignorance. In this, they are deceived. They naively believe what others have told them, and have jumped on the popular bandwagon of evolution because of its appeal to the humanistic mindset.

     With an attitude of stubborn pride, they approach the study of evolution. The atheist is unwilling to acknowledge his limits, invariably overstating what he knows and minimizing what is unknown. Gaps of knowledge are filled with conjectures and ad hoc assumptions, rather than a humble acknowledgement of limits. This attitude is integral to the worldview of atheism, and its understanding explains why such gross corruption of scientific integrity has become the norm of evolutionary theorists.

     In my professional experience, I have observed that a physician who thinks he knows everything is a danger to his patients. This is because personal arrogance interferes with scientific objectivity. This will eventually lead to reckless conclusions. The combination of an advanced degree in science with uncontrolled personal pride is a near certain recipe for invalid results. This problem is further magnified by the near total lack of accountability inherent in the study of evolution.

     In excluding God from the world, the atheist frequently deifies himself, others, and nature itself. Failure to recognize the existence of a higher power when irrefutable evidences abound results in a belief that nature itself possesses miraculous power.

Nature must be deified to account for what it is believed to have created. Since man is believed to be the highest source of intelligence in the universe, a warped paradigm of the true scope of man's knowledge has been created.

     In defending evolution with philosophical arguments, the atheist often presumes that if a God existed, He would act only in ways that would conform to man's logic. Without acknowledging man's limited intelligence, the atheist assumes that the cruel world in which he lives offers proof that a supreme being could not have designed it. Prominent evolutionists throughout history have attempted to validate evolution by criticisms of what they believe would have been attributes of a divine creator had He properly engineered the world. By pointing out inconsistencies as to how the world should have been designed relative to what exists, they believe that they are proving evolution. In short, a worldview is shaped around one's prideful rejection of Deity.

     The culture of academia breeds arrogance for several reasons. First, the achievement of an advanced education commonly promotes a perception of superiority over those with less education. Many believe that they know more than they do. Second, many academic fields have little to no scientific accountability, which allows interpretations to be strongly influenced by one's overriding worldview. There is a desire to validate one's philosophy, which results in the introduction of bias. Most who actively promote evolution are academicians. There is a natural attraction of secular thinkers to academic institutions.

     Pride leads to the overstepping of bounds. This leads to the overstatement of claims, which is intellectual dishonesty. Pride leads to narrow-mindedness because of the belief that one's opinions are always correct and anyone who disagrees is ignorant. Dr. Richard Dawkins stated that "...every respectable scientist in the world" believes in evolution. Such outlandish declarations are common and are manifestations of pride.