Our Respect for ‘science’ as exact knowledge is justified on the grounds that, where a matter has proved consistently uniform in given circumstances over a long period of experimental trial, it is designated as scientific fact. Thus we all accept that two plus two will always give the result four; and that the boiling point of water at sea level will always be 212 degrees Fahrenheit.
It is surprising therefore when we find that in one area of thought a theory based on mere assumptions is designated a science, and that it is taught in our universities and schools as ‘science’. We speak of the theory of evolution. This theory burst upon the modern world early in the nineteenth century, when Charles Darwin wrote his book, The Origin of Species. It was hailed by atheists such as Huxley and Spencer as an effective weapon in deposing the bishops from their positions of power and privilege. Great publicity was given to the new theory, which was confidently asserted to refute the Bible teaching, hitherto accepted as authentic in its teaching that life upon earth was introduced by an intelligent Creator.
Professor G. Kerkut, of Glasgow University, has since indicated that the theory of evolution cannot be styled ‘science’, since the seven basic assumptions upon which it is founded cannot be proved ever to have occurred; moreover, what is even more significant, with all our modern knowledge, not one of these basic assumptions can be repeated in the laboratory. Since, then, every one of those seven essential assumptions to the veracity of the theory is but guesswork, the whole set-up must be discounted as ‘science’. How then has the theory now become accepted as a dogma?—for so it is.
Professor Wilder Smith writes that any biological scientist who values his life and limb dare not postulate a theory of creation involving a planner, since all such have been banned from scientific literature since the days of Darwin. Truth has suffered a severe blow from the activities of those with vested interests in maintaining the new theory.
Wilder Smith quotes an example of the extreme prejudice exercised in the American publishing business. The firm Macmillan had signed a contract with Velikovsky to publish his book, Worlds in Collision, which cast intelligent doubts on the validity of the evolution theory. When Harlow Shapley got knowledge of this, as an influential member of the organisation responsible for the publication of American scientific journals, he let Macmillan know that if they published Velikovsky’s work he would see to it that they sold no more text books to American universities.
George Bernard Shaw, who was no friend of Christianity, was astute enough to realise the damaging effect of the new doctrine, and quotes Samuel Butler as perceiving that Darwin had “banished mind from the universe”. Shaw says: “Butler was immediately ostracised as maliciously unscientific”. He adds: “This was a great nonsense”.
All this leaves the Bible account of creation, which makes no claim to be scientific, as extremely viable scientifically. Here we have, in the very first verse of Genesis, design and order being introduced into a world of chaos by an intelligent Creator. Surely even the most simple among us recognizes the reasonableness of this. Do we not all recognise when we view as simple an object as a common teacup that somewhere and at some time someone both designed and constructed this item of crockery by the use of intelligence and skill?
But why do I regard this as so important as to write about it? To my certain knowledge, most nominal Christians now believe in the theory of evolution. Granted, they speak of it as being God’s method of creation; but surely it is the first step to accepting that logically, evolution can manage creation without God. Shaw was quick to spot this when he quoted Butler as saying that Darwin has banished mind from the universe. It is a self-operating process.
A serious change of doctrine is creeping in under the influence of this new theory. Humanism, with emphasis upon service to man, displaces the first commandment, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God”, with, “Thou shalt love thy fellow man”.
There is nothing wrong with loving our fellow man. It is a command of Scripture. But the new emphasis upon man, together with the tendency within the church to translate this into political activity, suggests that, whereas in the past it was God Who was in charge of the ultimate fate of mankind and Who would eventually establish His Kingdom on the earth by sending Jesus Christ specifically to do that which was impossible to man, now we have a human system which proposes doing just that without God’s help, Who has been removed from the universe by Darwin and Karl Marx, whose doctrines the new movement seems to espouse.
We Spend too Much Time Ridiculing Evolution