Knowledgeable scientists object to accepting a major scientific theory of evolutionary transitions, just because it is the view preferred by Marxists.

..Some evolutionists reject the punctuationalist ["hopeful monster"] version of evolution for sociological reasons, contending that it is a philosophy growing out of the revolutionary concept of Marxism. Dr. Beverly Halstead of Reading University in England has expressed this objection in print several times. Although to an outsider, there might appear to be a rather tenuous connection, the claim does have some relevance if statements by its current champions have any relevance . .

"It is interesting shat Gould has occasionally tried to give the impression that he objected to being called a Marxist, but yet has never denied being one. In fact, at least once under oath in a court deposition for the trial regarding the constitutionality of the Louisiana Balanced Treatment Law, he acknowledged that he was a Marxist." -Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma (1988), pp. 108-109.

The punctuational (saltatory or hopeful monster) version of Darwinism sees biological change as coming only in sudden bursts. This agrees with communist doctrine that social change comes only in sudden, revolutionary bursts of activity. In contrast, classical Darwinism offered uniformitarianism: slow, quiet, almost imperceptible change.

"If it could be established that the pattern of evolution is a saltatory one after all, then at long last the Marxists would indeed be able to claim that the theoretical basis of their approach was supported by scientific evidence. Just as there are 'scientific' creationists seeking to falsify the concept of gradual change through time in favor of creationism, so too there are the Marxists who for different motives are equally concerned to discredit gradualism." L.B. Halstead, "Museum of Errors, " in Nature, November 20, 1980, p. 208.

Morris and Parker describe the ideological ramifications of the theory:

"Gould and many like-minded colleagues, in fact, clearly have political motives as well [in their "hopeful monster" theory of evolutionary development]. These latter-day fantasies of improvements by quantum jumps, order by perturbation, structure through dissipation, hope through monsters, advance through catastrophes, and evolution by revolution are beautifully tent with Marxian dialectics, and have long been advocated in Soviet Russia." -H.M. Morris and G.E. Parker, What is Creation Science? (1987), p. 245.

*Edward Wilson, also of Harvard, has had a number of abrasive confrontations with *Steven Gould. Wilson opposes both Gould's theory and the Marxist background behind it.

"..[As far as Gould is concerned,] When Darwin conflicts with Marx, Darwin goes." -*Edward 0. Wilson, quoted in Robin Henry, "Science for the People: Revolution's Evolution, " in Bioscience, June 1979, p. 342.

*Michael Ruse, another leading evolutionist of our time, says it in no uncertain terms:

"Quite openly, one of the leading punctuated equilibrists, Stephen Jay Gould, admits to his Marxism, and lauds the way in which his science is informed by his beliefs, and how conversely his beliefs are bolstered by his science . . In short, what I argue is that through and through, Gould produces and endorses a view of paleontology which is molded by, and conversely supports and proclaims a view of the world he holds dear. We are offered the fossil record as seen through the lens of Marxism." -*Michael Ruse, "The Ideology of Darwinism, " in E. Geisler arid W. Scheler (eds.), Darwin Today (1983), p. 246

Two other Western Marxist scholars, *Levins and *Lewontin, recently co-authored a book on Marxist biology (The Dialectical Biologist. *Hull reviewed their book and said this:

"Richard Levine and Richard Lewontin are two of the most knowledgeable and innovative evolutionary biologists working day. They also view themselves as Marxist revolutionaries. As Marxists, Levine and Lewontin insist that the economic substructure of a society strongly influences its ideational superstructure, including science." -*David L. Hull, "Darwin and Dialectics," in Nature March 8, 1985, p. 23.

ORIGIN OF SALTATION THEORY The hopeful monster theory-which is the leading version of Darwinism accepted by scientists today,-originated in Russia. Sunderland explains in detail how evolutionary theory had become dry and sterile in the United States by the 1930s. The arrival of *Theodosius Dobzhansky from Russia brought a revival as he began preaching a neo-Darwinian variation of Darwinism. Soviet scientists had worked it out in Marxist think tanks in Moscow and Leningrad as a concept which would agree with their Marxist "sudden revolution" ideas. Brought to the United States, it revived faltering evolutionary theory.

"Theodosius Dobzhansky was one of the authors of the neo-Darwinian synthetic theory, which temporarily salvaged Darwinism in the 1930s when it was practically dead. He was told how, when the communists overthrew the Czarist government and took control in Russia in 1917, they needed a materialistic basis for their world system. They recognized evolution as the solution to the problem, accepting it as their official explanation of dialectical materialism. They virtually raised Charles Darwin to sainthood.

"Just before his death, Dobzhansky gave a paper at a 1974 conference organized to review the history and status of the evolutionary synthesis. The papers given at this conference were published in a book by Ernst Mayr and William Provine, The Evolutionary Synthesis. In Dobzhansky's paper, 'The Birth of the Genetic Theory of Evolution in the Soviet Union in the 1920s,' he gave a historical sketch of evolution theory in Russia and showed how it formed the basis for the new communist political movement which was germinating there . .

"When Dobzhansky left Russia in December 4, 1927, he brought with him the major tenets of what later was to be called 'neo-Darwinism' or the 'modern synthesis,' often credited to the Anglo-American trio of Fisher, Haldane, and Wright. These included the concepts of the gene pod and genetic drift. He went to Columbia University and joined forces with Simpson, Ernst Mayr, and others who together brought the theory of evolution into respectability again. Ernst Mayr told the author [Sunderland] that, when he came to Harvard in the early 1950s, there had not been a course in evolution taught there for over twenty-five years. He started the first modern evolution course at Harvard in 1952." -Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma (1988), 109-110.

The sudden-change theory revived evolutionary theory because it could agree with the evidence of unchanging species found in the fossil record.

In his book, Blowing the Whistle on Darwinism (pages 4-5), Lester McCann discusses how the Soviet scientists adapted *Hugo DeVries idea about mutations and worked it into a neo-Darwinian concept that mutations produce evolutionary change. He also explains how the Soviet scientist, *Alexander Oparin, working through his International Organization for the Study of Evolution, and the British physiologist, *J.B.S. Haldane (a former editor of the communist London Dally Worker helped bring neo-Darwinism to Europe and America, and revitalize the nearly-dead Darwinism.

Then the sudden-change theory was amplified into full-fledged hopeful monster theory. Moscow came up with another adaptation. It accepted the "hopeful monster" concept that had bandied about America since the 1930s when Goldschmidt initially championed it. This theory required even more violent overturning and change, suggestive of the violent class struggles which Marx and Lenin advocated. Earnest Marxists, such as *Gould then began urging it in on the continent and in America. The result is that, by the 1980s, most Western scientists had adopted this latest theory.

Thus, not only did *Darwin early influence *Marx and *Nietzsche in their revolutionary thinking, but in the 1930s, and main in the 1950s, the revised Marxist brand of Darwinism made the connection even closer. But none of this is ever mentioned in the college textbooks or popular magazines. it would be a terrible thing to let the public know that modern evolutionary theory is rebaptized Marxism.

In chapter 14, we thoroughly discredit the possibility that mutations could ewer produce species change. In fact, mutations, which are always weakening and generally fatal, are not even able to produce favorable results within a species, much less producing a new one.

10 - RACISM

DARWINIAN RACISM it is well to keep in mind the full title of *Charles Darwin's 1859 book: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.

*Milner explains *Darwin's view on this, and quotes him:

"Darwin then proposes a mechanism for the way it [evolution] wake. Natural selection is a two-step process: (1) overproduction and variation within a species, and (2) greater survival and reproduction of those individuals with any slight advantage over their follows; 'fitter' traits are preserved and accumulated in successive generations. 'Multiply, vary, let the strongest live [and reproduce] and the weakest die [leaving few progeny].' " -*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 344.

It is significant that the leading racists have been evolutionists. This racism idea tends to fall into two categories: (1) Those who believe their race is superior, and they need to keep down or conquer other races. (2) Those who believe that some races are little better than animals and deserve to be enslaved or killed off. In contrast, creationists recognize that all men were created by God and that all are of equal value in His sight.

*Charles Darwin and *Thomas Huxley, both evolutionary champions, held to racist ideas. Here is a sample statement penned by Darwin himself:

"The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world." -*Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, p. 318.

"Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory." -*Stephen Jay Gould, Ontogeny and Phylogeny (1977), p. 127.

Those urging "survival of the fittest" tend to be the ones favoring killing off various races, as well as eliminating the aged, the weak, the handicapped, and the unborn. Basic ethics and beliefs of the two camps are behind the reason why creationists oppose the slaying of unborn babies, while evolutionists are more likely to favor it. In the 1910s the war was against nations, in the 1930s and 1940s it was against races, in the 1970s and 1980s it has been against the unborn.

"The study of human origins by anthropologists was particularly influenced by racist considerations, and this situation extended well into the first half of the 20th century. It is well known that Darwin and Huxley, as well as Haeckel, believed in white supremacy, as did practically all the nineteenth century evolutionary scientists, but it is not ore widely known that the leading 20th century physical anthropologists also shared such opinions." -H.M. Morris, History of Modern Christianity (1984), pp. 48-49.

To the confirmed "survivalists," people are just another form of animate, to be herded, brainwashed, controlled, conditioned, enslaved, and exterminated. Use others and then throw them away is their philosophy.

"The pseudo-scientific application of a biological theory to politics . . constituted possibly the most perverted form of social Darwinism . . It led to racism and antisemitism and was used to show that only 'superior' nationalities and races were fit to survive. Thus, among the English-speaking peoples were to be found the champions of the 'white man's burden,' an imperial mission carried out by Anglo-Saxons. . Similarly, the Russians preached the doctrine of pan-Slavism and the Germans that of pan-Germanism." -*T. W. Walbank and *A.M. Taylor, Civilization Past and Present, Vol. 2 (1961 eo'.) Vol. 2, p. 362.

No doubt about it; *Darwin was a zealous racist. Interestingly enough, a racist always believes that it is his race which is the best!

"Racism is the belief that other human groups are inferior to one's own and can therefore be denied equal treatment." -*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 414.

"Almost any 19th or even mid-20th century book on human evolution carries illustrations showing the progression: monkey, ape, Hottentot (or African Negro, Australian Aborigine, Tasmanian, etc.) and white European. Few of the early evolutionists were free of such arrogance, not even the politically liberal Charles Darwin and Thomas Huxley." -*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 380.

*Darwin had a very definite view about this. The time would come when the white races would kill off all the other races, and then evolution would have proceeded even farther.

"Darwin postulated, in the sixth edition of his Descent of Man, that the time would come when the white peoples would have destroyed the black. He also thought that the anthropoid apes would become extinct. He believed that when these two eventualities had occurred the evidence of evolution among living creatures would not be as strong as previously." -Bolton David Heiser, in Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1989, p. 151.

*Darwin's theories came to full fruition in the Third Reich.

"[Houston S.] Chamberlain wrote this prophetic statement in his Foundations [1899]: 'Though it were proved that there never was an Aryan race in the past, yet we desire that in the future there may be one. That is the decisive standpoint for men of action.'

"When asked to define an Aryan during the height of the Nazi madness, Josef Goebbels proclaimed, 'I define who is Jewish and who is Aryan!'

"During the German Third Reich (1933-1945), the ideal of Aryan purity and supremacy became that nation's official policy. Adolph Hitler's program of herding 'interior' races into concentration camps and gas chambers was rationalized as making way for the new order of superior humanity. Meanwhile, S.S. officers were encouraged to impregnate selected women under government sponsorship to produce a new 'master race'-an experiment that produced a generation of ordinary, confused orphans.

"Hitler was furious when the black American Jesse Owens outraced 'Aryan' athletes at the 1936 Berlin Olympics, contradicting his theories of racial supremacy. And when the 'Brown Bomber' Joe Louis knocked out boxer Max Schmeling, German propaganda became even more vehement that white superiority would be vindicated. However, when Hitler needed the Japanese as allies in World War II, he promptly redefined the those Asians as Aryans." -*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), pp. 25-26.

Why Darwin's evolutionary theories should be popular among non-white races is something of a mystery-since he and his associates were confidently anticipating a time when the non-European races would be destroyed!

"Darwin's notion that the various races were at different evolutionary distances from the apes, with Negroes at the bottom and Caucasians at the top, was not unique to him, but rather was almost universal among the evolutionary scientists of the nineteenth century . .

"It was not only Darwin and Huxley, the two top evolutionists, who were racists. All of them were! This fact has been documented thoroughly in a key book by John Halter, appropriately entitled Outcasts from Evolution.." -H.M. Morris, Long War Against God (1989), pp. 60-81.

"Many of the early settlers of Australia considered the Australian Aborigines to be less intelligent than the 'white man,' because aborigines had not evolved as far as whites on the evolutionary scale. In fact, the Hobart Museum in Tasmania [Australia] in 1984 listed this as one of the reasons why early white settlers killed as many aborigines as they could in that state." -Ken Ham, Evolution: The Lie (1987), p. 86.

A noted Chinese scientist, * Kenneth Hsu, wrote these words about his feelings about *Charles Darwin:

"My abhorrence of Darwinism is understandable, for what member of the 'lower races' could remain indifferent to the statement attributed to the great master (Darwin, 1881, in a letter to W. Graham) that 'at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.'" -*Kenneth J. Hsu, in Geology, April 1987, p. 377.

EUGENICS *Charles Darwin's cousin, *Sir Francis Gallon, coined the word "eugenics" in 1883. He first published his theories in 1865 in a series of magazine articles, which later were expanded in his book, Hereditary Genius (1869).

The "science" of eugenics was a major emphasis of the late-19th and first half of the 20th century. *Adolf Hitler used it so successfully, that it fell into disfavor after World War II. The glorious promise of eugenics was that humanity would be wonderfully improved if certain races, the elderly, and certain others were eliminated. The inglorious results were the death camps of Germany and Poland where Hitler exterminated six million people because they did not conform to his standard of eugenics. Eugenics was but another gift of the Darwinists to the world:

"Darwinism spawned mangy offshoots. One of these was launched by Darwin's first cousin, Francis Galton.

Obsessed, as were many, by the implications of the 'fittest,' Galton set out in 1883 to study heredity from a mathematical viewpoint. He named his new science eugenics, from a Greek root meaning both 'good in birth' and 'noble in heredity.' His stated goal was to improve the human race, by giving 'the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable.'" -*Otto Scott, "Playing God," in Chalcedon Report, No. 247, February 1986, p. 1.

The "German experiment" showed what it was all about.

"Once almost obligatory in all biology textbooks, the promotion of eugenic programs was set back by the disastrous, barbarous attempts to create a 'master race' in Nazi Germany." -*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 156.

"Nazi eugenics had two aspects: the extermination of millions of 'undesirables' and the selection and breeding of preferred 'Aryan' types. It was an article of faith that the blond, blue-eyed 'Nordic-looking' children would also prove intellectually and morally superior and that they would 'breed true' when mated. Neither assumption was correct." -*Op. cit., p. 272.

"In 1936, *Heinrich Himmler and his Stormtroopers (S.S.) founded an institution called Lebensborn a "Fountain of Life." Its purpose was to create millions of blond, blue-eyed 'Aryan' Germans as the genetic foundation of the new 'Master Race.' Lebensborn children would be raised to be obedient, aggressive, patriotic and convinced their destiny was to dominate or destroy all 'inferior' races or nations. Gallon's well-intentioned dream of human improvement had become a nightmare in reality." -*Op. cit., p. 271.

They did more than breed and kill; they also stole children.

"On his first inspection tour of occupied Poland, Heinrich Himmler had been amazed by the Nordic appearance of many 'Slavic' children and decided it was his duty to kidnap them from their parents and send them to Lebensborn foster homes and orphanages in Germany. Two special S.S. agencies-the Volksdeutsche Liaison Office and the Race and Settlement Office searched Europe for 'human specimens considered suitable for Germanization.' They also `cleared' vast areas of land of 'inferior' Poles and Jews by killing or enslaving the inhabitants, and practiced euthanasia (mercy killing) on thousands of Germans who were feebleminded, infirm, mentally ill or crippled. (The gas chambers were originally invented to weed out their own 'unfit' Germans, and were later applied to the genocide of entire 'undesirable races,' particularly Jews.)" -*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 272.

CARE FOR THE POOR AND NEEDY AS you might expect of a man whose theories could excite such vicious men as *Nietzsche, *Marx, *Stalin, and *Hitler, *Charles Darwin believed that the poor and needy ought to be left to die, unhelped by their neighbors.

"[Peter] Kropokin criticized Darwin's remarks in the Descent of Man (1871) about the 'alleged inconveniences' of maintaining what Darwin called the 'weak in mind and body' in civilized societies. Darwin seamed to think advanced societies were burdened with too many 'unfit' individuals." -*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 259.

It is the highest irony that the people most likely to accept Marxism are poor people in Third World countries-yet the Darwin/Marx theory was that poor people should never be helped. If they want anything let them fight for it; if they do not succeed, let them die. Apparently, the only people really favored by Darwin/Marx/Nietzscheism were well-to-do members of the white race.

"Darwin often said quite plainly that it was wrong to ameliorate the conditions of the poor, since to do so would hinder the evolutionary struggle for existence." -R.E.D. Clark, Darwin: Before and After, (1958), p. 120.

BIG BUSINESS Beginning in the latter part of the last century, large industrialists also looked to Darwin as their mentor-or rather, their excuse-for the savage business maneuvers they conducted which gobbled up or destroyed their competitors. Oddly enough, the large labor unions have acted the same way, making sure that theirs is the only union serving a given field.

"Industrial giants like John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie did indeed adopt Social Darwinist views about being 'the fittest,' their ruthlessness justified as part of a great law of nature." -*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990). p. 59.

"By the late 19th century, 'survival of the fittest' had become the slogan of American free enterprise. Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller justified ruthless competition as the price of evolutionary progress. As big winners, they like to believe they had been 'naturally selected' as the best of men." -*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 448.

*John D. Rockefeller became a leader in the oil, chemical, and drug cartels.

"[Rockefeller] once regaled a Sunday School audience with an account of how natural selection operated for the best interest of society as a whole. He compared the evolution of business with the evolution of a superior variety of rose." "Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (1968), p. 419.

John D. Rockefeller declared to a Sunday school class: "The growth of a large business is merely a survival of the fittest . . This is not an eve tendency in business. It is merely the working-out of a law of nature and a law of God." -*R. Holstedler, Social Darwinism and American Thought, (1955), p. 45.

*Andrew Carnegie became the wealthiest and most powerful owner of steel mills in America.

"Carnegie rose in business to become a powerful, ruthless tycoon who exploited man and Earth, crushed competition, and justified his actions by a philosophy of Social Darwinism.

"Entrepreneurial competition, he believed, does a service to society by eliminating the weaker elements. Those who survive in business are 'fit,' and therefore deserve their positions and rewards

." 'Before Spencer,' Carnegie said repeatedly, 'all for me had been darkness, after him, all had become light-and right.' It was Spencer, after all, and not Darwin [for Spencer taught it to him], who was the author of the phrase 'survival of the fittest.' " -*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 72.

"Evolution. . gave the doer of evil a respite from his conscience."

"Unscrupulous industrialists took advantage of Darwin's theory to condone their unethical practices. When they put others out of business, they declared that it was just another case of survival of the fittest.

"The railroad magnate, James J. Hill, manipulating to get more railways under his control, said that 'the fortunes of railroad companies are determined by the law of the survival of the fittest.'

"Robert E.D. Clark comments: 'Evolution, in short, gave the doer of evil a respite from his conscience. The most unscrupulous behavior towards a competitor could now be rationalized; evil could be called good." -Bolton Davidheiser, in W. E. Lemmerts (ed.), Scientific Studies in Special Creationism (1971), pp. 338-339.

PUBLIC EDUCATION Although we will discuss this in much more detail in the next chapter (chapter 34 Evolution and Education), it can be noted here that the leading figure in early 20^th century American education, *John Dewey, was an vigorous Darwinist. He founded and led out in the "progressive education movement," which so greatly affected U.S. educational history.

"John Dewey . . Incorporated James' pragmatism into his own philosophy of 'instrumentalism,' along with a thorough-going commitment to collectivist Darwinism, and became by any reckoning the moat influential architect of governmental education, not only in America but throughout the world. He abundantly fulfilled Ward's goal of turning America's public schools into centers of indoctrination in evolution, humanism, and collectivism." -H.M. Morris, History of Modern Creationism (1984), p. 54.

"Progressive education" was nothing more than careful animal training:

"An absolute faith in science became the driving force behind the progressives.. the most important idea that would influence the educators was that of evolution-the notion that man, through a process of natural selection, had evolved to his present state from a common animal ancestry." -Samuel L. Blumenfeld, NEA: Trojan Horse in American Education (1984), p. 43.

"The underlying assumption of progressive education was that the child is simply an evolved animal and must be trained as such-not as an individual created in God's image with tremendous potential as an individual. A child was considered but one member in a group and therefore must be trained collectively to fit into his or her appropriate place in society. Dewey studied Russia's educational system extensively and was a socialist himself, as well as a materialistic pantheist." -Henry Morris, Long War Against God (1989), p. 48.

In 1933, *John Dewey became a charter member of the American Humanist Association and its first president. The basic statement of beliefs of the AHA were published that year under the title, Humanist Manifesto, and later became the unofficial framework of teaching in most school textbooks.

The education of both youth and adults has been seen as the crux in winning the world to the myth of evolution. In order to make atheists of everyone, the schools must be controlled by evolutionists.

"It is essential for evolution to become the central core of any educational system, because it is evolution, in the broad sense, that links inorganic nature with life, and the stars with the earth, and matter with mind, and animals with man. Human history is a continuation of biological evolution in a different form." -*Sir Julian Huxley, quoted in *Sol Tax and *Charles Callender (ads.), Evolution After Darwin, 3 vol. (1960).

EVOLUTION AND CHRISTIANITY It is a surprising and unfortunate fact that the great majority of Christian denominations have either accepted evolutionary theory in whole or in part, or treat it as a matter of little doctrinal concern. There are very, very few denominations which still officially adhere strictly to the teachings of Genesis.

It is not often that we now hear clear, ringing statements such as these in the official church papers of most denominations:

"There is no more reason to believe that man descended from some inferior animal than there is to believe that a stately mansion has descended from a small cottage." -William Jennings Bryan, (1860-1925), quoted in *Asimov's Book of Science and Nature Quotations, p. 91.

"The resources of the Deity cannot be so meager, that in order to create a human being endowed with reason, He must change a monkey into a man." -Louis Agassiz, Methods of Study In Natural History (1863), p. iv.

"What shall we say of the intelligence, not to say religion, of those who are so particular to distinguish between fishes and reptiles and birds, but put a man with a soul in the same circle with the wolf, the hyena, and the skunk? What must be the impression made upon children by such a degradation of man?" -William Jennings Bryan (1860-1925), quoted in *Asimov's Book of Science and Nature Quotations, p. 91.

HIGHER CRITICISM Higher criticism was essentially born in Germany when non-Christian Bible professors produced theories about the Bible that would agree with Darwinism.

"Out of Darwin and his so-called scientific method grew the higher criticism of the 19th century . . What were the results of this teaching of liberalism? There was a high and false estimate of the ability of human nature. It promoted the illusion that the kingdom of God was capable of being fulfilled in history, for man's ability could bring this to pass. There came with it the abandonment of the distinctive and exclusive character of the message of the Gospel and the loss of the uniqueness of Christianity; and secularization of life and thought can also be traced at least in part to the teaching of liberalism in the last century." -Charles C. Ayrie, Neo-Orthodoxy (1956), p. 18.

NEO-ORTHODOXY The "ministers' theologians" are those religion theorists who come up with peculiar new ways of expressing religious speculations. Reading the writings of these men intrigues local pastors who are fascinated with the big words, the somewhat mysterious sentence structure, and the novel concepts presented. But error is often woven into the fabric of these presentations. Far better it is to take the Word of God and stick with that, than to spend time trying to figure out the ideas of the modern theologians!

One of the errors clothed in beautiful garments in the writings of most of these high-level theologians is evolution.

"Evolution is at the foundation of communism, Fascism, Freudianism, social Darwinism, behaviourism, Kinseyism, materialism, atheism and, in the religious world, modernism and Neo-orthodoxy." -H.M. Morris, Twilight of Evolution (1963), p. 24.

A Darwinian scientist gloats over the fact that even the Christians are moving into line on the evolution question.

"Most enlightened persons now accept as a fact that everything in the cosmos-from heavenly bodies to human beings-has developed and continues to develop through evolutionary processes. The great religions of the West have come to accept a historical view of creation. ' Evolutionary concepts are applied also to social institutions and to the arts. Indeed, most political parties, as well as schools of theology, sociology, history, or arts, teach these concepts and make them the basis of their doctrines. Thus, theoretical biology now pervades all of Western culture indirectly through the concept of progressive historical change." -*R. Dubos, "Humanistic Biology," in American Scientist, (March, 1965), Vol. 53, p. 8.

One cannot accept these half-way house theories without rejecting basic truths of the atonement and salvation.

Charles Ryrie made an in-depth study into Neo-orthodox errors, and Morris quotes him:

"Dr. Ryrie (in his book, Neo-orthodoxy) proceeds to show how the leaders of Neo-orthodoxy (Barth, Brunner, Niebuhr, et. al.), while professing a return to biblical theology, continue to reject the accounts of Creation, the Fall, etc., as historic facts, and thus continue to build their religious system upon an evolutionary philosophy as its foundation:

" 'Thus the Genesis account of creation and the fall is rejected as history-as most of us understand history. Science, the Barthians say, has delivered us from having to believe the Genesis stories, and through the scientific deliverance, we are supposed to be able to see the real meaning of the accounts." -H.M. Morris, Twilight of Evolution (1963), pp. 2324. [quoting Charles C. Ayrie, Neo-Orthodoxy (1956), P. 51].

You have just completed

 CHAPTER 33 - EVOLUTION AND SOCIETY Part 2
NEXT 

CHAPTER 33 - EVOLUTION AND SOCIETY Part 3