EVOLUTION:
Science or Religion?by Louis A. Turk The theory of evolution is not science, as many
people have been led to believe, but is the core
faith belief held by the atheistic religion called
Humanism. All Humanist teachings revolve
around and rest upon the evolution world-view.
The significance of evolution is this: if evolution
is true, then the Bible is not true, and there is no
God. And if there is no God, then morality is
relative not absolute, and so "individuals should
be allowed to express their sexual proclivities and
pursue their lifestyles as they desire" (Humanist
Manifesto II, section 6). It is this freedom from
God's morality which gives Humanism its appeal.
"Plato and Aristotle, in general, are the mental
gods of the Humanists."1 Other well known
evolutionary Humanists are Adolf Hitler, Benito
Mussolini, Joseph Stalin, John Dewey (father of
so-called "progressive education"), Allen F.
Guttmacher (former president of Planned
Parenthood Federation of America), and Isaac
Asimov (writer and present president of the
American Humanist Association).
Sir Julian Huxley, world famous evolutionary
biologist, former head of UNESCO (United
Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organization), and a signer of Humanist Manifesto
II, clearly stated the atheistic implication of evolu-
tion as follows:
Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the creator of
organisms from the sphere of rational discussion. Darwin
pointed out that no supernatural designer was needed; since
natural selection could account for any known form of life,
there was no room for a supernatural agency in its evolu-
tion....I think we can dismiss entirely all idea of a supernatural
overriding mind being responsible for the evolutionary
process.2
Since the theory of evolution is being taught
daily to our children in public schools, and since
powerful political forces are advocating Humanism
as the religion to be espoused by the United
Nations, it is very important that Americans
understand more about Humanism and its theory
of evolution.
The name Humanism has a nice ring; when
people hear it they tend to think it means humane
or cultured. But its name, like all things about
Humanism, is deceptive. Since Humanists reject
belief in God, they conclude themselves to be the
highest life form, and thus assume positions as
gods. The name Humanist refers to this self-
idolization. Humanism is the ultimate conceit.
Humanist Manifesto II, Section 1, states:
...traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place
revelation, God, ritual, or creed above human needs and expe-
rience do a disservice to the human species. Any account of
nature should pass the tests of scientific evidence; in our judg-
ment, the dogmas and myths of traditional religions do not do
so. Even at this late date in human history, certain elementary
facts based upon the critical use of scientific reason have to be
restated. We find insufficient evidence for belief in the exist-
ence of a supernatural; it is either meaningless or irrelevant to
the question of the survival and fulfillment of the human race.
As nontheists, we begin with humans not God, nature not
deity.
We agree that any account of nature "should pass
the test of scientific evidence," but point out
that the Bible has never failed this test, while the
Humanist theory of evolution has never passed it,
an example of which will be shown below. Mean-
while, the Bible gives this comment about the
Humanist rejection of the Bible, which is God's
supernatural revelation of Himself, and about the
Humanist's rejection of God Himself:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as
God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imagina-
tions, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing them-
selves to be wise, they became fools....changed the truth of
God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more
than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this
cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their
women did change the natural use into that which is against
nature [became lesbians]: and likewise also the men, leaving
the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward
another; men with men working that which is unseemly
[became h*m*sexuals], and receiving in themselves that
recompense of their error which was meet [disease, AIDS,
etc.] And even as they did not like to retain God in their
knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind (Rom
1.21-28; see also Lev 18.22-30 and Ex 15:26).
Humanism is not new. As admitted in the
preface to Humanist Manifesto I and II,
"Humanism is a philosophical, religious, and
moral point of view as old as human civilization
itself." In fact, it originated with Satan in the Gar-
den of Eden.
Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field
which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the
woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of
the garden?....Ye shall not surely die...your eyes shall be
opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil (Gen
3.1-5).
The myth of evolution also is not new,
beginning even before the temptation of Eve.
Only disbelief of God's Word concerning creation
(as given in Gen 1 and 2), could have motivated
Satan to so foolishly try to overthrow God (Rev
12.7-9). No one could possibly overcome God if
God be what He says He is---the omniscient,
omnipresent, omnipotent Creator. But, it is logi-
cal to conclude that Satan reasoned that perhaps
God was lying, and that everything---including
God---just evolved from the primeval ooze. And
since Satan still is revolting against God, it is
obvious that he is still an avid evolutionist.3 He
has swallowed his own lie, and will end up in the
eternal Lake of Fire as a direct result (Rev 20.10).
The myth of evolution has an interesting history.
The root idea of evolution is that living beings can
come into existence without parents out of non-
living matter. In the past, evolution was called
abiogenesis or spontaneous generation.
Humanists boast that Humanism caused the
scientific revolution that brought in all the advan-
cements in medicine in the past 100 years.
However, that is not true. In fact, scientists'
rejection of the Bible and belief in the Humanist
doctrine of evolution kept the medical world
blinded to the true cause of diseases for hundreds
and hundreds of years. Unwilling to accept God's
account of creation, and being unable with their
naked eyes to see small creatures reproduce, they
reasoned that dead meat just "spontaneously gener-
ated" flies, and that germs had no parents, but just
evolved from naturally occurring chemical
processes.
The story of the theory of spontaneous generation is one of the
most fantastic in all biology. Thompson says: "If longevity of
a belief were an index to its truth, the theory of spontaneous
generation should rank high among the veracities, for it flour-
ished throughout twenty centuries and more." We cannot trace
the history of the theory in detail, but the story may be recom-
mended to the psychological historian as a labyrinth of error,
with glimpses of truth at every turn.
The belief in spontaneous generation is recorded in literature
back as far as Anaximander (611-547 B.C.). He believed that
eels and other aquatic forms are produced directly from lifeless
matter. His pupil Anaximenes (588-524 B.C.) "introduced the
idea of primordial terrestrial slime, a mixture of earth and
water, from which, under the influence of the sun's heat,
plants, animals and human beings are directly produced---in
the abiogenetic fashion," says Osborn in "From the Greeks to
Darwin." Diogenes and Xenophanes...also believed in
spontaneous generation. Then came the "father of natural his-
tory," Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), who fostered this idea so
strongly that it has persisted for more that twenty centuries.4
Louis Pasteur, the father of modern medicine,
dared to question the evolution dogma. He
observed the opposite of evolution, and suspected
that spontaneous generation of living beings from
dead matter was not a reality. Furthermore he
believed that species did not evolve into new
species, but rather came from parents of the same
kind as themselves. (This is called biogenesis, and
is what the Bible teaches in Genesis chapter one.)
Pasteur realized that if he were right, different
kinds of germs caused different diseases, and by
determining a germ's kind and learning how to kill
that kind, the disease it caused could be cured.
Pasteur declared, "It is in the power of man to
make parasitic illnesses disappear from the face of
the globe, if the doctrine of spontaneous gener-
ation is wrong, as I am sure it is."5 On April 7,
1864, six years after Charles Darwin published his
Origin of Species, and after Pasteur had endured
years of opposition, ridicule and outright hatred
from evolutionary pseudo-scientists, he lectured in
a large lecture room of the Sorbonne concerning
his famous experiments. He began by alluding to
the significance of his experiments to the crea-
tion/evolution conflict.
Great problems are now being handled, keeping every thinking
man in suspense; the unity or multiplicity of human races; the
creation of man 1,000 years or 1,000 centuries ago, the fixity
of species, or the slow and progressive transformation of one
species into another; the eternity of matter; the idea of a God
unnecessary. Such are some of the questions that humanity
discusses nowadays.
Then he explained his famous experiment, dis-
proving abiogenesis. He showed two flasks. Both
contained portions of the same organic broth.
Both had necks open to the air. Months before,
the broth in both had been sterilized by heat. But
the neck of one pointed upward, while the long
neck of the other curved downward, then upward,
like a swans neck. "Why does one decay," he
asked, "while the second remains pure?"
The only difference between them is this: in the first case the
dusts suspended in air and their germs can fall into the neck of
the flask and arrive into contact with the liquid, where they
find appropriate food and develop; thence microscopic beings.
In the second flask, on the contrary, it is impossible, or at least
extremely difficult...that dusts suspended in air should enter
the vase; they fall on its curved neck....And, therefore, gent-
lemen, I could point to that liquid and say to you, I have taken
my drop of water from the immensity of creation, and I have
taken it full of the elements appropriated to the development of
inferior beings. And I wait, I watch, I question it, begging it
to recommence for me the beautiful spectacle of the first crea-
tion. But it is dumb, dumb since these experiments were
begun several years ago; it is dumb because I have kept it
from the only thing man cannot produce, from the germs
which float in the air, from Life, for Life is a germ and a germ
Life. Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation
recover from the mortal blow of this simple experiment....No,
there is now no circumstance known in which it can be
affirmed that microscopic beings came into the world without
germs, without parents similar to themselves. Those who
affirm it have been duped by illusions, by ill-conducted experi-
ments, spoilt by errors that they either did not perceive or did
not know how to avoid.6
Amazingly, in spite of Pasteur's conclusive evi-
dence against evolution, atheists still lust to
believe any book which explains away God, no
matter how fraudulent. For example, Charles
Darwin's Origin of Species, gave not one proof
that has stood the test of time. Yet it is their
bible. If Darwin said it, evolutionists blindly
believe it, and that settles it in their minds.
Charles Darwin is said to have been a shy man,
who did not like public speaking. Thomas A.
Huxley, grandfather of Sir Julian Huxley
(previously quoted) was a close friend and public
defender of Charles Darwin and his Origin of
Species. So fervently did he promote Darwinian
evolution that he earned the nickname "Darwin's
Bulldog." Yet listen to Huxley's admission:
"To say...in the admitted absence of evidence, that I have any
belief as to the mode in which the existing forms of life have
originated, would be using words in a wrong sense.
But expectation is permissible where belief is not; and if it
were given to me to look beyond the abyss of geologically
recorded time to the still more remote period when the earth
was passing through physical and chemical conditions which it
can no more see again than man can recall his infancy, I
should expect to be a witness of the evolution of living sub-
stance from non-living matter....This is the expectation to
which analogical reasoning leads me; but I beg you once more
to recollect that I have no right to call my opinion anything but
an act of philosophical faith."7
Huxley was one of the rare evolutionists who
would admit that his belief in evolution was "an
act of philosophical faith" in a theory for which
there is complete "absence of evidence." Now we
have the truth: evolution is pagan religion, not
science! It really takes faith to believe in some-
thing for which there is not one shred of evidence!
To this day, no one has ever, even once, witnessed
non-life give birth to life; if it ever happened, it
would still be happening. Evolution is a
monstrous lie! Think of the millions of people
who died of infectious diseases because of this
myth! Think of the millions now who are
rejecting God and dooming themselves to Hell
because of faith in this pagan religious teaching!
The First Ammendment to the Constitution for-
bids teaching religion in public schools, yet the
biology book used in the Oklahoma City Public
School District teaches the unscientific, occult,
Humanist religious doctrine of evolution, saying,
Today, however, the principle of biogenesis may have to be
modified. When considering the origin of life on Earth, some
scientists have hypothesized that the first cells arose from non-
living materials."8
This is indeed an unbelievable giant-step back to
the Dark Ages for science---and for our children!
Such is the dubious science of wizards and sooth-
sayers. No wonder the Bible warns us to avoid
profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely
so called: which some professing have erred concerning the
faith (I Tim 6.20-21).
Evolution exposed to be a myth, we come
unavoidably to the only alternative origin of life:
special creation by the true, and living God. And
we begin to understand why "The fear of the
LORD is the beginning of knowledge" (Prov 1.7),
and why no educational system that rejects God
can succeed. As Jesus put it, the word of God "is
truth" (John 17.17); scholars who reject it doom
themselves to be "ever learning, and never able to
come to the knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim 3.7).
And since the Bible is truth, every doctrine in it is
true: doctrines such as the absoluteness of truth
and morals, the fall of man, the global flood in the
days of Noah, a literal Heaven and a literal burn-
ing Hell, the virgin birth of Christ thereby provid-
ing a sinless Saviour, Christ's substitutionary death
on the cross to redeem us from our sins, His burial
and bodily resurrection, salvation not of works but
by grace through faith in Christ, the absolute
necessity of repentance and the new birth, and the
fact that Christ will return to judge those who
reject Him---everything the Bible teaches is
inerrantly true, and if we ignore it we do so at
great peril. "The fool hath said in his heart, There
is no God" (Ps 14.1).
Learn more about this vital issue. Periodically
we conduct a free Creation/Evolution Conflict
Seminar. Also, you are invited to our regular
services. To obtain information, phone or write:International Baptist Church
%Louis A. Turk
[...]
O. City, OK [...]
Phone: [...]Copyright 1992 by Louis A. Turk 1"Scholastic, Humanist and Scientific Thought and
Theory" in The Outline of Knowledge, James A. Richard,
ed. (New York: J.A. Richards, Inc., 1924), vol. 2, The
Story of Religion and Philosophic Thought, by Frederick H.
Martens, 282.
2Sir Julian Huxley in "At Random: A Television
Preview," in Evolution After Darwin, Sol Tax, Ed.,
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960), vol. 3, Issues
In Evolution, 45.
3For a detailed discussion of Satan as the first evolutionist
see Henry M. Morris, The Long War Against God: the His-
tory and Impact of the Creation/Evolution Conflict (Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1989), 255-327.
4"The Origin of Life" in The Outline of Knowledge,
James A. Richard, ed., (New York: J.A. Richards, Inc.,
1924), vol. 6, Biology, by Carolina E. Stackpole, 227-8.
5Louis Pasteur as quoted in Beverley Birch, Louis
Pasteur: the Scientist Who Found the Cause of Infectious
Disease and Invented Pasteurization (Milwaukee: Gareth
Stevens Children's Books, 1989), 50.
6Louis Pasteur as quoted in Vallery-Radot, The Life of
Pasteur, translated by R.L. Devonshire (Garden City, New
York: Doubleday, Page & Company, 1923), 107-9.
7Stackpole, 226-7.
8Harvey D. Goodman et al., Biology (Orlando: Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1989), 32 and 228-230.
[Chr. Helps Ministry (USA)] [Chr. Home Bible Course]