When Charles Darwin observed animals and began formulating his theory of evolution, he probably never dreamed of causing humanity grief or degrading the human condition. Instead, he wanted to advance scientific knowledge. Through his theory of evolution, he offered an explanation of how life might have come into existence apart from God. He termed the process natural selection, which he claimed caused gradual changes in life-forms over millions of years. It was a revolutionary idea that has had a monumental impact far beyond the field of science.
Yet what Darwin offered to the scientific world in 1859 in his book The Origin of Species has precipitated a great deal of collateral damage—that is, unintended consequences. Sadly, few in society at large have considered the repercussions of his landmark idea. Like a bomb shattering an innocent silence, the shock waves from Darwin's supposition continue to relentlessly pummel society.
How the theory of evolution evolved and how it has been defended is a story filled with irony, deceit and even religious-like faith held by nonreligious people. Here is a tale stranger than the animals Darwin observed on the Galapagos Islands.
Before offering his theory of evolution, Charles Darwin completed a degree in theology. In his studies, surely Darwin had noted the Bible's revelation that "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1 Genesis 1:1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
American King James Version×) and that "God created man in His own image" (verse 27).
Yet Darwin's theory rejected the biblical explanation of special creation. He was unsure whether life initially came about through a Creator or of its own accord. In any case, Darwin supposed that different gradual evolutionary changes in various life-forms accounted for the variety of creatures—mammal, fish, fowl, etc.—alive today.
Why did Darwin abandon biblical teaching? Why did he offer a completely unproven theory that was in opposition to the Bible? As it turns out, Darwin apparently wasn't well-grounded in the Scriptures and, as science is discovering, the evidence is mounting that his theory is likewise flawed.
In rejecting religion, Darwin struck a chord that resonated with many in his day and continues to resonate today. In holding to Darwin's theory, some mistakenly think they are free from the rules and laws of a Creator. Assuming that God is not in the picture, they mistakenly believe that they are free to decide for themselves what is right and wrong. Had such individuals only read and accepted the Bible, they could have known that Adam and Eve tried the same thing—rejecting God—several thousand years ago and suffered a terrible consequence for such faulty thinking.
In rejecting God's revealed knowledge and deciding for themselves how to live, Adam and Eve lost access to the tree of life, which represented the opportunity to live forever (Genesis 3). Sadly, Darwin and his supporters were undeterred by biblical history. It seems they didn't want to "retain God in their knowledge" (Romans 1:28 Romans 1:28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
American King James Version×)—much less hear what God had to say through the pages of the Bible. They mistakenly thought their course of action gave them freedom—an enticing word often used in propaganda.
A new worldview
Nancy Pearcey in her 2004 book Total Truth explains that prior to Darwin, the knowledge of God and the knowledge of physical things were considered to blend together in one harmonious worldview. The observation of Proverbs 1:7 Proverbs 1:7The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
American King James Version×;"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction"—was generally considered by educated people to be true.
Pearcey makes the point that although secularizing forces were already at work to divide science and religion, Darwin's theory of evolution crystallized a new worldview suggesting that science was absolute knowledge that could be analyzed and quantified, while religious belief represented private, emotional knowledge that varied for each individual.
And what was the result of this newly emerged two-tiered worldview of science and religion? Pearcey writes: "If natural causes working on their own are capable of producing everything that exists, then the obvious implication is that there's nothing left for a Creator to do. He's out of a job. And if the existence of God no longer serves any explanatory or cognitive function, then the only function left is an emotional one: Belief in God is reduced to an escape hatch for people afraid to face modernity" (pp. 153-154).
Continuing, she astutely notes, "The major impact of Darwinian evolution does not lie in the details of mutation and natural selection, but in something far more significant—a new criterion of what qualifies as objective truth" (ibid.).
Thus, the introduction of Darwin's theory opened up an all-out debate over truth. Ironically, Darwin's supporters claimed that religion was just a humanly devised invention to help people during times of trouble. Ah yes. Humanly devised—as if the theory of evolution wasn't!
Evolution under the microscope
In reflecting upon his theory of evolution, Darwin knew there were dauntingly unproven aspects of his hypothesis. For example, he admitted that the complexity of the eye presented certain problems. He also acknowledged that there was no fossil record proving the gradual changes in life-forms that he imagined had taken place. He simply hoped that fossils would eventually be found to prove him correct.
Given the weaknesses of his theory, Darwin was surprised at its positive reception. Today it seems that Darwin himself had more doubts about his theory than many Darwinian devotees who have accepted it without question.
Yet under the microscope of inspection, scientists and competent thinkers have jointly discovered serious flaws with Darwin's theory. A number of the theory's supposed proofs have been found inadequate. Consider some of the tired, worn-out, inaccurate examples that unfortunately are still being offered as evolution's best proofs (see chart at bottom).
The church of Darwin
With no valid evidence to prove Darwinian evolution and mounting scientific evidence against it, supporters of evolution find themselves increasingly challenged to maintain their faith. It's an awkward position demanding unquestioning adherence.
When evolutionary theory is challenged by scientific evidence such as that offered by the intelligent design movement, some are surprised that Darwinian supporters almost always respond by claiming that intelligent design is thinly disguised religion. Yet technically, one doesn't have to believe in a particular God or creed to believe in intelligent design since the arguments for intelligent design are made from scientific evidence alone.
Sadly, it seems that those who faithfully hold to Darwin's theory don't want to acknowledge the accumulating body of scientific information undermining their position. The reason they don't is obvious. Their worldview is at risk. If the creation indeed has the fingerprints of the Creator—as mounting evidence indicates—they will have no excuse for ignoring God. Indeed, the Bible says just that (see Romans 1:20 Romans 1:20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
American King James Version×).
For the academic world to accept intelligent design would be as monumental a change as was the acceptance of Darwin's theory. Unwilling to face the evidence, true-believer Darwinians respond by trying to discredit the science as religion. Ironically again, these days it seems to take more faith to believe in Darwinism than it does to believe in the Creator God of the Bible.
Since its detonation, the Darwin bomb's blast wave has impacted just about every field of study, with some seriously negative consequences. While Darwin's devotees are fond of talking about all the deaths associated with-religious wars, they don't like to be reminded of the immoral, materialistic worldviews that have been built upon or justified by Darwin's theory.
A biography of Joseph Stalin explains that Stalin considered Darwin's book The Origin of Species proof that there was no God (E. Yaroslavsky, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin, pp. 8-9).
As a seminary student, Stalin encouraged a fellow student to read Darwin's book so his friend would also understand that "talk about God is nonsense" (ibid.). With reassurance from Darwin that there was no God with rules against killing other human beings, Stalin felt justified in holding his own values. He had no qualms about murdering millions of his countrymen in an effort to build a better state.
In Nazi Germany, Adolf Hitler's concept of breeding a master race was based on the "survival of the fittest" concept inherent in Darwin's philosophy. Whether or not Darwin's own views were racist, his theory and even the full title of his book—On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life—aligned with Hitler's racist worldview and his killing of 6 million Jews in his effort to build a superrace.
Again, if we don't rely on God for the truth that it is wrong to murder other human beings, people's choices simply become matters of personal opinion.
Is the killing of millions of people the outcome Charles Darwin desired in writing The Origin of Species? Of course not. But the collateral damage associated with Darwinism doesn't end with Stalin and Hitler. It has continued its relentless march through numerous fields with perhaps none more striking than that of moral conduct.
If people are animals, as Darwin suggested, there is nothing wrong with them mating with whomever and whenever they wish. Disregarding biblical instructions governing our sexual conduct has led to the destruction of numerous families and untold heartache. Chalk it up to collateral damage.
Furthermore, if people are simply animals, then it really doesn't matter if a woman chooses to have an abortion. With this mind-set, millions of babies have been aborted before they ever drew their first breath. More collateral damage.
When writing The Origin of Species, did Darwin anticipate that his philosophy would be instrumental in destroying marriages and snuffing out the lives of millions of babies? Surely not. But a faulty premise inevitably leads to faulty conclusions. The negative effects of immoral conduct justified by Darwin's theory continue to add up.
How strange that so many support a mistaken idea that has evolved into a materialistic philosophy devaluing human life and undermining mankind's faith in his Creator. How sad to see all the unnecessary heartache. Why not acknowledge God as God and choose to live a lifestyle of blessing and restoration, not of collateral damage? VT
Darwinian Double-Talk: Micro vs. Macro
The term evolution has two meanings that can be confused, a fact that supporters of Darwin's theory of evolution often exploit in their efforts to "prove" their position. Evolution, in the sense of limited variation within existing groups of animals, undoubtedly takes place. It is common to see variations in finches, dogs and cats, but these variations are limited to change within each group. These comparatively minor changes fall within the category of microevolution and do not produce gradual change from one group to another or the creation of a new species.
Macroevolution—the kind of complex changes that would lead to speciation (formation of new species) and eventually new kinds of creatures as theorized by Charles Darwin—has never been proven. There seems to be a barrier inherent within nature that does not-permit such complex changes. The Bible refers to these separations in stating that creatures reproduce according to "kind" (Genesis 1:24-25 Genesis 1:24-25  And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creeps on the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
American King James Version×).
Even though the common types of evolution cited in science textbooks fall within the category of microevolution, supporters of evolution often fail to make this distinction, allowing students to mistakenly believe these examples are proof of macroevolution.
|Supposed Proof||Darwin Spin||Observable Reality|
|Finch Beaks||Finches on the Galapagos Islands grow different-sized beaks depending upon their habitat. This is evolution in action.||When the finches' habitat returns to normal, so does the size of their beaks. This is minor adaptation to circumstances, not evolutionary change leading to a new kind of bird.|
By exposing fruit flies to various chemicals or radiation, researchers can produce mutations with different-sized wings.
This is evolution in action.
|After more than 50 years of experimentation, all that has been produced is dysfunctional fruit flies. None have become new insects or even improved fruit flies. They don't fly as well as their predecessors.|
|Peppered Moths||During the industrial revolution in Britain, smoke and soot made it easier for birds to see and eat lighter-colored moths on dark tree trunks. Darker-colored moths became predominant. Another proof of evolution.||This supposed proof turns out to be a myth. Photos were staged to illustrate the point. Further investigation has shown that these moths do not normally perch on tree trunks.|
|Haeckel's embryos||A strong supporter of Darwin, German scientist Ernst Haeckel created a chart showing the similarity of the embryos of vertebrates. The close similarity of each vertebrate proves its common evolutionary ancestry.||Although Darwin thought this chart represented the strongest proof of his theory, Haeckel's drawings were misrepresentations. He deliberately drew his sketches of embryos to look more alike than they really are.|