Evolution and Morality

By Jerry C. Ray

The worth of a doctrine can often be judged by observing its application in human thought and experience. No doctrine, no matter how attractive or plausible it may seem, is valuable if the consistent application of its principles results in the degradation and dissipation of humanity. After 100 years we can look at the fruits of evolution and see that by this principle it stands condemned.

Prof Jacques Barzun of Columbia University has pointed out the profound significance of the year 1859. In that year was sown the seed that has brought forth a terrible harvest. In that year Darwin published his Origin of the Species, Karl Marx published his Critique of Political Economy and Wagner published “Tristan and Isolde.” Darwin’s book destroyed man’s faith in God, Marx’s book destroyed man’s faith in the rights of private property, and Wagner’s opera gave the cultural background that was indispensable to make these revolutionary ideas both popular and palatable. (Evolution’ published by International Christian Crusade, Ontario, Canada, 14th edition, page 78).

What then are the fruits of evolution?

1. It tends to destroy faith in the Bible, Jesus and God. One cannot believe the Bible and what the Bible says of God and Christ and at the same time believe the theory of evolution. They are antithetical. Some individuals try to harmonize evolution and Christianity, but it is an impossible task.After William Jennings Bryan delivered a defense of the Biblical account of creation in the Wesley Memorial church in Atlanta about forty years ago, he talked with some students and others. A student from Emory University said to him, “Mr. Bryan, I can reconcile the Bible with the theory of evolution.” Mr. Bryan replied, “You have more sense than Darwin; he couldn’t.” The student then said, “All you have to do is to discard the first two chapters of Genesis.” Mr. Bryan, with eyes flashing, replied, “That would not be reconciliation; it would be mutilation.”

There is no place in the evolutionary theory for sin, the soul, salvation and a Savior.

2. It fosters militarism and imperils world peace. Darwin’s original thesis and the 20 or so different evolutionary theories of today that come from it teach the “survival of the fittest.” Progress comes through the killing off of the weak and the emergence of the stronger species. In the words of Prof. S. J. Holmes of the University of California: “Darwinism, consistently applied, w o u I d measure goodness in terms of survival value.”

Might makes right. The weak are destined to die. The stronger must conquer the weaker. This concept is not original. It is the old law of the jungle. It is a devolution to barbarism. But this is the consistent application of the evolutionary theory. The subtitle to Darwin’s book is: “The preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.”

There were wars before the evolutionary theory became popular. But the theory and its underlying philosophy gave plausibility to the insanity of war. Evolution is the cornerstone of the modern philosophy of militarism. Exponents claim that from an evolutionary standpoint war is both good and necessary, that it is the application of the natural law and is biologically normal and right to crush the weaker people of the earth.

Hitler drank deeply of this philosophy and it became the foundation for Nazism and his “super-race” concept. Bethman Von Hollweg saturnically justified the invasion of Belgium on the principle that the big animal eats the little one and the Belgian turtle was in the way of the German Dinosaur. Hitler said, “The whole of nature is a continuous struggle between strength and weakness, an eternal victory of the strong over the weak.”

George Bernard Shaw said, “Darwinism, a mechanical doctrine, destroyed religion, but gave us nothing in its place. It gave an air of science to moral and political opportunism and to struggle-for-life militarism.”

Communism is based upon dialectical materialism, whose foundation is evolution. Evolution is an inherent part of communism. Destroy this atheistic facet of communism and you lay the ax at the root of the tree of communist philosophy. If the existence of a Supreme Being and the moral accountability to the same be accepted, the unquestioned and undeviating loyalty to the Party is disturbed. The “end justifies the means” philosophy with its ruthlessness and violence suffers when the communist realizes there is a higher power to which man must give an account. This the party cannot tolerate in its conspiratorial conquest of the world.

3. It encourages atheism. Atheism is the logical results of evolution in the spiritual realm. “Evolution is atheism in thought and anarchy in conduct.”

Charles Smith, former president of the American Association for the advancement of Atheism, said, “Evolution is atheism.” Woolsey Teller, former vice-president of the same organization, has stated, “the God idea cannot be reconciled without knowledge of evolution.”

The influence of evolution can be illustrated in the life of Charles Darwin. Before embarking on his career as a naturalist he studied for the ministry for three years at Cambridge. At the time of his voyage on the Beagle, collecting his materials from which comes his book, he himself said he was “quite orthodox.” Nearly fifty years later, however, he wrote, “for myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation” (Evolution, p. 82).

4. It encourages modernism. Modernism has developed due to the lack of faith in the truthfulness of the Bible and an obsession to worship at the altar of scientific theory. Every human philosophy that discredits the Bible is faced with the problem of explaining the origin of life. Evolution is their answer. Modernism is no different. Supernatural religion is set aside for evolutionary theory.

5. It injures public morals. It tends to break down all law, moral and spiritual, and to give free course to the worst passions of men, all under the guise of doing that that is normal and natural.

On May 21, 1924, in Chicago, Nathan F. Leopold, nineteen-year-old son of a wealthy box manufacturer, and Richard A. Loeb, eighteen year old son of the vice-president of Sears, Roebuck and Co., murdered Robert Franks, fourteen. Leopold was a graduate of the University of Chicago and Loeb of the University-of Michigan.

At their trial the following August these young men were defended by the celebrated criminal lawyer, Clarence Darrow. His eloquence is credited with saving their lives and his defense speech is considered one of the greatest in American judicial history.

His defense was (1) they were insane, of diseased mind, ( 2) they were victims of hereditary taint, (3) they were victims of evolutionary teaching. Below are quotations from Darrow’s closing argument (Famous Jury Speeches, pp. 992-1089).

“I know that one of two things happened to Richard Loeb; that this terrible crime was inherent in his organism, and came from some ancestor, or that it came through his education and his training after he was born.” ( 1050).

“I do not know what remote ancestors may have sent down the seed that corrupted him, and I do not know through how many ancestors it may have passed until it reached Dickie Loeb.

“All I know is that it is true, and there is not a biologist in the world who will not say that I am right.” (1050).

“If there is responsibility anywhere, it is back of him; somewhere in the infinite number of his ancestors, or in his surroundings, or in both. And I submit, your Honor that under every principle of natural justice, under every principle of conscience, of right, and of law, he should not be made responsible for the acts of someone else.” (1051).

Of Nathan Leopold, Darrow points out that he became enamoured of the philosopher, Nietzsche. Continuing, Darrow says:

“He wrote one book, ‘Beyond Good and Evil’ which was a criticism of all moral codes as the world understands them; a treatise holding that the intelligent man is beyond good and evil; that the laws for good and the laws for evil do not apply to those who approach the superman.” (1053).

Darrow continues and quotes Nietzsche:

” ‘The morality of the master class is irritating to the taste of the present day because of its fundamental principle that a man has obligation only to his equals; that he may act to all of lower rank and to all that are foreign, as he pleases.’

“In other words, man has no obligations; he may do with all other men and all other boys, and all society, as he pleases–the superman was a creation of Nietzsche, but it has permeated every college and university in the civilized world.” (1055).

“If this boy is to blame for this, where did he get it? Is there any blame attached because somebody took Nietzsche’s philosophy and fashioned his life on it? And there is no question in this case but what it is true. The university would be more to blame than he is. The scholars of the world would be more to blame than he is. The publishers of the world–and Nietzsche’s books are published by one of the biggest publishers in the world–are more to blame than he. Your Honor, it is hardly fair to hang a nineteen-year-old boy for the philosophy that he was taught at the university.” (1059).

Leopold, with his obsession of the superhuman, repeatedly said that Loeb was his idea of the superhuman. In a letter Leopold wrote:

“It may not have occurred to you why a mere mistake in judgment on your part should be treated as a crime when on the part of another it should not be so considered. Here are the reasons. In formulating a superman he is, on account of certain superior qualities inherent in him, exempted from ordinary laws that govern ordinary men. He is not liable for anything he may do . . .”(1067).

In 1925 Darrow defended John Thomas Scopes in the Dayton, Tenn. trial. State law forbade the teaching of the evolutionary theory. Scopes, the biology teacher at Rhea high school in Dayton, taught the evolutionary hypothesis. I have often wondered what Darrow’s feelings were in defending the teaching of evolution in the public schools after having defended Leopold’s crime on the grounds that he had been taught the evolutionary theory in the public schools.

6. It encourages racial prejudice. The White Citizens Council, Greenwood, Miss., distributes literature saturated with the evolutionary “survival of the fittest” and white supremacy justified by the law of the jungle.

One pamphlet is a reprint of a 1907 Saturday Evening Post article by Harris Dickson. Here are some quotes from the article:

“The negro should never have been trusted with the ballot. He is different from the white man. He is congenitally unqualified to exercise the most responsible duty of citizenship. He is physically, mentally, morally racially and eternally the white man’s inferior. There is nothing in the history of his race, nothing in his individual character, nothing in his achievements of the past or his promise for the future that entitles him to stand side by side with the white man at the ballot box.

“The inestimable privilege was thrust upon the Negro snatching him out of his twenty thousand barbaric years and placing him shoulder to shoulder with the heir of all the ages.”

“I maintain that so long as the African and Caucasian races coexist in the same society, the subordination of the African is its normal, necessary and proper condition, and that such subordination is the condition best calculated to promote the highest interest and the greatest happiness of both races, and, consequently, of the whole society–that the white is the supenor and the black the inferior, and that subordination, with or without law, will be the status of the African in this mixed society. Therefore, it is to the interest of both, and especially of the black race, that this status should be fixed, controlled and protected by law.”

“From the beginning of time the white races have never bowed to a superior, and have rarely brooked an equal. They have tolerated other peoples so long as those other peoples did not come into direct competition and conflict with them–so long as other races took nothing from the white man which the white man desired for himself. For instance, the white man needed the Indian’s land–and took it. The Indian resisted– and disappeared.”

Does this sound like something from Adolph Hitler? Many more quotations could be offered from various pamphlets; this is the warp and woof of the “justification” of racial discrimination put out by this organization.

The conclusion of the whole matter: Evolution stands indicted by its own corrupting influence.

Truth Magazine: IX, 2, pp. 2-4
November 1964

Genesis 1 Answers . . .

An older friend of ours now deceased used to say, “If one doesn’t believe the first five words of the Bible, the rest doesn’t matter.” Truer words could not be spoken.

The stage for the universe, earth, man and woman, and their respective purposes is set from the beginning of the Bible. God doesn’t explain Himself; the inspired author (Moses) simply begins with facts concerning His creation of all things in an orderly fashion, and assumes the reader believes in Him.

Genesis 1 answers questions that plague many people, and one’s belief or disbelief of this chapter actually determines what one’s “world view” will be toward a number of topics. Consider the following questions definitely answered by Genesis 1.

1. From where did the material universe come? Logically, it has to be either eternal – it was always here, or it was made. Genesis 1 answers that God existed before the universe, and made it. The universe had a “beginning,” and it was begun by God.

2. Why are plant and animal life in existence? Plant and animal life were made for man’s use and are to be under his dominion (1:26-31).

3. What position does mankind have in relation to the earth? Evolutionists would have us believe that mankind is only a part of the earth, perhaps a higher link in an evolutionary chain of events, and was an accident, a product only of the earth times chance times millions of years. Genesis 1 teaches differently. The progression and organization of each day’s events indicate purpose. God created the earth and populated it with lower life forms the first five days and part of the sixth day. Finally on the sixth day, He created man and woman differently from lower life forms. He created them in His own image. Therefore, the lower creation (earth and lower life forms) is to serve man’s needs as stated above, and to be under his control. It was made adequate for man’s habitation, good, and sustenance. Furthermore, since man has dominion over the earth, is to “subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea,…birds of the heavens, and over every living thing that moves upon the earth” (ch. 1:28), he is obviously not to worship the earth or any life form beneath him. Rather, he should thank God for His wisdom in making everything on earth for his good.

4. What position does mankind have in relation to the Creator? The fact that mankind was created by the very word of God to be “in His image,” indicates that God wanted this special creation to be like He is in character. “In our image, after our likeness” will be explained later. We also could infer from this, especially when considering the rest of the Bible story, that He wanted mankind to love Him, have a relation with Him, and that we would want to live with Him. Answers to evolution, theistic evolution, and the place of man in the grand scheme:

1. God created the earth full grown. It was miraculous. Therefore plants and trees created on the third day could appear to be months or years old on the fourth day, when in fact they were only a day old. God did not intend to deceive us; this was rather the result of the miraculous creation of the earth in a state ready to be inhabited immediately by mankind.

Based on uniform rates of pressure under the earth’s surface (which many believe are necessary to form coal, diamonds, and other deposits), and erosion that occurs above the earth’s surface now (caused by water forming channels, rivers, seas, etc.), and without any outside forces operating on them such as a global flood, geologists make tremendously long estimates as to years necessary for these things to occur.

However, these estimates are based on presuppositions. One is that matter must be eternal; it was not brought into existence from nothing, but has always existed in some form. However, opposed to this idea is the fact that the act of creation was instantaneous. Further, natural processes of erosion, uniform rates, etc., are only possible after matter, with all its properties and laws, is brought into being. Creation of the earth in a fully developed state answers the “time” evolutionists demand for the earth to have come to its present appearance.

A second supposition is that all living creatures had to evolve from a simpler to a more complex existence, and that nothing began fully grown.

However, this chapter teaches that God not only spoke the dry land, plants, trees, animals and man into existence in days, but that all things began fully developed. Therefore, a tree created on the third day and cut down on the eighth day, might have forty rings. Under uniform rates now, it would appear that the tree grew from a sapling at least for forty years, when actually it had been created fully grown only a few days previous.

The same principle would apply to various rocks found under the earth’s surface. Under uniform rates of pressure now, it might take millions of years for coal deposits to form. However, God could have created these deposits to be under the earth’s surface and for our use by the power of His spoken word on day three.

One must discount standard uniform rates of pressures and erosion now when considering what happened during the week of creation. Miracles suspend natural laws and explanations.

2. Some attempt to reconcile demands of evolution to the Bible account of creation. This is called theistic evolution. It basically states that God made the universe, but He did it through an evolutionary process taking millions, perhaps billions of years. Genesis 1 then must be bent to this view. The theory assumes that each of the six “days” of creation took millions of years. The “days” do not refer to our usual twenty-four hour periods, but to long epochs or ages, it is assumed. There are a number of flaws with this theory.  One would never derive the idea of the days of this chapter being ages from a simple reading of the text.  While the word “day” can sometime mean something other than a twenty-four hour period, the Hebrew word for day (“yom”) always means a twenty-four hour day when used in conjunction with a numeral such as first, second, etc.  The term “evening and morning” points to a twenty-four hour day.  What would be the evenings in a period of millions of years? If the theory is correct, then hundreds of thousands (or even millions) of years would pass for plants to be in darkness! They could not live.  Exodus 20:11 states: “in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore Jehovah blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.” The seventh day was obviously a twenty-four hour day because a parallel or similarity had to exist between God’s “rest” and the day of rest for the Israelites. The context would demand the term “six days” to mean basically six twenty-four hour days.  Adam was created on the sixth day. If each day represents lengthy geological ages, then how long would years have been? According to this theory, Adam lived through part of one “age” (6th day), all of another (7th day), and evidently part of another (8th day)! If the days of Genesis 1 are to be understood as millions of years, then how old would Adam have been when he died (Gen. 5:5)?

3. Genesis 1 teaches the dignity of man and his elevated status over the lower creation. Evolution, either atheistic or theistic, denies this. According to evolution, man is simply a higher link in an evolutionary chain of events. This is not where the Bible places us! “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth” (vs. 26). “In our image, after our likeness” are not likely two different ideas, but synonymous phrases combined to intensify two related thoughts. First, the creation of man was patterned after God Himself. Man has similarities to God. This does not mean that God looks like humans, because God is an incorporeal spirit (John 4:24) and a spirit does not have a material body (Luke 24:39). Therefore, the phrase emphasizes the inner and spiritual essence of man as it relates to God. We understand many differences between ourselves and the lower creation – speech, higher degree of intelligence, self-consciousness, freedom of the will, ability to discern good and evil, and a part of us that is eternal, our spirits. Such attributes allow us to understand Who God is and to worship Him. While we are not immediately like God in moral characteristics, He made us with the capacity to be similar to His character (Col. 3:10). A second related idea is this: If God created man in His image and unlike His creation of the earth and other life forms, then it follows that man should be over the lower creation and use it for his good. This is emphasized in verses 28-31.

4. Genesis 1 also teaches that every piece of God’s creative work has its assigned place, its purpose. It answers at least two of life’s age-old questions: “Where did we come from?” and “Why are we here?”

5. There is organization and symmetry to God’s creation. God did not merely “throw” the earth together without organization. The structure and symmetry He used for each of the six days of creation is spellbinding. Genesis 1:2 states that the earth was “without form, and void,” or “empty.” The six days of creation can be divided into two corresponding divisions or triads, showing how God remedied the “formlessness” and “emptiness” of the earth.

It is always best not to attempt to reconcile the Bible to theories of men which often come and go. The safe route is to understand the meaning of Bible words in their primary and simple use first, then when a context demands a figurative use be understood, apply that use. From Genesis 1 we learn that the earth and everything living (excluding man) was made for man. Even the heavenly lights (sun, moon and stars) were made for us – to be for “signs, seasons, days and years,…and to give light upon the earth” (vss. 14-19). This staggering exalted position made the psalmist declare, “When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, The moon and the stars, which thou has ordained; What is man, that thou art mindful of him? And the son of man, that thou visitest him? For thou has made him but little lower than God, And crownest him with glory and honor” (Ps. 8:3-5). Rather than worship “Mother Earth” as so many do, we are to use what God created for us on earth for our good here, and use ourselves in His service and unto His glory for our spiritual good here, looking to eternal life in the hereafter. — Phillip Owens

The Moon: A Strong Argument For Creation

by Heath Rogers

Have you ever wondered where the Moon came from? Those of us who believe in the Bible know the answer to this question. God created the moon on the fourth day (Gen. 1:14-19). However, atheists must come up with other explanations that do not include God.

In an article titled Earth’s Moon is Rare Oddball (from SPACE.com, Nov. 20, 2007), Dave Mosher points out the fact that our moon is unique when compared to the moons of other planets. In his article, he explains how some scientists believe our moon came into existence.

Continue reading “The Moon: A Strong Argument For Creation”