The stereotypical scientist in a white
lab coat who follows the facts wherever they may lead, and reports those
data without prejudice, often does not correspond to reality these days. In
fact, a large majority of scientists now believe that God does not exist.
These scientists feel that they should militantly spread their ideas of
atheism and evolution as far and wide as possible. They abhor the idea of a
supernatural Creator and believe it should be eradicated from human
consciousness. Just how determined are some of the leading atheistic
evolutionists to expunge theism from the world? A recent issue of the
journal New Scientist, which just celebrated its 50th anniversary,
sheds some light on the subject. In an article titled, “In Place of God: Can
Secular Science Ever Oust Religious Belief—and Should It Even Try?,” Michael
Brooks recounted a recent meeting of “some of the leading practitioners of
modern science” in La Jolla, California (2006, 192:8). They had
gathered to discuss, among other questions, “Should science do away with
religion?” Their answers are alarming. [NOTE:
The following quotations are extracted from Brooks’ report.]
Cosmologist Steven Weinberg was first
to address the question, “Should science do away with religion?” He
responded with an unequivocal “yes,” saying: “The world needs to wake up
from the long nightmare of religion.... Anything we
scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done, and may in
fact be our greatest contribution to civilization” (p. 9,
emp. added). Since scientists at the symposium used the terms “religion” and
“God” interchangeably, Weinberg in essence was saying that ridding
God from the world would be one of science’s greatest achievements.
He seemed so certain that scientists could achieve this goal that he
actually admitted he would “miss it once it was gone” (p. 9). How were
Weinberg’s comments received, you might ask? According to attendee Michael
Brooks, he received “a rapturous response” (p. 9), before being heavily
criticized by some, such as Richard Dawkins, surprisingly enough, “for not
being tough enough on religion” (p. 9).
Dawkins, who is perhaps the most
celebrated evolutionist alive today, was one of the most militant atheists
at the conference. He stated: “I am utterly fed up with the respect we have
been brainwashed into bestowing upon religion,” i.e., God (p. 9; cf.
Ecclesiastes 12:12-13). Passive atheism apparently should not be tolerated.
Dawkins is “ready to mobilize” his “big...enthusiastic choir” of
evolutionary colleagues (p. 11). He said: “There’s a certain sort of
negativity you get from people who say ‘I don’t like religion but you can’t
do anything about it.’ That’s a real counsel of defeatism. We should
roll our sleeves up and get on with it” (p. 11, emp. added).
Dawkins even compared evolutionary scientists’ position in the 21st century
to that of homosexuals in the late 1960s: everyone needs to be “willing to
stand up and be counted,” so that “they could change things” (p. 11).
Dawkins likely called for such drastic
action because he has seen atheism lose some of its battles. In his book,
The Blind Watchmaker, he admitted that modern creationists have
been “disturbingly successful” in their attempts to combat evolution in
“American education and textbook publishing” (1996, p. 241). He also wrote:
“There are still those who seek to deny the truth of evolution, and there
are disturbing signs that their influence is even growing, at least in local
areas of the United States” (p. x). The influence of anti-evolutionists
disturbs Dawkins greatly—so much so that he and his colleagues feel
compelled to advance evolution, while doing “away with religion” (Brooks,
Evolutionist Neil deGrasse Tyson of
the Hayden Planetarium in New York “spoke with an evangelist’s zeal”
(p. 10, emp. added). He referred to a recent poll taken of members of the
U.S. National Academy of Sciences which
revealed that 15 percent did not indicate they were atheists, and asked:
“How come the number isn’t zero?... That should be the subject of
everybody’s investigation. That’s something that we can’t just sweep under
the rug” (p. 10). To Tyson, theistic members of the
U.S. National Academy of Sciences
represent “a problem that needs to be addressed” (p. 10). One wonders what
Tyson would suggest if Louis Pasteur, Isaac Newton, Carolus Linnaeus, and
other brilliant theistic scientists from the past were
members of this group? Kick them out for not being atheists, even though
their contributions to science likely far exceed any efforts put forth by
most current members of the U.S. National
Academy of Sciences? Even the staunch evolutionist Niles Eldredge admitted
that “all the great biologists and geologists prior to Darwin were, in some
sense at least, creationists” (2001, p. 49).
Dr. Harry Kroto of Florida State
University also stepped forward at the conference declaring himself “ready
to fight the good fight” (Brooks, 192:11). He proposed the launching
of “a coordinated global effort at education, media outreach and campaigning
on behalf of science,” using especially the Internet to take evolutionary
science into every home (p. 11). If you think students in private religious
schools will be untouched and invulnerable to the efforts of modern-day
evolutionists, consider that Kroto has these schools in his sights as well.
He declared: “We must try to work against faith schooling” (p. 11).
Michael Brooks summarized the overall
attitude at the La Jolla, California symposium in the following words:
“science can take on religion and win” (p.
11, emp. added). So, in the words of Richard Dawkins, “We [evolutionists—EL/KB]
should roll our sleeves up and get on with it” (p. 11).
The irony of this militant attitude
toward religion is that evolutionists sometimes downplay such aggressive
tactics in an attempt to lull the religious populace into thinking that no
battle is taking place. Niles Eldredge, the Curator in the Department of
Invertebrate Paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History, wrote a
book titled The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism.
In that book, he said: “Creationists have spuriously convinced many citizens
that huge hunks of science are antithetical to their religious beliefs”
(2001, p. 174). One would not have to read past the first page of Brook’s
New Scientist article to understand that the evolutionists
themselves openly admit that their atheistic, evolutionary beliefs are
antithetical to religion. To add further irony to Eldredge’s statement, the
back of his book quotes Booklist as saying that Eldredge’s book is
“a clarion call rallying evolutionist [sic] to battle.”
It Starts Early and Stays Late
In the mid-1990s, philosopher Daniel
Dennett wrote a book titled Darwin’s Dangerous Idea. Leading
evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker, Philip Kitcher, and
Edward O. Wilson highly recommended the book, calling it “surpassingly
brilliant” and “essential,” as it persuades readers that “evolution by
natural selection is vital to the future of philosophy.” One of the most
disturbing comments in Dennett’s book concerned parents who teach their
children (among other things) “that ‘Man’ is not a product
of evolution” (1995, p. 519, emp. added). Dennett wrote: “[T]hose of us who
have freedom of speech will feel free to describe your teachings as the
spreading of falsehoods, and will attempt to demonstrate this to your
children at our earliest opportunity” (p. 519). Notice the jab at religious
parents—accusing them of lying and not “freely” telling the truth about
man’s origins. More important, observe how he then proceeded to testify that
evolutionists like himself will endeavor to convince the children of theists
that evolution is not fiction, but a fact that will be communicated “at
our earliest opportunity.” How early? Consider one example.
The toddler pop-up “history” book
titled Life on Earth was published in 2002 by Barron’s Educational
Series. It is 21 pages of colorful illustrations, captivating pop-ups, and
evolutionary dogma. It tells the story of evolution with less than 10 words
per page. Beginning with “the first living things” in the seas, it proceeds
with fish crawling out onto land and becoming amphibians. It then tells of
the reptiles’ appearance, followed by the mammals, and eventually the first
“hairy” humans. In case a child misses the point of the book, placed
strategically just above a baby in diapers sliding down the tail of a large
dinosaur, the text on the back cover reinforces the main point: “Millions of
years ago life on Earth started in the oceans. Then it moved onto the land
and eventually led to YOU!”
Those who teach evolution target
children. Niles Eldredge wrote: “I maintain my conviction that the real
battleground is in the classroom” (2001, p. 157, emp.
added). In the same book, he asserted: “The real battle is
still being fought at school board meetings and in public school classrooms”
(p. 149, emp. added). Notice the military terminology used. Mark it down.
Many within the evolutionary community recognize that the ideas of a
supernatural God and organic evolution are at war. Eldredge and others offer
a glimpse into their battle strategy: start early in the school system.
Near the end of his book, Eldredge
included a list from Eugenie Scott, Director of the National Center for
Science Education, of 25 things “parents, teachers, and even scientists” can
do to help evolution win its battle over creation. The number one item
listed: “Donate books and videos about evolution to school and
public libraries” (p. 178, emp. added). Number eight: “Share your
views with school board members, legislators, textbook
commissioners, and other educational policy makers” (p.
179, emp. added). Number 16: “PARENTS:
Make sure your child’s teacher knows s/he has your support for teaching
about evolution” (p. 179). Number 22: “K-12
TEACHERS: Work with your colleagues to create a supportive atmosphere
in your school and community” (p. 180). Number 23: “K-12
TEACHERS: Work with colleagues to develop
or publicize workshops and in-service units about evolution; take advantage
of them yourself” (p. 180). A cursory reading of the list shows exactly the
primary target of evolutionists: children and educational systems.
Dr. Dennett and his band of
evolutionary guerrillas are serious about teaching evolution at the “earliest
opportunity.” It can start with what parents perceive as “innocent”
pop-up books, and continue into elementary school, middle school, and high
school. Then, generally with more fervor than ever before, many evolutionary
college professors make it their mission to verbally beat God out of their
students. Sometime ago a gentleman visited one of our creation/evolution
seminars. He had attended a well-known university in the southeastern United
States. He recounted how he entered one of his science classes at the
beginning of the semester, and heard his professor ask the class to stand up
if they believed in God. Seven individuals stood up. The professor then went
on to say that by the end of the semester not one of them would stand up
when he asked that question. Sure enough, toward the end of the semester the
professor posed the question again, “How many of you believe in God?” Only
one student stood up.
Where Will It Lead?
If militant evolutionists have their
way, what ultimately will become of nonconformists and disbelievers of
evolutionary theory? Let us allow the evolutionists themselves to tell us.
Richard Dickerson, a molecular biologist, wrote an article titled “The Game
of Science.” In that article, he insisted that science cannot tolerate a
supernatural Creator Who would perform miracles or create the Universe in
six, 24-hour days. He also proposed that real science never can resort to
invoking miracles as a legitimate explanation for anything that happens in
the real world. Dickerson said: “[I]nvoking miracles and special creation
violates the rules of the game of science and inhibits progress” (as quoted
in Scott, 2004, p. 254). According to Dickerson, then, what should be done
with any person who does believe in a supernatural Creator and a
straightforward reading of Genesis 1? He is quick to offer his opinion. He
says: “People who do not understand that concept (evolution—EL/KB)
can never be real scientists, and should not be allowed to
misrepresent science to young people from whom the ranks of the next
generation of scientists will be drawn” (as quoted in Scott, p. 254, emp.
added). Richard Dawkins quipped: “No serious biologist
doubts the fact that evolution has happened, nor that all living creatures
are cousins of one another” (1996, p. 287, emp.).
Consider one example of intolerance
toward creationism in 2002 at Texas Tech University. When undergraduate
student Micah Spradling requested a letter of recommendation from a biology
instructor in order to enroll in a pre-medical program, Professor Michael
Dini informed him that he needed to “‘truthfully and forthrightly’ believe
in human evolution to receive a letter of recommendation” (see Kitchen,
2002). At the time, Dr. Dini’s Web site contained the following defense of
why he asked students if they believed in the factuality of evolution:
Why do I ask this question? Let’s
consider the situation of one wishing to enter medical school. Whereas
medicine is historically rooted first in the practice of magic and later
in religion, modern medicine is an endeavor that springs from the
sciences, biology first among these. The central, unifying principle of
biology is the theory of evolution, which includes both micro- and
macro-evolution, and which extends to all species. How can someone who
does not accept the most important theory in biology expect to properly
practice in a field that is so heavily based on biology? It is hard to
imagine how this can be so, but it is easy to imagine how physicians who
ignore or neglect the Darwinian aspects of medicine or the evolutionary
origin of humans can make bad clinical decisions....
Good medicine, like good
biology, is based on the collection and evaluation of physical evidence.
So much physical evidence supports the evolution of humans from non-human
ancestors that one can validly refer to the “fact” of human evolution,
even if all of the details are not yet known. One can deny this evidence
only at the risk of calling into question one’s understanding of science
and of the method of science. Such an individual has committed malpractice
regarding the method of science, for good scientists would never throw out
data that do not conform to their expectations or beliefs. This is the
situation of those who deny the evolution of humans; such a one is
throwing out information because it seems to contradict his/her cherished
beliefs (as quoted in
Thompson and Harrub,
In the eyes of some, such as Dr. Dini,
it is no longer acceptable simply to know about the theory
of evolution and be able to discuss it intelligently. Now, if you do not
profess it, even though, admittedly, it is still simply a “theory” and “all
of the details are not yet known,” you may risk the opportunity to further
your education—a risk that Christians must be willing to take.
In 2003, following an investigation by
the U.S. Justice Department, Dr. Dini
supposedly “eliminated the evolution belief requirement from his
recommendation policy and replaced it with a requirement that students be
able to explain the theory of evolution” (Taylor, 2003, 27:6). The
wording in Dr. Dini’s policy changed to the following: “How
do you account for the scientific origin of the human species? If you will
not give a scientific answer to this question, then you
should not seek my recommendation” (as quoted in Taylor, 27:6, emp.
Notice that Dr. Dini simply changed
his criteria to demand a “scientific” answer. Yet, when one explores the
writings of these militant evolutionists, it becomes apparent that the word
“scientific” is simply a synonym for “evolutionary.” For instance, Eugenie
Scott wrote: “To scientists, using God to explain natural phenomena of
any kind violates the practice of
methodological naturalism, in which scientific explanations are limited only
to natural causes” (2004, p. 119, emp. added). In other words, any idea that
contains a hint of a supernatural, non-material Creator is, according to
their definition, “unscientific.” In the National Academy of Science’s book
Science and Creationism, the “steering committee” members, such as
Stephen J. Gould, Eugenie Scott, Francisco Ayala, and others, put it like
this: “[T]he teaching of evolution should be an integral part of science
instruction, and creation science is in fact not science and should not be
presented as such in science classes” (1999, p. 2). How convenient. Simply
demand that all answers must be “scientific,” then define scientific as
excluding any reference to a supernatural Creator. Needless to say, the
great scientists of the past like Newton, Farraday, and Carver never would
have accepted such a biased definition of science. Nor should thinking
people today allow these sneaky, semantic tactics to go unchallenged and
Ultimately, evolutionists would like
to marginalize completely those who believe in a supernatural Creator. They
would like to relegate all non-evolutionists to a tiny a band of
“know-nothings,” or as Dawkins puts it, “backwoodsmen” who do not deserve
the name “scientist” (1996, p. x). If these militant evolutionists have
their way, no creationist will be allowed to enroll in the prestigious
institutes of higher learning to earn advanced accredited degrees, much less
have the opportunity to teach on college campuses. In the introduction to
his 1996 edition of The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins said as much: “I
was reminded of the creationist student who, through some accident
of the selection procedure, was admitted to the Zoology Department
at Oxford University” (p. xi). To Dawkins, and others like him, a “properly”
working selection procedure would have disallowed a creationist to enroll in
an institute like Oxford, regardless of his or her intellectual
accomplishments or abilities. Dawkins’ sentiments are clear from his
statement in 1989: “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody
who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or
insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that)” (7:34, parenthetical
item in orig.). In contradistinction, the Bible says: “The fool has said in
his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1; 53:1).
The fact that these militant
evolutionists want to silence the idea of creation is ironic in light of
beliefs held by Darwin himself. In his book, Origin of the Species,
I am well aware that scarcely a
single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced,
apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I
have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only
by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of
each question... (1956, p. 18, emp. added).
Judging from the comments by Dawkins
and others, Darwin’s suggestion that both sides should be heard was far too
tolerant and soft on the “unscientific” idea of creation.
Acknowledge the War! Join the Fight!
Highly acclaimed evolutionary
scientists recognize that a war is going on—a war between atheistic
evolutionary science and anti-evolutionary science. Evolutionists are ready
to “get on with it” (Brooks, 192:11). They are speaking “with an
evangelist’s zeal” and are “ready to fight the good fight” (pp. 10,11). Even
now, they are attempting to position themselves to set evolution “in place
of God” (p. 8).
Creationists must not shy away from
this battle. We, too, must roll up our sleeves and heed the apostle Paul’s
admonition to “fight the good fight of faith” (1 Timothy 6:12). We must
strive to “speak the words of truth and reason” (Acts 26:25), and “be ready
to give a defense to everyone” (1 Peter 3:15). Indeed, “the weapons of our
warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds,
casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the
knowledge of God” (2 Corinthians 10:4-5).
What can creationists do? How can we
fight against atheistic evolutionary science? If evolutionists have
benefited from Eugenie Scott’s to-do list for the advancement of evolution,
perhaps it is fitting to close this article with a list of suggestions for
creationists in their fight against atheistic evolution.
- Recognize that
there is a battle over the most fundamental pillar of Christianity (the
existence of God), and resolve to do something.
- Begin teaching your children,
grandchildren, nephews, nieces, etc. the case for
creation and the case against evolution before they ever
enter school. Then continue this instruction as they get older.
- Encourage your children to ask
questions about God, creation, and evolution. If you don’t answer their
questions, someone will—and that someone probably will be an evolutionist.
- Give your children (and yourself!)
the tools needed to build a strong faith—one that is based on both reason
- Familiarize yourself with Web
sites such as
and ChristianCourier.com, which provide immediate answers to many of your
questions. They also aid students with term papers, reports, speeches,
[The final five suggestions are
adapted from Eugenie Scott’s list (see Eldredge, 2001, pp. 178-180).]
- Donate books and videos about
creation to school and public libraries.
- Make it a point to share your views
about creation with school board members, legislators,
textbook commissioners, and other educational policy makers.
- Let your children’s teachers know
that they have your support if they choose to teach about the errors and
weaknesses of evolutionary theory.
- Attempt to create an open-minded
atmosphere in your school and community, so that creation and evolution
can both be discussed.
- Work with parents, teachers,
churches, etc. to develop or publicize workshops or seminars about the
errors of evolution and the evidence for God’s existence.
Brooks, Michael (2006), “In Place of
God,” New Scientist, 192:8-11.
Darwin, Charles (1956 edition),
The Origin of Species (New York: J.M. Dent & Sons).
Dawkins, Richard (1989), “Book
Review,” The New York Times, section 7, April 9.
Dawkins, Richard (1996), The
Blind Watchmaker (New York, NY: W.W. Norton).
Dennett, Daniel (1995), Darwin’s
Dangerous Idea (New York, NY: Simon and Schuster).
Eldredge, Niles (2001), The
Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism (New York, NY:
Kitchen, Sebastian (2002), “Professor
Rigid on Evolution,” Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, A-1,9,
Life on Earth (2002),
(Hauppauge, NY: Barron’s Education Series).
Science and Creationism
(1999), (Washington, D.C.: National
Academy Press), second edition.
Scott, Eugenie (2004), Evolution
vs. Creationism: An Introduction (Los Angeles, CA: University of
Taylor, Larry (2003), “Biology
Professor Alters Evolution Statement for Recommendations,” Skeptical
Inquirer, 27:6, July/August.
Thompson, Bert and Brad Harrub
(2002), “Quick, Let’s Discriminate Against the Creationists!” [On-line],
THE ORIGINAL MAY BE FOUND AT,
Copyright © 2007 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may be copied, on the
condition that it will not be republished in print unless otherwise stated
below, and will not be used for any commercial purpose, as long as the
following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press
must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the
specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3)
any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be
included with any written reproduction of the article; (4)
textual alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden; (5)
Some illustrations (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, etc.) are not the
intellectual property of Apologetics Press and as such cannot be reproduced
from our site without consent from the person or organization that maintains
those intellectual rights; (6) serialization of written
material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long
as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a
reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in
part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and
(8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for
posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their
original written content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press,
including the web location from which the articles were taken. Further,
documents may not be copied without source statements (title, author,
journal title), and the address of the publisher and owner of rights, as
For catalog, samples, or further
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
Phone (334) 272-8558