The California Collection/TheCaliforniaCollection.cdr/his066/icr51.arj/ICR51.TXT

Text File | 1991-10-05 | 16.8 KB | 451 lines

No. 51

The Religion of Evolutionary Humanism and the Public Schools

Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.

     The modern creationist movement and
the resistance of secular educators to this
movement have brought into clear focus
one very important fact.  Our American
public schools and secular universities
are controlled by the religious philosophy
of evolutionary humanism.  Furthermore,
through its pervasive influence on the gra-
duate schools and the textbook publishers
this powerful concept has had significant
impact even on most Christian schools.

     Resistance to the proposed teaching of
theistic creationism as an alternative to
evolutionism commonly masquerades
under the supposed authority of "science".
The recent anti-creationist manifesto of
the American Humanist Association pro-
claims the following:

     66 There are no alternatives to the principle
of evolution, with its'tree of life'pattern,
that any competent biologist of today
takes seriously.... Evolution is therefore
the only view that should be expounded
in public-school courses on science. 99 I
That evolution is not science, however,
has not only been clearly demonstrated by
the many modern publications of crea-
tionist scientists2 but also is frequently re-
cc!itnized even )Xv evolutionist scientists.

For example, Loren Elsely says;

          With the failure of these many efforts,
     science was left in the somewhat embar-
     rassing position of having to postulate
     theories of living origins which it could
     not demonstrate.  After having chided the
     theologian for his reliance on myth and
     miracle, science found itself in the unen-
     viable position of having to create a
     mythology of its own: namely, the
     assumption that what, after long effort
     could not be proved to take place today
     had, in truth, taken place in the primeval
     past,')       3

     In fact there are now many evolution-
ists who recognize that the "theory of evo-
lution" is really a tautology, with no pre-
dictive value.

          I argue that the'theory of evolution'does
     not make predictions, so far as ecology is
     concerned, but is instead a logical for-
     mula which can be used only to classify
     empiricisms and to show the relation-
     ships which such a classification implies.
     ...      these theories are actually tautologies
     and, as such, cannot make empirically
     testable predictions. 7hey are not scien-
     tific theories ai all.')94

     Even the writer of the Foreword of the
1971 edition of Darwin's Origin of the
Species, himself a distinguished evolu-
tionary biologist, has frankly recognized
that evolution is simply a belief.
16 [The theory of evolution] forms a satis-
factory faith on which to base our inter-
pretation of nature. 9,3 5

     Evolution is thus admittedly not scienti-
ffcaffy testabfe, even tflougfl ft fs taugfit
very dogmatically in most public schools.
However, educators insist that creation-
ism and theism must be excluded from
education on the ground that they are not
scientific!

     This rejection is often emphatic and
even slanderous.  Dr. Preston Cloud of the
University of California at Santa Barbara,
for example, becomes quite melodra-
matic.

Religious bigotry is abroad again in the
land. ... Although the creationists may
be irrational, ... they have proven them-
selves to be skillful tacticians, good or-
onizers and uncompromising adversar-
ies. ... And anyone who has studied their
benign manner in public debate, their
tortured logic and their often scurrilous
expression in books and tracts for the
faithful, has little difficulty in visualizing
creationist polemicists, given the oppor-
tunity, in the role of Pius V himself. 19 6
This is not the language of objective sci-
ence, of course, but of religious emotion.
Dr. Cloud failed to mention that he had
hini,self participated in such a debate on
his own campus, before an audience com-
p(i.,;ed mainly of university students, the
large majority of whom had voted after
the debate that the creationists had a bet-
ter scientific case than the evolutionists.
As a matter of fact, a common complaint
at the debate was that the evolutionists
liad not presented a consistent scientific
case at all, while the creationists had dcalt
i)nly with science.

     If creationists are, as Cloud declares,
"bigots,- he should recognize that there
,,re other bigots also.  One of the nation's
top scientists has charged:
61, One of the most astonishing character-
istics of scientists is that some of them are
plain, old-fashioned bigots.  Their zeal
has a fanatical, egocentric quality charac-
terized by disdain and intolerance for
anyone or any value not associated with a
special area of intellectual activity.9') 7

     The fact is, however, that creationists
are not attempting to oust evolutionary
humanism from the public schools, but
only to obtain a fair hearing for theistic
creationism as an alternative.  Both con-
cepts involve faith and neither is scien-
tifically testable in the ultimate sense.

66 A hypothesis is empirical or scientific
only if it can be tested by experience. ... A
hypothesis or theory which cannot be, at
least in principle, falsified by empirical
observations and experiments does not
belong to the realm of science.998
Although the author of the above state-
ment is a leading evolutionary biologist,
it is obvious that his definition would ex-
cludl evolution, no less than creation,
from the realm of science.  In fact, a crea-
tionist might legitimately argue that evo-
lution actually has been tested, and dis-
proved, since it has ncvcr been observed
in action and since it contradicts the scien-
tific law of increasing entropy or disorder.
One must, therefore, not only believe in
evolution without evidence, but in spite of
the evidence.  Evolutionists walk by faith,
not by sight!

     Furthermore, not only is evolution
taught in the schools as a scientific dogma,
but as basic in all the social sciences and
humanities as well.  It is, in fact, a com-
plete world-view, purporting to explain
-he origin, development and meaning of
all things.

     I'he place of biological evolution in
     human thought was, according to
     Dobzhansky, best expressed in a passage
     that he often quoted from Pierre Teil-
     hard de Chardin: TEvolution] is a general
     postulate to which all theories, all hypo-
     theses, all systems must henceforward
     b(,w and which they must satisfy in order
     tc be thinkable and true.  Evolution is a
     light which illuminates all facts, a trajec-
     tory which all lines of thought must fol-
     low.-)-) 9

Theodosius Dobzhansky, the subject of
the eulogy from which the above ql4ota-
tion was taken, was a church member a lid
claimed to be a creationist, but he niepnt
by tliis thist the wonderful process of
natural selection had "created" all things!
(6   Dobzhansky was a religious man, al-
     though he apparently rejected funda-
     mental beliefs of traditional religion,
     such as the existence of a personal God
     and of life beyond physical death. ...
     Dobzhansky held that, in man, biologi-
     cal evolution had transcended itself into
     the realm of self-awareness and culture.
     He believed that mankind would eventu-
     ally evolve into higher levekq of harmony
     and creativity.  He was a metaphysical
     optimist.9910

     Until his death, Dobzhansky had been
probably the world's leading spokesman
for evolution.
64 From today's pcrspective, Dobzhansky
appears as perhaps ttic most eminent
evolutionist of the twentieth century. 9) 1 1
His inf',tience on the nation's schoo.'s
has bec n profound, to say the least, and he

is typical of practically all leaders of evo-
lutionary thought.

     Evolution as a complete system of life
and meaning has, in fact, dominated intel-
lectual thought and the teachings in the
colleges since at least the last quarter of
the nineteenth century.

cG ... after a generation of argument, educa-
ted Americans in general came to accept
the fact of evolution and went on to make
whatever intellectual adjustments they
thought necessary.9912

     Once it came to be accepted by the intel-
lectuals, the religious liberals quickly, and
typically, followed along.  The most influ-
ential of these was the famous Henry
Ward Beecher.

66 Darwinian evolutionary science present-
ed little or no challenge to Beecher's doc-
trinal beliefs, for Beecher's Christianity
was already far removed from Biblical
literalism into a vague poetic emotional
realm of edifying thoughts, clevated feel-
ings and joyful noises unto the Lord:" 13
Beecher published his Evolution and Re-
ligion in 1883, and its arguments are still
being repeated almost verbatim by theistic
evolutionists today.  Very quickly after
that, evolution began to dominate the
pubic schools.

66 In a nation that was undergoing a tre-
mendous urban, industrial and techno-
logical revolution, the evolutionary con-
cept presented itself to intellectuals as the
key to knowledge.  And beyond that, the
technical needs of industry called for a
revolution in higher education away
from the traditional classical and enoral
orientation and toward the sciences ...
which were reclassifying man and society
in evolutionary terms.  In genera.- the con-
cept of education from kindergarten to
graduate school was reoriented from the
teaching of a fixed body of knowledge to
the teaching of methods of inquiry to be
applied to the continually changing facts
of existence.$') 14

     This trend, of course, was tremendously
accelerated under the influence of John
Dewey and his disciples in the first half of
the twentieth century, leading finally to
the complete dominance of the public
schools by naturalistic evolutionism and
secular humanism at the present ti.,Pe.15
It was not always thus in our count,-y,)r
in our public schools, however, and it is

certainly in conformity with American
constitutionalism to seek to return the
schools to their intended character and
purpose.

     The American nation had been founded
     by intellectuals who had accepted a
     world view that was based upon Biblical
     authority as well as Newtonian science.
     They had assumed that God created the
     earth and all life upon it at the time of
     creation and had continued without
     change thereafter.  Adam and Eve were
     God's final creations, and all of mankind
     was descended from them.  When Jeffer-
     son, in his old age, was confronted with
     the newly developing science of geology,
     he rejected the evolutionary concept of
     the creation of the earth on the grounds
     that no all-wise and all-powerful Creator
     would liavc gone about the job in such a
     slow and inefficient way. 9916

     Jefferson's arguinent, of course, is per-
fectly valid today.  The "god" of evolution
(in the rationale of de Chardin and the
other leaders of theistic evolutionary
thought) is certainly not the God of the
Bible, the omnipotent and omniscient
God of orthodox Judaism and Biblical
Christianity.  Evolutionary humanism in
our schools is not only a religion, but is a
religion which opposes Judaism, Chris-
tianity and the Bible in no uncertain
terms.

66   In cultures such as ours, religion is very
     often an alien form of life to intellectuals.
     Living as we do in a post-Enlightenment
     era, it is difficult for us to take religion
     seriously.  The very concepts seem fantas-
     tic to us.... That people in our age can
     believe that they have had a personal en-
     counter with God, that they could believe
     that they have experienced conversion
     through a 'mystical experience of God,'
     so that they are born apin in the Holy
     Spirit, is something thatattests tohuman
     irrationality and lack of sense of real-
     ity. 99 17

     With this type of attitude dominating
the thinking of modern leaders in educa-
tion, it is not surprising that there is so
much resistance to allowing creationism
to be retumed to the schools.  Neither is it
surprising that a humanistic and atheistic
religious philosophy in the schools has
generated an amoralistic attitude in soci-
ety, increasing in influence with each
emerging generation.  A remarkable testi-
mony has been published by Aidous
Huxley, one of the most influential writers
and philosophers of our day, grandson
of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, brother
of evolutionist Julian Huxley, and one of
the early advocates of a "drug culture"
and sexual permissiveness.
"I had motives for not wanting the world
to have meaning; consequently assumed
it had none, and was able without any
difficulty to find satisfying reasons for
this assumption.... The philosopher who
finds no meaning in the world is not con-
cerned exclusively with a problem in pure
metaphysics; he is also concerned to
prove there is no valid reason why he per-
sonally should not do as he wants to do,
... For myself, as no doubt for m?st o!
my contemporaries, the philosopny of
meaninglessness was essentially an in-
strument of liberation.  The liberation we
desired was simultaneously liberation
from a certain political and economic
system and liberation from a certain sys-
tem of morality.  We objected to the
morality because it interfered with our
sexual freedom.)918

'American Humanist Association, "A Statement
Afflrming Evolution as a Principle of Science,'
The Humanist, January-February 1977, Vol.
XXXVII, p. 4. This manifesto was prepared by a
comadttee composed of Bette Chambers (A.H.A.
president), Isaac Asimov, Hudson Hoagland,
Chauncy Leake, Linus Pauling and George Gay-
lord Simpson, and signed by 163 others, most of
whom are prominent humanistic educators - in-
cluding psychologists Carl Rogers and B.F. Skin-
ner, left-wing philosopher Corliss Lamont, anthro-
pologist Sol Tax, and others.

'For example, see Scientifk Creationism (Ed. by
Henry M. Morris; San Diego, Creation-Life Pub-
lishers, 1974, 277pp.) Also note that the Creation
Research Society has approximately 550 members,
all with graduate degrees in science from accredited
universities.
3Loren Elsely, The Immense Journey (New York:
Random House, 1957), p. 1".
4R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Eco-
logy," A merican Naturalist, Vol. 1 1 0, No. 1, 1976,
p. 1. Emphasis his.
'L. Harrison Matthews, "Introduction to Origin of
Species" (London, J.M. Dent, 1977), p. xii.
'Preston Cloud, "Scientific Creationism - A New
Inquisition," The Humanist Vol.  XXXVII, Jan-
Feb., 1977, p. 67.

References

     The following conclusions are clearly
justified by the facts at hand: (1) A system
of evolutionary humanism dominates our
public schools and this system has pro-
duced devastating results in the moral and
social realms; (2) neither the philosophy
of humanism nor the evolutionary philo-
sophy on which it is based is "scientific",
in any proper sense of the term, though
both are materialistic and essentially athe-
istic; (3) the system of evolutionary hu-
manism is, therefore, merely a religious
philosophy, a "non-theistic religion," as
claimed by the American Humanist Asso-
ciation itself, (4) all the known facts of sci-
ence (as well as the facts of human experi-
ence) correlate with belief in special crea-
tion and a personal Creator much better
than belief in evolution and humanism
correlate with those facts; (5) consequent
Iy, the "creation model," and its implica-
tions in all fields, should be taught equally
and fairly with the 'evolution model" in
the public schools.  All serious-minded and
fair-minded parents, teachers and school
administrators are urged to work diligent-
ly to that end.

'Philip H. Abelson, "Bigotry in Science,' Science,
Vol. 144, April 24, 1964, p. 373.
'Francisco J. Ayala, 'Biological Evolution: Natur-
al Selection or Random Walk?- American Scien-
tist, Vol. 62, Nov.-Dec., 1974, p. 700.
'Francisco Ayals, " 'Nothing in Biology Makes
Sense Except in the Light of Evolution.' Theodos-
ius Dobzhansky, 1900-1975;'Journal of Heredity,
Vol. 69, No. 3, 1977, p. 3.
"Ibid., p. 9.
"Ibid. p. 6.
"Gilman M. Ostrander, The Evolutionary Out-
look, 1875-1900, (Clio, Michigan, Marston Press,
1971), p. 2.
"Ibid., p. 39.
"Ibid., p. 2.
"See the writer's new book,EducationfortheReat
World (San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1977,
pp. 47-105) for further documentation on the cap-
ture and cuff ent domination of thi public schools
by these systems.
"Gilman M. Ostrander, op cle, p. 1.
"Kai Nielsen,"Religiosityand Powerlessness: Part
III of 'The Resurgence of Fundamentalism'," The
Humanist, Vol XXXVII, May-June, 1977, p. 46.
"Aidous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed
Atheist," Report Perspective on the News, Vol. 3,
June, 1966, p. 19.