"The tragedy of common sense
it that it is not
very common."
(Albert Einstein)

"Politically correct Christianity
is tolerated but despised.
Full Gospel Christianity is
respected but persecuted."
(Unknown)

"If you marry the Zeitgeist
you will soon become widow."
(Goethe)

"To reach the source of a river
you must swim upstreams."
(Stanislaw Jerzy Lec)

"I note that all those,
who are positive to abortion
already are born."
(Ronald Reagan)

Last modified: 2013 09 18 04:36

The evolution theory — a religion for our time

In the commentaries of the Swedish school administration, it is emphasized for the high-school natural science program how important it is to teach the students the difference between physics and metaphysics. It also puts forward that no scientific model is completely objective or free from personal values. In an interview by 'NOT-bladet' [1], school minister Carl Tham in the same spirit commented on the importance of teaching student a healthy critical attitude to science:

There is still a widespread belief in the authority of researchers and their research results. The results of scientific studies should not be accepted completely just like that; rather schools have an very important role in training the student into having a critical and independent thought. Students need to learn as early as possible how to question premises and how to investigate the coherence of the whole before they make their own conclusions.

Despite the fact that these noble goals seem objective, it seems that certain theories from the National school administration and the media are esteemed higher than any existing form of critics or securitization. In particular, the evolution theory and the associated theories about the beginning of life. Within these models, there apparently are no uncertainties or biases because whoever dares to doubt one of these theories is immediately classified as an incompetent or unscientific. In all school textbooks, the evolution theory fundamental perspective, that all life can only be the result of natural processes, is presented as fact, while in reality it is really a is a philosophical assumption, a premise. In all the Swedish school curriculums, from primary to high-school level, it is pointed out that the evolutionary perspective shall be at the basis of all teachings. This overconfidence in these scientific theories of origin is especially remarkable with reference to the fact that all such theories, as recently pointed out, suffer the same fundamental flaw that the phenomena they try to describe are impossible to repeat. Repeatability is generally considered as a basic requirement for the full functionality of the scientific method. One can with good reason wonder how it is possible that theories studying non-repeatable, single phenomena apparently can be considered so certain and beyond every doubt that those who don't accept them are almost considered a danger to society; while at the same time, it is considered common sense to be skeptical to all other theories that actually can be verified with much larger certainty. Both education politicians and schoolbook authors seem to agree that no costs are too high to convince students that there is no creator and that modern biology has proven beyond reasonable doubt that humans are no more that intelligent apes. We can only wonder why!

During the last two days of November 2002, the University of Uppsala arranged two study days for high-school teachers teaching the natural sciences curriculum. The teachers could choose between different lectures. At the SLU (Sweden Agriculture University) seminars were offered to biology teachers with the title `Evolutionary biology and Creationism'. The lecturer was Staffan Ulfstrand, professor emeritus in ecological zoöecology and `popular science writer'. About seventy biology teachers came to his seminar. In his introductory to the theme of his lecture, Ulfstrand asked himself how a teacher should deal with believing students that "attack the evolution theory". The existence of believing students is consequently, according to Professor Ulfstrand, a serious problem for the Swedish schools (it seems pretty contradictory that Ulfstrand is at the same time also an opponent to confessional school - if one would close these, then there would be even more Christian students in the municipal schools and, hence, there would be even more `problems' during biology classes).

In `Trons Värld' [Believer's world] 22/2002 there was a long piece about Ulfstrand's lecture. I will pick out some parts from this article. Pasted in between are my comments. Direct quotes from Ulfstrand are signified with "(Ulfstrand)".

"I shall thus speak about creationism - and this makes me a little distressed, because I wished I didn't have to talk about it. But it will be mostly a "pep-talk", because you all are of course biology teachers." This is how Staffan Ulfstrand opened his lecture. And a pep talk it would become indeed, or if preferred, a revivalist meeting for the `already saved'. Because here is was not about a scientific description of creationism and a refutation of it. Instead, a caricature of creation was presented by professor Staffan Ulfstrand, a misrepresentation that he afterwards attacked and ridiculed. And as obeying members of the club, the biology teachers approvingly nodded their heads or moaned dreadfully when they learned how stupid - according to professor Ulfstrand's explanations -those creation believers really are. "They must be crazy," someone uncritically moaned behind me, probably some competent biology teacher with several years of university training.
Students that want creation to be treated scientifically in biology classes - next to the evolution theory - are by definition "militant creationists" in professor Ulfstrand's vocabulary.

I actually partly agree with Ulfstrand here. I am not of the opinion that creationism/creation theory should be presented as an alternative, scientific theory in biology classes and, possibly, that it should receive the same space as the evolution theory (this is argued for below).

(Ulfstrand) And we are thus not talking about two different scientifically based attitudes. One is completely scientific natural science - evolution theory - while the other is an ideology that is not interested in practical reason, compare it with bolshevism and others

The evolution theory is in the best case "a completely scientific natural science". Whether this is true in practice can be called in question (which is thoroughly discusses on my web pages about creation/evolution and science/religion). If the scientific method is to function properly, this demands, as recently mentioned, that the phenomena to be studied can be repeated unlimited times. Usually historical happenings — for example Cesar's death, the building of the Egyptian pyramids or the origin of all - cannot be repeated. In the best case, historical theories like evolution theory can come with a range of possible scenarios. I am talking about the purely scientific evolution theory. Because in reality, the evolution theory (evolutionism) also has very strong ideological aspects. Critics are depicted as incompetent, fanatics or evil (see further down in the text). The arguments of critics are seldom or never answered. If the evolution theory would be strictly scientific, one would not try to scare the critics to silence. Rather, there arguments would be met scientifically. The militant evolutionism is, in my opinion, completely comparable to "bolshevism" (`the one who tells did it himself', like we said when we were small).

Creation is not a scientific theory (which is unfortunately sometimes claimed by creationists). Here professor Ulfstrand is completely right. However, it is not an argument against creation. If the absolute truth is that the supernatural Creator created the universe, life and the human, then one actually needs to go outside of science to find the truth. The supernatural lies per definition outside the qualifications of science. The problem for those who dismiss creation as a possible explanation for the origin of everything is, motivated by the reasoning that it is not a scientific theory, that the method then becomes more important than the truth. For Ulfstrand and those who share his opinions, it is apparently more important to hold on to a scientific method than to find the truth. Then one is not unbiased; rather one has already decided beforehand what can be (permitted to be) true.

(Ulfstrand) Therefore, we have a fanatical ideology on the other side and this is a huge problem when people in the classroom emerge with such opinions. It is impossible to have a discussion with them. Scientific evidence is irrelevant, because their religious convictions are a `super ideology'.

First, evolutionism itself seems to qualify very well to the definition of a fanatic ideology (of which we will later show examples of). Scientific proof is not at all irrelevant to the believer of creation (exceptions exist of course, but are not representative). As is brought forward on many places of my website there are plenty professors, Nobel prize winners etc that in different ways believe in a creating intelligence behind the universe, life and the species. Would scientific proofs be irrelevant for these people? Nonsense!!! This is not about disregarding scientific facts. What Ulfstrand does not seem to know is that scientific theories are about interpreting facts. Or more precisely, it is about interpreting from a comprehensive worldview (=ideology). Facts can always be interpreted in different ways. Certain interpretations may seem simpler or more obvious than others, but there is nothing that says that the simplest interpretation, or the interpretation that has the most popular support, or the interpretation that I for diverging personal reasons think is the most likely, equals the absolute truth. One of the reasons for my critics to evolution is that I cannot see how the mechanisms, that according to the evolutionist drive development, could be capable of creating such complex biological systems, for example sight which includes eyes, optical nerves, the visual centre and the ability to interpret the information that enters from the optical nerves. If only one little part is missing in this complex system, it does not work at all. I was already critical to evolution when I went to high school (then I was an atheist, and thus wasn't against evolution for ideological reasons). My critics were purely scientific. I did not think the cliché of "long time and small steps" was a sufficient explanation for all existing species.

It is true that a Christian has a `super ideology'. And one interprets the world from this. However, this is valid in the same high degree for atheists and evolutionists. All scientists proceed from a paradigm [the comprehensive way of thinking that is dominant at a given time and that is usually taken for granted by most people] and then interpret the facts from this paradigm. This is how it is supposed to be. This does not mean that one is not susceptible for critique. One chooses his paradigm by analyzing with (hopefully) the best of ones abilities ones surroundings and then to investigate which paradigm is best at explaining what one sees. The reason I became Christian, that is to say left the atheistic paradigm and assumed the Christian paradigm, was because I did not think the atheistic paradigm could explain what it claimed it could explain. Actually, one chooses which theory one wishes to believe in. One chooses which paradigm is to be the true one. This paradigbiom then decides which theories one accepts as possible and true.

(Ulfstrand) The problem is that they [the believers of creation] want to take time from a subject [biology] and want to use it for something different. That is the same as if a militant biologist would demand that we should be allowed to present Darwin in religion classes.

Her Ulfstrand is partly right. I am of the opinion that one should teach biology in biology class and religion in religion class. However, he is not completely right. These days there is a lot of talk about integration between subjects. I think it is perfectly natural that one, when one discusses the origin of the species, also mentions other concepts besides Darwinism. In addition, when one is discussion creation in religion class, it is completely natural to mention that there are also scientific attempts to explain how al came to be, and that these attempts to a certain degree are competing with the Biblical explanation. A competent biology teacher teaches of course that the evolution theory grew historically. Then it is also obvious that one can also talk about the fact that there are people who believe in creation as an explanation. Then a capable and objective teacher talks about creation theory with respect, and does not make fun of students who believe in creation, does not make a false caricature of creationists etc. No, such a teacher presents creation in such a way that a believer of creation can recognize himself in it and can say: "Exactly, that is what precisely what I believe". It is not very strange that students who believe in creation react (if they dear to - the most just shut up and suffer) when the teacher presents a caricature of creation, which no (or almost no) creationist believes in, which he successively makes ridicule of what the creation believer believes in based on his misrepresentation. Such an unjust teacher only has to blame himself if Christian students react sharply.

Moreover, a truly competent teacher also mentions that science cannot exclude the existence of a creator, that this is simply a question of faith. I think it is completely reasonable to expect so. Teachers can for example commence the lesson about evolution with something resembling the following, "Now we are going to take up how the different species came to be. There is a scientific theory for this, evolution theory. At the same time, many people around the world do not believe in evolution. They are of the opinion that the various species are partly the result of creation. It is important to remember that concerning things that happened millions of years ago, we can never be completely sure that our ideas are right. We cannot repeat what has happened, but only interpret what remains. We cannot exclude creation in any absolute sense. The majority of biologists think there is particularly strong proof for the evolution scenario and this is what we will talk about now. Hopefully you will be able to make up your about what you want to believe yourself, when this course is finished." Or something similar. That would only be fair and just. Christian students probably would not have much to object to then. And why could not a teacher arrange something, for example a debate between the students that believe in creation and those that believe in evolution? Do not schools want to encourage critical thinking, or…? I really cannot see any problem here. In fact, the militant, atheistic biology teachers create the occurring problems.

Ulfstrand does not mention in his lecture that the origin of all of course is much more that the origin of species. In addition, the universe and the origin of life demand an explanation. These must of course be included in this problem complex. More about this in another place.

When an authority as Staffan Ulfstrand portrays such a misrepresentation of the creation believer in front of a gathering of biology teachers, great damage may be done. First, he is prejudiced because he has a false image of belief in creation. Secondly, most probably most of the teachers will become even more contemptuous, scornful and aggressive towards creation believing students ("They must be crazy!"). This should not be allowed to happen in a public school in a democratic country. Is it not said that all parents should be able to send their children to the Swedish schools with confidence (this is the argument against Christian schools - they are regarded as biased while the municipal are supposedly objective - you could have fooled me!)? In a democracy, all opinions should be respected, as long as it does not threaten other people's life, health, freedom, property and security. Then why not respect the opinions of students that believe in creation?!

There is hardly any doubt that in Swedish schools there is a conscious and consequent manipulation into the materialistic and atheistic direction. In the religion teaching book religion och Liv (`religion and life'), that since a long time has been dominant on the market and is used for all grades, it is assumed that e.g. the Christian faith is founded on fairy tales and myths and therefore it isn't true. Literature critic Mats Gellerfelt commented on a passage of this book in his review in Kyrkans Tidning [`the Church's Paper'] nr 17 1991 in the following way, "This my dear readers is nothing more than a grave blasphemy, a spit in the face of confession Christians. That book should be removed from schools immediately". Concerning Swedish biology books, the situation is possibly even worse. In most of them an image, very similar to Staffan Ulfstrand above, is presented of the creation believing Christian as retarded and incompetent, and the evolution theory is hailed as one of science most certain theories, sometimes it is even as an undeniable fact.

A general tendency in the Swedish school textbooks is that one almost never makes clear distinctions between science and metaphysics; very often the metaphysical hypothesis on the origin of all are presented as scientific facts. This is obviously completely contrary to the Swedish school administration's high ambitions concerning objectivity. There is no doubt that the Swedish educational materials have a very low scientifical standard in this respect. There is a huge difference between e.g. Swedish and English textbooks concerning objectivity. One of the most used English high-school textbooks in biology is Biological Science. [2] In the second part of that book, the different theories about the origin of life are discussed. Except for the traditional theories about biochemical evolution and that life came to earth from space etc., the possibility of special creation is also considered as a possibility. The section about godly creation represents the Christian viewpoint in a very correct way. That does not mean that the authors believe in this option, but as good scientists they try to represent the different alternatives as correctly as possible, without distortion or ridiculing. In the foreword to the Evolution chapter they write:

Traditionally the study of the origin of life has been associated with accusations of indoctrination. Indoctrination can be defined as a conscious attempt to impress in the mind an exclusive conviction about some belief or doctrine. Such an attitude is not only anti-scientific, but also intellectually dishonest and efforts have been made to avoid this in this book (page 857).

The chapter about the origin of life is ended with the following, exemplary honesty and humble comments:

Despite the simplified account that has been given above, the problem remains with the origin of life. Everything that has been outlined above is speculative and despite enormous advances in biochemics, the problem remains hypothetical…. Details on the transition from complex non-living matter to simple living organisms remains a mystery (page 862).

One would really wish that the Swedish educational materials showed the same objectivity and insight in the theory of science. When it concerns the evolution of species, they say in the same spirit, for instance:

Some of the processes that are presented as proof for evolution can be reproduced in laboratory conditions, but that does not disproof nor proof that this actually happened in the past; it only shows the possibility that it could have happened (page 866).

A big weakness among evolutionists is their contempt against every form of critique against their beloved theory. That is an especially unhealthy attitude and makes that one has all the good reasons to be skeptical against the different theories on the origin of things and the theory of evolution in particular. Something that is very typical is that one seldom answers criticism with factual arguments, but instead gives way to attacks on the person that gave the critique. One example is when one of the most influential philosophers of the 1900s (if not THE most influential), Karl Popper, on one occasion criticized the evolution theory in his book Unended Quest (1976).

I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program - a possible frame for testable scientific theories (page 168).

This was truly like waking up a bee's nest among evolutionists. Popper was so shaken that he modified his statement. However, the question remains if he really changed his opinion. In the last interview with him that was published in Scientific American one year before his death, he was asked about his current vision on the evolution theory, but he answered very evasive that he maybe went to far in his critique. This is also mentioned in the book The End of Science by John Horgan (see bibliography), he being the one who did the interview with Popper. [3] In his famous Darwin lecture ("Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", Dialectica, Vol 32, no 3-4, 1978, page 341 - 344), where he partially revokes some of his evolution criticism, Popper says concerning science in general (which of course also includes the evolution theory):

My position is, in short, the following: I am on the side of science and common sense, but I turn against the exaggerated claims that science sometimes has done, which has with all right been condemned as scientism [the glorification of science as the expression of absolute truth]. I stand on the side of the search for truth; but I am against intellectual arrogance, and especially against the misguided claims that we have the truth in a little box or that we even can come close to absolute certainty…
I believe that scientists no matter how skeptical they are, can acknowledge that the universe or nature or whatever we now call it, is creative. Because the universe created man; it has created Shakespeare and Michelangelo and Mozart, and therefore indirectly there work. It has produced Darwin, and in this way, it has created the theory of natural selection. Natural selection has destroyed evidence for the supernatural, specific intervention of a Creator. However, it has left us with the wonder of the universe's creative power, of life and of the human intellect. Even if science has nothing to say about a personal Creator, it is hardly possible to deny the existence of new creation and creativity…

According to Popper, science can never reach final, absolute Truth. That is why the title of his book is `Unended Quest'. The claim of the evolutionists that Darwinism represents an absolute truth, a fact that cannot be questioned, has thus no scientific ground, en even if Popper accepted evolution in principle, he definitely did not accept that one bestows scientific theories the status of absolute truth.

Time and time again it can be noted how the slightest doubt in Darwinism led to tremendous reactions from evolution advocates, even pure hate crusades. When a couple of years ago in Kansas it was decided that schools would also mention the creation perspective, the evolutionist went mad. I don't know how many mails I got, where furious evolutionist claimed that Kansas has now forbidden the teaching of the evolution theory, and that from now on only creation would be thought, i.e. science out and the Bible in during biology class. This was not true. It was simply that during class it would also be mentioned that there are people that believe in creation and that there also were observations that talk in favor of the creation perspective. It was implied that one did not have to be an idiot to believe in a Creator, something that is definitely claimed in the Swedish school biology books (of course written between the lines - but there is no doubt that is the claim). After a lot of criticism, Kansas changed it teaching curriculum back to the old one, where only evolution is mentioned.

On 14 November 2002 in USA, the Ohio central school board decided to change the teaching curriculum in the communal schools. The schools would from now on teach the students that there is scientific critique against the evolution theory and that there are scientific alternatives to Darwinism (e.g. `intelligent design'). A lot of tough debates between proponents of the so-called `intelligent design' movement and the Darwinists preceded the decision. Again, the evolutionists say that the medieval darkness is spreading again in schools.

Indeed, what can we say about the evolutionists demand for absolute power? For me it seems obvious that no scientific theory is about absolute truth, not even Darwinism. Science is about an unbiased search for the truth, whatever it looks like. Irrespective if it confirms or disproofs the own favorite hypothesis. Evolutionist want to be regarded as true scientists that only from logic and observation study reality. Why then are there so many upset emotions? Why all this hate and foaming with rage? Trying to silence forever all criticism against the evolution theory implies that one is determined to end freedom of speech and thought. But dear evolutionist, true science is all about free and open debate, where one respects the persons that have different opinions (even those that have opinions you disagree with), and through unbiased and honest debate tries to come closer to the truth. The power talk that all too many evolutionist use, does not belong in a scientific debate. It does not even belong in an unscientific debate.

Now there are similar debates going on in other states Ohio, e.g. Kansas, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Nebraska. Who knows, maybe we are gradually getting a shift in the system.

The evolutionist's monopolization and dictatorialness is incredibly grandiose. Every form of criticism against `the holy evolution' must be crushed in its infancy. They are not content that 99,9% of biology classes is founded on the evolutionary perspective and that a teacher maybe quickly mentions that there are weaknesses in the evolution theory. To even mention that there are things that this theory cannot explain seems to be a taboo. Is there any other field of scientific research where it is so? I am not aware of any other subject (well, possibly the course "Stalin's Godliness" at a soviet university in the 1930ties) where it situation is so bad concerning openness and freedom of speech. And this is exactly the thing that speaks against the evolution theory! It speaks very strongly against the evolution theory!!

Course grades in a scientific context are only given according to knowledge and skill and not according to the personal opinions one has towards one's subject. It is for example possible to get the highest grades in special relativity theory, even if one is very critical about this theory. The only things that are evaluated are knowledge and understanding in special relativity theory (David Bohm is a exceptional example of a physicist that did not believe in the orthodox quantum mechanics, but nevertheless wrote a superb textbook in this subject and moreover did important contributions to physics). No one demands either that one has to believe in Jesus resurrection or virgin birth to get the highest grades in theology. It is knowledge that matters. Has one learned everything that is asked for and gives evidence a fundamental and deep understanding of the theological framework, then one indeed gets the highest grades independent from the fact that one is an atheist or a fervent believer.

From a priest, mullah or pastor etc however it is demanded that they do not only have knowledge about the religion they represent, but also that they also properly believe in the religion he/she represents (archbishops apparently form an exception from this rule). And this is after all obvious. How else would it be possible to represent and mediate a message from God righteously if one did not meet God oneself?!
If the evolution theory only was a scientific theory, without filosophical and religious connotations, one therefore expects that knowledge about the evolution theory is the only thing that is matters for grades and recommendations in the subject. However, if the evolution theory, besides being a scientific theory, also has a religious aspect, then one would expect that not only knowledge is weighed in the evaluation, but that also aspects of belief would be important. There are many examples to show that this is exactly the case.
On January 21, 2003, the American department of justice wrote to Texas Tech University and demanded that the university would explain why a professor of them, Michael Dini, refused to write a recommendation letter to the biology students that do not believe in the evolution theory (source `Världen idag" (Today's World), 7/2 2003 p.10). Behind the writing lies a lawsuit against the university by the Legal Liberty Institute (LLI). "Students are denied recommendations, not on grounds of their competence concerning the evolution theory, but only because of their religious beliefs", says LLI's chief adviser Kelly Schackelford. Actually recommendation letters are particularly important in the USA and often more important than the actual course grades. Biologists that openly declare that they do not believe that the evolution theory constitutes the whole explanation to the origin of man, are thus stopped in their careers. Even if the latter is an extreme case, it is quite obvious that a biologist that openly criticizes the evolution theory as a principle (it is allowed to criticize parts of the theory, but not the very principle - the paradigm), commits professional suicide. For a Swedish biologist that would make himself guilty to such a thing, the most prominent position that he/she apparently can hope for is high school biology teacher in Karesuando [an isolated village at the Finnish border of Sweden].
Another example in the same subject: one time when I was giving a lecture on creation/evolution, a woman came to me after the lecture. She told that she had studied to become biology teacher at one of the teacher training colleges of Sweden. When her promoter understood that she was thinking about writing a thesis that was critical against the evolution theory, the reaction was very negative. The promoter said that if he found proof that she fundamentally did not believe in evolution, then he would see to it that she did not get her degree. She became so intimidated that she did not dear otherwise than to change subject. I asked her why she did not report her promoter to the police. It must obviously be illegal to come with such a threat. She told me then that she did not dare to report him, because she thought that in that case the complete teaching staff would turn against her.
The above shows, if not proofs, that the evolution theory, besides from being a scientific attempt to explain the different species, also has strong philosophical and religious connotations, where one exactly as is valid with priests, is not content with just knowledge, but also demands the right faith.

Usually the evolutionists question the motives behind every form of criticism against the evolution theory. Presumably, they are so convinced that the evolution theory constitutes the `ultimate truth', that they automatically assume that whoever doubts this theory either has to be crazy, incompetent or malicious. This is maybe in itself not so strange, because it is completely in line with the previously mentioned paradigm theory of Kuhn. 350 years ago, Galileo got to pay the price for calling into question the then dominating paradigm, the geocentric model for the solar system. Exactly as the catholic church back then, the evolutionists today evidently claim the right to decide which questions can be asked, determining if the person asking should to be taken seriously or not.

The people that criticize the evolution theory are usually labeled into one of four categories by the `evolutionary priesthood':

  1. The ignorant that cannot manage to familiarize themselves with the theory
  2. The unintelligent who simply are too stupid to understand the theory
  3. The fanatic religious that do not care about logical arguments and facts
  4. The malicious that are against everything (e.g. "Company for the flat earth")

Richard Dawkins, the presently maybe best-known popular science advocate for Darwinism, makes approximately this categorization in diverse contexts. In a review in the New York Times (den 9/4 1989, sec 7, page 34), of Donald Johanson's and Maitland Edey's book Blueprints, Dawkins writes the following, " 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)". In the book `The Blind Watchmaker', Dawkins conveys similar opinions (page 250) [4]. In the same book, page 284, he speaks about "… creationists and others, that have an active interest in spreading lies". Critics of the evolution theory are thus, according to Dawkins, only interested in spreading lies. On page 250, he also says "There are people that desperately do not want to believe in Darwinism". It is tempting to turn around this quote and say, "There are people that desperately want to believe in Darwinism". If anything else, Dawkins appears here more like a fanatical and devoted high priest than as an advocate for objective science.

Obviously, such an attitude makes it impossible to have a constructive dialogue. Besides, what about the following statement, from the article "revolution in the evolution theory" by J Bergström, Biologen [the biologist] nr. 2, 1982:

One has to be blind and disconnect logic completely to be not able to see that evolution is a fact, the opposite is as absurd as to believe that the moon is a piece of cheese hanging from a cord. In the mean time, the denial of facts is sadly the goal for the false black magic that is practiced by the creationists. (Page 4)

The author of this quote apparently cannot separate fact from theory. The assumption that everything came to be through a slow evolution is a theory and not a fact. Most creationists are of course in agreement with the evolutionists concerning the facts. It would of course stupid to deny that a fossil is a fossil. It is in the interpretation of these facts that opinions diverge. For example dating methods can be discussed, because these always build on interpretation.

In 1992, a book from the English science journalist Richard Milton was published with the title Facts of Life. [5] Milton, as a science journalist, had written about paleontology (the study of life in prehistoric times by using fossil evidence) during many years, but he also steadily started to doubt increasingly if Darwinism could explain what it claimed to be able to explain. He then took ten years of his life to gather observations that spoke against the evolution theory. The result was published in the above-mentioned book. It created lots of attention and quite a few evolutionists were almost literally foaming with rage in their book reviews. When Richard Dawkins reviewed the book in New Statesman, he called it "madness", "stupidity" and "rubbish", and its author he called a "harmless eccentric" in need of "psychiatric help". Dawkins dedicates two thirds of his review to attach Melton's publisher that had the guts to publish a book that criticizes evolution. In the remaining third of the review, he then poured bile over the author himself. Milton comments Dawkins choice of words in the preface to a later edition of his book in the following way; "Dawkins is employed at one of Britain's most prestigious universities and is responsible for the education of future generations of students. This is however not a responsible way for a scientist to express himself. This is manner of speaking that belongs with a religious fundamentalist, whose most holy belief has been dragged trough into the dirt".

Even evolutionists themselves sometimes react on the exaggerated claims that some propagandist for evolution do. In 1981, an exhibition was opened at the British Museum of Natural History in London that contained a certain amount of criticism towards the evolution theory. This led to a debate in the esteemed scientific magazine Nature. In an editorial, it was claimed that, among other things, evolution was a fact. This made 22 biologists from the museum to write the following contribution:

How can it be that a magazine devoted to science and its practice can decree that a theory shall be presented as fact? That is a prejudice and not science, and as scientists, it is our fundamental attitude to show an open mind towards that which we do not know anything about. How can it be any other way? You claim that the most of us would rather lose their right hand than to start a sentence with the phrase "if evolution was true…." Should we interpret this as if evolution has been proven fact to the outermost borders of what rigorous science can accomplish? If this it is that you mean, then we have to disagree in the highest degree possible.
We have no absolute proof for the evolution theory. What we have are overwhelming indications till its advantage and we do not have an even better alternative right now, but the evolution theory could be abandoned tomorrow if a better theory emerges. [6]

There could hardly be any doubt that a good deal of the evolutionists preaches their teachings with at least the same passion as an evangelist preacher preaches Jesus Christ. In the debated book Svindlande perspektiv [Volatile Perspectives] — a critique of popular science, the author, professor Sven Öhman, maintains that the evolution theory has obtained religious connotations. He says for instance:

What I mean is, that it is only as myth, not as science, that evolution theory can come into conflict with religion. The religious fundamentalists' protests against the modern Darwinist biology teachings in schools, is therefore based on a correct intuition. These protests are strictly speaking aimed at the popular scientific, mythological versions of biology. The believers perceive intuitively, and with good reason, a religious competitor in these versions. The conflict stands between an older Jewish-Christian religion and the modern spirit of popular science — the religion of our time! [7]

Sven Öhman is far from alone in his opinions. Very sharp criticism is presented, both against the evolution theory as such and its religious claims, in `Den tidlösa utvecklingen' [The timeless development] by Jan Adriansson. The author, who has a Ph.D. in sociology, is of the opinion that the evolution theory today is at least as dogmatic as the church has ever been:

But on the other hand, it [the evolution theory] is itself gradually replacing religion as the leading official dogma. The limited and fundamentally mechanistic world view, for which the theory of evolution stands, becomes more and more cemented and legitimated as the ultimate "truth". [8]

The religious tendencies of the evolution theory is revealed, with all the clarity you could ever ask for, by the catholic priest and paleontologist Teilhard de Chardin, who was, to say the least, a fanatical propagandist for Darwin's theory (and, moreover, very critical towards all forms of biblical Christianity):

Is evolution a theory, a system or a hypothesis? It is much more: it is a general condition by which all theories, all hypothesis and all systems henceforth have to give way to, and a condition that they all have to fulfill, for them to be possible and true. Evolution is a light that enlightens all facts, a curve that all lines need to follow. [9]

On page 140 of the same book, he goes even further and claims when it concerns the proof for evolution, that it "henceforth stands beyond all verification, like it is immune to every later contradiction trough experience".

Most evolutionists would hardly want to agree with Teilhard de Chardin in his exaggerated statements. However, in the mean time the above shows crystal clear how important the evolution theory is for those who alike Teilhard de Chardin want to deny the God that is revealed in the Bible. For those who deny the existence of God, the evolution theory is not just a neutral, scientific theory, but also an indispensable foundation for their complete life philosophy.

Because normal natural sciences only are concerned with repeatable phenomena, it follows, as pointed out several times, that theories about the origin of the universe, live and the species lie in the border country between science and speculation. Therefore, from a pure definition point of view, the evolution theory cannot be called one of science most certain theories, irrespective of what is said in schoolbooks. Even in Darwin's own book, The origin of species, it is admitted indirectly that the evolution theory cannot be proven in a traditional scientific sense. In the foreword to the 1928 edition of this book, Sir Arthur Keith, who was in his times the foremost expert about theories on the origin of man, writes for example:

Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable.

Biochemist Ernest Kahane expresses about the same thing when he says:

It is absurd to believe that a living cell could come to existence by itself; despite that, I believe it anyway, because I cannot imagine that is happened in any other way. [10]

Ernst Haeckel, often called Darwin's German bulldog because of his aggressive defense of Darwinism, said one time concerning the origin of life, "that spontaneous generation [11] has to be true, otherwise it becomes necessary to believe in a creator". These three examples constitute a brilliant summary of how things really are. Because one from the beginning has excluded a creator - who is of course unthinkable - there has to be another explanation to life and the different species. Indifferent of how unsure or absurd these explanations may be, one has to hold fast with them, otherwise one is forced to admit that maybe there is a creator after all. When one claims that the evolution theory has proven that God does not exist, one has made him/herself guilty to circular reasoning. "Because there cannot be a creator, I have therefore just proven that there is no creator" is all one says then.

Behind this way of reasoning lies Enlightenment's kind of thinking and positivism philosophies, which are each treated on other pages of my website (one can use the search engine - in Swedish only for the moment). Mathematician L K Frank once gave, during a conference in cybernetics (system theory), the following brilliant summary of the positivism agenda:

The mystery with purposeful behavior and teleology [goal oriented behavior] has since long ago been associated with a mysterious, self improving or goal seeking ability or ultimate cause, usually of an superhuman or supernatural origin. To be able to study even such phenomena, the scientific thinking was forced to reject this belief in purpose and goal management and to replace it with a strictly mechanical and deterministic view on nature.

About the same thing is expressed by Richard Lewontin, geneticist and evolution enthusiast ("Billions and billions of demons", The New York Review, January 9, 1997, page 31):

We take the side of science despite notorious absurdities with some of its theories, despite its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant claims about health and life, despite its acceptance of meaningless just-so stories, because we have a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, so we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

The assumption that all phenomena, everything from physical happenings to human behavior, are the result of a non-supernatural connection between cause and effect, and therefore can completely can be explained with the help of intellect, is therefore not based on scientific facts, but on a desire that this is actually the case. If one insists that science is able to study all existing phenomena, one simply has to reject any form of belief in a supernatural intervention in nature's course of events (irrespective of the fact if such phenomena exist or not).

When one studies the physical reality, there are in principle two approaches (ways of thinking) to choose between. One is to admit that there maybe are phenomena that cannot be studied with the scientific method. This does not mean that one is anti-scientific, but only that one accepts that every tool has a limited use. This alternative thus says that science works excellent in its field of competence, but that this field of competence does suffice to cover the total reality. The other alternative is to insist that there is no way possible that something exists that cannot be studied and explained scientifically. The latter alternative in no more logical or reasonable than the first, but rather the contrary is the case. The scientific method after all starts out from the `rules of the game' that we humans ourselves formulated to study reality as objective as possible. To claim that these rules of the game are the limit for what can exist, is about as illogic as to claim that the rules of chess sets the limits to how a real horse can move itself!

A common remark that comes up as soon someone starts to speak about a creator is "But you are cheating! You are importing a creator, i.e. something form outside the system! You are not following the rules of science!" In certain respects, this is a correct objection. The problem in the mean time is that, if the universe, life and the species were completely or partly created, then one has to abandon the rules of science to be able to come to the truth. The question we should be asking ourselves is not whether it is wrong to abandon the rules of science or not. Instead, the decisive question is if we really can be a 100% sure that on every meaningful question there is a scientific answer. The claim that "Science has not discovered that there is a creator" is probably as naïve as saying, "After pointing my microscope to the cosmos, I did not see planets, nor stars. Therefore there are no such heavenly bodies." A microscope is just about as useful to do astronomical observations (if not more), as science is useful to observe God. True common sense is about taking in account the nature of the object to be studied!

All successful scientists have to be humble and completely open to the unexpected. Those who base their thinking on preconceived opinions and that are unreceptive for new thoughts are automatically excluded from true envelope of science. The esteemed hereditary researcher Sir Julian Huxtley once wrote in a letter to a colleague the following memorable lines:

It seems to me that science on the most unmistakable way supports the Christian understanding that we should completely submit ourselves to Gods will. Science says: Seat yourself in front of the facts as a little child. Be willing to abandon every prejudice. Be willing to follow nature wherever it leads you. If not, you will not understand anything.[1]

If the universe and life are the result of a supernatural creation, then scientists that disregard this possibility will never ever come to the truth about our origin.

Back to "My english page".


[1]Nr 7 1996. NOT-paper is published by the Swedish school administration to promote technical and natural science subjects.
[2] N P O Green and more, Cambridge University Press, 1985.
[3] Philosopher Michael Ruse writes for example when he in context refutes Popper's criticism on the evolution theory, "Popper can draw his conclusions only because he is abysmally ignorant of the current status of biological thought... " It is so typical to use an expression as `abysmally ignorant" about a man that demonstrably had shown such a deep understanding of quantum mechanics and relativity theory that his thoughts could influence these theories, despite he being a philosopher and not a physicist. One can wonder why Popper would have had a hard time to understand the evolution theory, when he at the same time managed to understand theories that are demonstrably are considerably much more abstract and harder to understand? Moreover, Popper's critique gradually influenced Darwinism to a certain extent too.
[4] The Blind Watchmaker, Longman, 1986.
[5] Corgi Books. See list of literature.
[6] Nature, vol 290, 1981, page 82.
[7] W & W, 1993, page 74-75.
[8] Nya Doxa 1992, page 13.
[9] Phenomenon of Man, Harper, New York 1965, page 219. 1965, sid 219.
[10] Wenn Tiere Reden Könnten... by professor Werner Gitt, Hänssler Verlag, 1990, page 115.
[11] The theory of spontaneous generation is going to be discussed in relation with other different theories about the origin of life.
© Krister Renard