The following is taken from Vincent Cheung, Renewing the Mind (PDF, p. 13–16).

— // —

I took a course in college on sociobiology. The subject presupposes biological evolution and applies it to human thought and culture. From the assumption that human beings are descendants of animals, and are animals, it observes and extends the social behavior of animals to explain human behavior. For example, E. O. Wilson attempts to account for altruism and religion using the theory of evolution.⁸

One of the essay questions on the final exam was, "How has this course changed your view of human nature?" Part of my answer read, "Only an idiot would let a 100-level course in undergraduate biology change something as important as his view on human nature. It would be like taking a semester of German or Spanish and then immediately adopting it as one's primary language."

Yet such morons abound. With no more than a most elementary understanding of evolutionary theory, and sometimes not even that, they rely on it as one of the most basic principles that govern their thinking. In a speech at the American Museum of Natural History, Colin Patterson said, "Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence."⁹

If the public is guilty of believing the scientists without examining the evidence, the scientists are in turn guilty of suppressing evidence contrary to their theories:

It is…right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution. But some recent remarks of evolutionists show that they think this unreasonable. This situation where scientific men rally to the defense of a doctrine that they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science.¹⁰

Many Christians, affected by an anti-intellectual secular philosophy, are also ignorant of the major tenets of their faith, and this reveals their disobedience to biblical instructions. However, evolutionists do not believe in an omnipotent Spirit who converts the fundamental commitments of the chosen ones so that they may assent to the truth and be saved. The Christian worldview permits one to convert to the faith without a thorough understanding of the entire system, since it is the sovereign God who exercises irresistible power on the will of man by means of the gospel message. Nevertheless, Scripture commands the diligent study of the word of God to gain a comprehensive intellectual understanding of the Christian faith.

The unbeliever cannot justify a change in fundamental commitment based on an undergraduate course in biology, especially those who pride themselves on being rational and scientifically minded. To demand one argument for evolution citing actual evidence for the theory is often sufficient to silence many lay evolutionists. Many of them cannot even explain the theory of evolution, let alone provide evidence in support of it. However, they claim to revere only science, and will believe nothing without evidence.

But the point that I wish to emphasize is that the question on the final exam implied an agenda to alter or shape the thinking of the students. "How has this course changed your view of human nature?" betrays an intention and expectation that the content of the course would change one's view of human nature. The professor wished to work out some of evolution's implications for human behavior so that the students would think and act more consistently with evolutionary theory.

In the words of René Dubos: "Evolutionary concepts are applied also to social institutions and to the arts. Indeed, most political parties, as well as schools of theology, sociology, history, or arts, teach these concepts and make them the basis of their doctrines. Thus, theoretical biology now pervades all of Western culture indirectly through the concept of progressive historical change."¹¹ Julian Huxley likewise writes, "The concept of evolution was soon extended into other than biological fields. Inorganic subjects such as…linguistics, social anthropology, and comparative law and religion, began to be studied from an evolutionary angle, until today we are enabled to see evolution as a universal and all-pervading process."¹² Pierre Teilhard de Chardin declares that evolution is "a general condition to which all theories, all systems, all hypotheses must bow and which they must satisfy henceforward if they are to be thinkable and true."¹³

Evolution is a theory concerning human origins that produces ramifications in subjects outside of biology. Due to its wide acceptance, it has affected secular theories on psychology, education, criminology, and many other areas of study. Huxley believes that evolution is an "all-pervading process." However, if the theory is false, then the secular theories deduced from it can only be all-pervasive nonsense. Besides his optimistic view of evolution cited in the previous paragraph, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin also says, "[Evolution is] above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience."¹⁴ It cannot be verified or falsified. But this is not very "scientific," is it? Imagine the ridicule if a Christian were to make the same claim regarding supernatural creation.

I have in my possession hundreds of pages of additional quotations that can embarrass the evolutionists, but since it is not my aim to refute the theory here, I must refer the reader to my other writings. Now, evolution is one of the major secular and anti-biblical theories that seeks to capture our minds. The point is that non-Christians adopt ludicrous fundamental principles to eliminate the God of the Bible as the determiner and explanation of all human thought and experience. They opt for unbiblical – and therefore false – principles from which to construct their worldviews.

Notes

⁸ E. O. Wilson, On Human Nature; Harvard University Press, 1988.

⁹ Colin Patterson, "Evolution and Creationism," New York; November 5, 1981. Dr. Patterson was a senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History.

¹⁰ W. R. Thompson, "Introduction," Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin; Dutton: Everyman's Library, 1956; p. xxii. Thompson was Director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa.

¹¹ René Dubos, "Humanistic Biology," American Scientist, vol. 53; March, 1965; p. 4-19.

¹² Julian Huxley, "Evolution and Genetics," in What is Science? edited by J. R. Newman; New York: Simon and Schuster, 1955; p. 256-289.

¹³ Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, The Phenomenon of Man; New York: Harper and Row, 1965; p. 219.

¹⁴ Ibid., p. 2.

¹⁵ It is a philosophical presupposition not derived from, but rather imposed upon, empirical data.

 

Posted in Philosophy, Apologetics | Permanent Link