Inside The Darwinian Propaganda Machine

Inside the Darwinian Propaganda Machine

One who has received only the slightest morsels of information about evolution might find resounding confirmation of its factual nature. I felt that way about evolution in 1991 as doubt about my Christian faith slowly crept into my soul, much like cold air beneath a door slightly ajar. I had never read much about evolution and was told, by a parochial grade-school teacher who undoubtedly read as little about it as I, that only biased naturalistic scientists believe in evolution. That was merely their opinion and nothing more. God's word had spoken to the contrary. Hearing a few tales of missing links scattered about ancient strata, I began to doubt that any kind of creationism might be true.

Ten years later, after much exhaustive research, I have come to the conclusion evolution is bolstered not so much by the evidence it appeals to but by what I have chosen to call a "propaganda" machine. This does not imply there is any finely tuned conspiracy among evolutionists. Rather, it suggests a common mind set that deals in a set of fallacies and non sequiturs that excrete from a machine trying to make the best of a difficult conflict between fact and reality, between public suspicion and courteous sentiment.

Looking at the relationship between religion and science, we find both goliaths jostling for position as they size up each other, much like sumo wrestlers waiting to go into combat. Evolutionists marry both concepts into something they call theistic evolution which has all the makings of a Lutheran/Catholic dialogue, but which appears to create perilous difficulties after undergoing a skeptical inquiry.

Under the tenets of theistic evolution, God could have created the universe and the biological processes by which evolution works its magic - ancestral descent at its best. Yet, it was Darwin himself who removed the rubric of a creative god from any possible relevance and reduced moral imperatives to remnants of random biological events, not remnants of a divine message or series of them. Richard Dawkins has remarked that Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist and many evolutionists would most likely agree with him. Julian Huxley and Corliss Lamont have also written extensively about how natural laws suffice to explain life's origins with Lamont admitting humanists adopt a naturalistic metaphysics as their guiding philosophy. Darwin, in On the Origin of the Species, fought aggressively to include God in his naturalistic plans and claimed his theories accorded better with the laws "impressed on matter by the Creator" although he claimed that his idea of descent with modification would "banish the belief of the continued creation of new organic beings, or of any great and sudden modification in their structure." Darwin was probably the first modern evolutionist to try to pass off his naturalism as a divine method of creation and started the Darwinian propaganda machine rolling as far as passing evolution off as compatible with some brand of creationism.

I see no good reason why the views given in this volume should shock the religious feelings of any one. It is satisfactory, as showing how transient such impressions are, to remember that the greatest discovery ever made by man, namely, the law of the attraction of gravity, was also attacked by Leibnitz, "as subversive of natural, and inferentially of revealed religion." A celebrated author and divine has written to me that "he has gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of self-development into other and needful forms, as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws."

One could, upon believing God's providing hand kept stellar bodies in place, have doubted a natural law as gravity held them in place only to later retract such a belief simply because a law as gravity accomplishes a purpose a divine creator could deem worthwhile. A domino rally creator could create interesting domino designs by causing each individual domino to fall or start one rolling and let the domino design unfold. Either way, the domino-design creation is the work of intelligent design. In the same way, God could have kept stellar bodies in place by his divine hand or by creating a natural law to do it. A good clockmaker winds a clock up and lets it run. God may have done the same with the universe.

Evolution is certainly not wound up and predictable as the hands of a clock. In fact, evolutionists are candid at admitting the nature of evolution is undirected randomness. Stephen Gould, for instance, has claimed the path of evolution is unpredictable and unrepeatable so that if we rewound "life's tape" to the beginning of time, we might not get mankind. Kenneth Miller has also proclaimed the chaotic, undirected nature of evolution while attempting to enlist evolution as God's creative agent. Here the Darwinian propaganda machine breaks down. How can a process that is not destined to run a course of events be the method of creating? Whereas a domino rally will run a sequence of events to produce a design, evolution has no such conclusion to reach. The propaganda machine has no such explanation because both concepts are alien to each other. It can only suggest a common ground and walk away before anyone asks for answers to the deeper mysteries of this supposed union.

Thinking of evolution as without an end and no secure path to follow leaves the religious in a state of appealing to subjective evidence for its only evidence of divine action since the scientific evidence it claims bolsters' a belief in atheistic evolution, not theistic evolution. There is no contradiction between evolution and creation and it is only fundamentalists who are confused about this, the late comedian Steve Allen has said. Now it appears that it is studious philosophers like the current author or those who inhabit computerized philosophy forums who are confused about it as well. ⁽¹⁾

Denis Lamoureux has defended evolutionists' common-ancestry thesis from Phillip Johnson's attacks and adopted theistic evolution for his reigning paradigm. Lamoureux criticizes Johnson for assuming that to give ground to evolution's claims, one must abandon theistic belief to the realm of faith while evolution occupies the realm of reason. Lamoureux's evidence for the divine consists of a personal experience with the saving blood of Christ and this is what he calls "religious knowledge." Rather than refuting Johnson's criticisms, Lamoureux resoundingly confirms them. The evidence for God's creative actions turns out to be a subjective experience, and subjective experiences are tricky things. They could arise from one's desired experiences which manifest themselves in experiences which feel real, but aren't. Lamoureux obviously believes in the Bible also, but this book describes an action by God which may have never occurred, if we grant the truth of the common-ancestry thesis.

The intelligent-design community aims to make creationism a respectable and detectable postulate in the scientific community. Lamoureux and Larry Arnhart both eschew I.D. arguments with Arnhart calling them arguments from ignorance. Arnhart has debated Michael Behe and William Dembski in the pages of First Things, claiming a Darwinist tint to conservative morality. Embracing evolution does not remove the need or ability to conceive of first causes, Arnhart writes, because there are places where science cannot go. Here theism fills the gap nicely, or so we are led to believe. In reality, if science cannot go there, neither can any search for empirical proof of God's actions and we are left with blind faith, straddling subjective personal experiences like Lamoureux has, for our only proof.

These sort of arguments inhabit theistic evolution and are not mere artifacts of an old theology. When I criticized theistic evolution on Access Research Network's debate forum (www.arn.org), I was told evolution was not truly without purpose because each evolutionary "event" is known by God and so there is never any truly undirected random process. This leaves God in the role of watcher and not director, much less creator, and certainly the Bible is at odds with such a scenario. There God acts; God is not a bystander. The Darwinian propaganda machine has no answer to such objections although it pretends it does. Convincing it appears; credible it is not.

Darwinist Religion?

Because evolution must cover all bases as to constantly refute creationism and be acceptable to the public, it has created ad hoc postulates like theistic evolution. Evolution, if it is to remain apart from religious dogma, must appear highly empirical and unbiased, with no emotional attachment to it whatsoever. Often skeptics speak with allusions to the scientist who is as undogmatic as a dictionary, and this usually involves ad hominems against the religious. Chester Dolan has written, "The prepossessions of the religionist . . . impose no restraints on him, no necessity to prove his doctrines and dogmas - and instead dispose him to defend his pronouncements blindly against all opposition." The religious, to Dolan, have "been trained to believe that it is perfectly natural to make judgements without the slightest need for facts." The religious differ from the scientist who "will suspend judgement until his theories are supported by well-founded facts." This is obviously a utopian view of scientists, although we might hope it would be true. Scientists, like any other humans, are subject to whims of fancy, biases, world views. Evolutionist scientists are certainly no exception to the rule and one might wonder if the whole Darwinist naturalistic paradigm might exist as an antidote to the Biblical outline of history rather than a scientific model that can be tested or refuted without a singular tear or regret.

It was Humanist Manifesto I which clearly described the importance of evolution. "Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created," it tells us, affirming that "man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process." Holding what they call an "organic" view of life, its signers find the religious dualist view of mind and body must be rejected. The manifesto then goes on to make its political aims known, not only socialist aims but freedom of sexual conduct, birth control, and abortion. The only conclusion possible from reading this and other manifestos is that evolutionist assumptions often undergird political and social goals. This doesn't mean evolution is faulty because of this. Rather, it means humanists and atheists have reasons for preferring an evolutionary explanation for existence.

Michael Ruse has recently admitted that evolution has its religious component, although so much the better for Ruse. Writing in the National Post, Ruse harkens back to a debate with creationist Duane Gish where Gish reprimanded Ruse for taking advantage of an unfair position. Creationism is religious, of course, but so is evolution is that is not entirely perceived by the public and Gish was criticizing this obvious omission. Ruse notes that "Evolution came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity." It was the progress of evolution which Darwinists saw echoed in human progress, Ruse notes, and organic evolution suggested social evolution toward betterment so that Darwinists saw in evolution a religious hope. Today, Ruse writes, professional evolution thrives but the old religion survives and thrives right along. Edward Wilson, quoted by Ruse, says we now have an "alternative mythology" to defeat traditional religions, one which sports a "narrative epic" with the evolution of the universe and life as its central tenet. From Ruse we learn Stephen Gould's language is hardly more restrained. Evolution, to Gould, "liberates the human spirit." We owe our existence to the lucky stars, Gould writes, because a cosmic catastrophe claimed the life of the dinosaurs. Ruse concludes this type of writing claims itself as rival to the traditional Judeo-Christian teaching of mankind owing its existence to God. Of course Ruse doesn't conclude that evolution should not be taught in schools because many are making a religion out of it. He is willing to tolerate the religious aspect of evolution because he believes evolution is true.

The religious aspect of evolution is entirely obvious in humanist writings that echo the hopeful future that awaits us once we use Darwinist assumptions in our sciences, particularly self-repairing robotics. Once we break loose of our hope in miracles, science will claims its rightful place in saving us. Once we fully experience the "angst" that we are alone in the universe without a god - much like sailors going down with their ship might experience a religious feeling of camaraderie knowing they will all meet their fate together - we can experience a feeling of religious unity and continue on to produce a healthy society. Of course, the New Age movement postulates aliens (E.T.s) who go through continuous reincarnationist cycles of improvement, a process that is the continuation of pre-man evolution, a process that will never stop. Evolutionists understand the writings of their fellows and the hope that awaits them but the uninformed public, of which I was once a member, undoubtedly does not understand the emotional appeal of evolution. Without such knowledge, the public is bound to assume these scientists and philosophers see evolution without attaching any significance to it. Nothing could be further from the truth. The propaganda machine is willing to foster such a lie among those who cannot see any difference.

Negative Theology

The propaganda machine is a wonder to behold, and somewhat confusing. One might think it knows not what to tell us. On one hand it has the power to make creationism disappear forever, sporting a "theory of everything" to account for any observed process or event. It pursues this goal vigorously like a coveted golden trophy. Yet, it tries to make room for God by, for instance, sporting the "religious" as tokens to the public to show there is no contradiction between evolution and creationism. Denis Lamoureux has recently made use of this tactic.

Religions definitely make odd truth claims, if our measuring stick is observed natural law. It would be no surprise, then, atheists and atheistic evolutionists would use negative theological arguments in their general arguments against religious truth claims. It is unavoidable. The propaganda machine has amassed many arguments against divine action despite claims that creationism - of any kind that adopts miraculous interventions by God - is vacant of empirical content. Here, what the propaganda machine doles out with one hand it takes with the other. Creationism is left devoid of empirical content, but evolutionists are the first to raise the specter of predictive content from creationist speculations.

Such ruminations revolve around what science is and what its place is in what we consider truthful. A narrow view of science takes only natural laws as useful in testing truth claims. A broader view considers science that which encompasses anything that tests a theory - whether the cause is natural or intelligent. Michael Ruse has complained, taking up issues with creationist Duane Gish, that creationism appeals to laws we cannot discover and hence creationism is not scientific. Richard Lewontin has worried that allowing a divine foot in the door would disrupt scientific hypothesizing as we know it. Creationism, of any brand, seems as unattractive as a pimple before a ballroom dance. Clearly according to these two, invoking the divine is to invoke a process we cannot understand and one whose content remains so undefined as to render science impotent since a divine cause is a blank check which can be cashed whenever an observer asks for a scientific cause to be provided.

Yet, evolutionists are quite often vocal in admitting they seem to know the narrow bounds of what the Almighty would do. With the view that each species is separately created, Darwin would say, "how utterly inexplicable is it that organs bearing the plain stamp of inutility . . . should so frequently occur." Gould has also wondered aloud why God made increasing cranial capacity and reduced teeth (and other features) in the half-dozen human species discovered in the rocks. Was it to mimic evolution or test our faith? Perfection, Gould says, covers the tracks of history whereas the tracks of history are evolution's evidence. Perfection could be imposed by a wise creator, but imperfections record a history of descent. Why should many creatures do what they do with the same bone structures unless they received them from a common ancestor, he asks. Implicit in his argument is the assumption God would not use the same structures again. Richard Dawkins has complained the shape of the bony flatfish is not what a divine creator would create and atheists, in general, have complained about the excessive evil in the world. Clearly agnostics and atheists have at least a large market share on divine predictability.

Knowing what a god would do makes for good theory-making, but we must pause. Why an animal is an ancestor to another class of animals is a good scientific issue to be featured in a high-school biology class. Such issues do get discussed as they were in my biology class. What I was not told is the degree to which negative theological arguments shape evolutionary assumptions. Such assumptions, of course, would not find their way into high-school textbooks for to do so would be to sin against the great high commandment of modernism: though shalt not smuggle religion into publicly funded arenas. That students need to learn the assumptions evolutionists operate under cannot be debated, but such an importance will not guarantee the knowledge is disseminated. If the public were to find out how many religious presuppositions make their way into evolutionist dogma, they might feel evolution is anything but the unbiased product of truth it is claimed to be. Evolutionists will not be the first to openly admit their presuppositions.

It is for these and many other reasons I do not trust the Darwinian propaganda machine. Evolutionists deeply want to be believed, want to be the guardians of the truth. Atheistic evolutionists obviously have their motivations for believing in evolution and convincing the public of its merit. Theistic evolutionists either believe in evolution because they believe it is factual or they fear certain theological and philosophical problems inherent in a theory of divine fiat creation. Some of them fear the great "god of the gaps" strategy and would rather avoid anything that hints at its use. Rather than argue for creationism, they accept theistic evolution and smuggle divine agency in whenever possible.

For these reasons, I am highly skeptical of whatever claims come out of the evolutionist community. I certainly am no stubborn fundamentalist with my opinions being molded by high-minded clergy. Rather, my research has convinced me of the need to doubt evolution with evolutionists often doing the most damage to the faith I was supposed to put in their words. A good propaganda machine has the sophistry to convince the public and elude critics for at least a short span of time. Its time may run out soon, however.

1. In February of 2002, I posted a criticism of theistic evolution to the Society-of-Christian philosophers internet discussion forum and, to my surprise, found few backers of theistic evolution. I used the domino rally argument in my criticisms to demonstrate the difference between a directed process and undirected one. I later cross-posted this essay on Access Research Network's debate forums and did receive replies by two theistic evolutionists, although their arguments were hardly convincing.