The Impact of Evolutionary Humanism

A LOOK AT THE EDUCATIONAL INFLUENCE OF EVOLUTIONARY HUMANISM

Perhaps one of the most influential concepts in the United States today is the theory of evolution.  For better or worse, this theory has managed to work its way into almost every facet of life, from education, to politics, and even into the lives of Christians themselves.  Volumes have been written both for and against the theory, but what is the crux of evolution?  Once all the scientific debate is removed, just how influential is this theory?  Diamond, in his foreward to Ernst Mayr’s work What Evolution Is, makes a powerful statement that “Evolution is the most profound and powerful idea to have been conceived in the last two centuries.” (Mayr 2001, vii)  Whatever someone’s personal bias about the theory may be, evolution  dramatically impacts education, particularly when one considers its origins, its direct impact on the beliefs of humanism, the dual impact those theories have on today’s generation, and the proper Biblical response to their core values.

                Before one can fully appreciate the impact evolution has had on education, he must understand the underlying doctrines as seen in its origins.  As many origins to the theory of evolution exist (some, such as Morris in The Long War Against God, even relegate it to the dawn of Satan’s revolt against God), a particular breed of evolution must be defined.  According to Mayr, who has been described by his peers as “one of the great shining figures of evolutionary biology,” (Mayr 2001, Back cover), evolution is “The gradual process by which the living world has been developing following the origin of life.” (Ibid.,286)  Often, when describing “evolution” as a controversy, it is known by the term “macroevolution,” which also according to Mayr is “evolution above the species level. . . production of evolutionary novelties, such as new structures.” (Ibid., 287)  The popularity of this “goo-to-you” evolution, as many Creation scientists have described it, found its genesis in the man Charles Darwin.  Darwin published a work known in its short-titled form as The Origin of Species in 1859, which proposed a means by which through natural processes life could arise to its present-day condition.  This theory was based largely on one man’s work in geology.

                Charles Lyell aided Darwin dramatically by helping him reject the Biblical framework through which most science of that day worked.  Through Lyell’s concept of uniformitarianism, Darwin received the ammunition he needed to combat the Biblical teachings that had a hold on the scientific culture of the day.  Indeed, as Morris notes, Lyell helped Darwin by convincing him that “the biblical chronology could be rejected and the authority of the Old Testament [could be] discredited.”  (Morris 1989, 99.)  Indeed, Lyell also helped by convincing Darwin’s publisher to accept the task.  Lyell is important in this narrative primarily because of his motivations.  According to Morris again, “Lyell was motivated primarily by hatred of the Bible,” (Ibid., 99) in that he worked hard to undermine what he called the supporters of the “Mosaic systems.” (Ibid.)  But what did Lyell teach?

                Lyell’s primary contribution to the evolutionary theory was through the belief of uniformitarianism.  Lyell, a lawyer by trade, rejected the typical geologist’s belief of the day, that the earth was primarily impacted by “catastrophism,” (Ibid., 100) which held that major cataclysms had happened in the past (such as the flood of Noah’s day).  Quite in contrast, he held that the current face of the earth formed through processes that have always worked in the same way that they do in the present.  (Ibid., 25)  Hence, the slogan for this theory was born that “the present is the key to the past.” (Morris 1989, 100)  This theory allowed Darwin to be free himself philosophically from the Genesis record, and thus spurred him on (between Lyell’s work and encouragement) to finally publish, in 1859, his world-changing work – The Origin of Species.  With this record, Darwin proposed a model that would allow humanism to thrive.

                Indeed, to fully understand evolution’s impact on education, one must also be aware of the major period manifestations of evolution -- humanism.  Since the term can be nebulous at best, humanism in this vein is that of “religious humanism.”  According to Herrick, “Humanism is atheism/agnosticism with values.” (Herrick 2005, 2)  In other words, humanism is the philosophy that man can have a moral code without grounding it upon a Creator-God.  Julian Huxley described a “humanist” as “someone who believes that man is just as much a natural phenomenon as an animal or plant. . . not supernaturally created but . . . products of evolution, and that he is not under the control or guidance of any supernatural being or beings.”  (Huxley (in Morris 1989, 116))  This concept was made possible in large part by Darwin’s decision to release Origin of Species into the public realm.  Humanism, as will be further shown, is based strongly on the evolutionary concept that there is little or no room for the supernatural.  In fact, for one to understand such a statement more clearly, one much understand several of its major tenets.

                Humanism is an influential theory that manifests itself many ways.  The first “manifestation,” as it were, is that of skepticism.  According to Herrick, skepticism is “the continual doubting of all we are told or all that we see” and is one of the most basic aspects of humanistic thought. (Herrick 2005, 12)  That being said, he admits that one cannot be skeptical of absolutely everything without driving themselves insane (such reasoning would lead one to consider whether what he sees even exists). (Ibid.)  Thus, being strictly intellectually honest, a humanist will have no choice but to consider certain things to be true simply as a presupposition.  However, the existence of or obedience to any god is inconceivable in the mind of a humanist.  The logic follows a many-tiered approach that leads either to agnosticism or straight-out atheism.  Indeed, some of the questions that stem directly from evolutionary thought are as follows:  “Does god have a beginning or an end?  If god had a beginning (sic) from what did it emerge?  To describe god as the originator of the universe is not an answer to the question of where did everything start, for we need to know the origin of the originator.”  (Ibid., 13)  Another process questions the existence of God as such:  “What is god’s purpose visible in the universe?  We know of no purpose in the universe.  Certainly there is no evidence that the universe’s purpose leads up to humankind.  We may yet prove to be a transient species on earth.  The process of evolution is leading to greater complexity and adaptability but not towards any specific ends.”  (Ibid., 14)  One note concerning the above illustrations:  the humanist considers himself the avenue through which truth is to be understood.  According to his reasoning, because he cannot see a “purpose,” there must be none.  Therefore, God has no purpose (according to this line of thought), so therefore there is no God.  Not only is a strong denial of God through skepticism a major aspect of humanism, but also relativism is another powerful tenet.

                Relativism is a theory that has been strongly based in evolutionary thought.  According to the Humanist Manifesto 2000, “the dignity and autonomy of the individual is the central value.  Humanist ethics is committed to maximizing freedom of choice.”  (Kurtz 2000, 31)  With this quote, Kurtz displays a major first tenet that man can determine his own system of values.  Since certain “moral values” have arisen throughout the world, and since then they are clearly (in Kurtz’s eyes) evolutionarily derived, they do not need to be based on any one god’s commands at all.  Indeed, he says this, stating “Moral tendencies are deeply rooted in human nature and have evolved through human history.  Humanist ethics thus does not require agreement about theological or religious premises.”  (Ibid., 30).  This bears out a relativistic point of view because a man’s opinion, in essence, becomes truth.  Truth is therefore relative, and whatever man decided is morally acceptable becomes morally acceptable.  This concept of skepticism and rationalism leads directly into the next tenet of humanism, and perhaps the most important  - rejection of the deity.

                The major conclusion of the humanist, particularly as seen through the evolutionary lens, is the rejection of the existence of gods. As implied, not only would a humanist reject the God of the Bible, but he would also naturally deny (or declare unknowable) any deity, even if it from a pagan or other religious sources that differ from the Scriptures.  Furthermore, humanists have turned to science in order to “disprove” the existence of God.  And since science has shown “pleasure-centers” of the brain, they naturally conclude that perhaps all the “spiritual experiences” that man undergoes are but a manifestation of chemical stimulation of the natural – that is, the brain. (Herrick 2005, 17)  Not only that, but as a very knowledgeable biologist observed, “Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.”  (Watson 1929, quoted in Sarfati 1999, 16)  While such a quote does not smile kindly on the pure science through which humanist’s or the evolutionist’s attempt to explain their world view, it nonetheless encapsulates the basics of their doctrine.  Deity can play no role, either because it does not exist (atheism) or because it is not knowable (agnosticism).  With these basics understood, a few aspects of the Humanist Manifesto must also be observed.

                A look at the primary tenets of the Humanist Manifesto also shows that these two concepts are undeniably linked.  Indeed, according to that work, “Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created” and “Humanism believes that Man is part of nature and has emerged as a result of a continuous process.”  (Sarfati 1999, 9)  Furthermore, Sarfati, in discussing the connection between the “religion” of humanism and evolution, quotes Wilson, a writer for The Humanist.  Wilson stated “I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classrooms by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanism.” (Wilson 1982, 40)  The quote continues by comparing the actions of those teachers to the most “rabid fundamentalist preachers” and that they must teach the “new faith” of humanism to all ages.  Also, a “senior lecturer in the School of History and Philosophy of Science at the University of South Wales” (Morris 1989, 115) named D. R. Oldroyd states: “So a metaphysical system, although naturalistic and secular, has been build up by modern humanists around the nucleus of biological evolution.”  (Oldroyd 1983, 254)  The first tenet of humanism, according to the Humanist Manifesto also states “Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.”  (AHA 1933)  With these quotes from experts and the humanists themselves, one can see the unmistakable connection between evolution and humanism.  This theory is not just confined to definitions and theory, but it has also begun to redefine the basis for morality.

                As implied earlier, after taking evolution’s existence as fact, the humanist will attempt to explain the origin of morality as being independent of God.  Indeed, they state that man can still be moral even outside the dictates of a Creator.  Humanists have come to the conclusion that since man is a “social animal,” his relationships are an essential part of his humanity.  (Herrick 2005, 21)  This concept is important when one considers how morality would have evolved.  In the words of Keith, a respected scientific investigator of evolutionary thought, “The development of personality as an explanation of human existence could never have entered the thoughts of mankind living under an evolutionary or tribal discipline.  The life and security of a tribesman depend on the life, strength, and integrity of his tribe.”  Furthermore, once man no longer needed the “tribe,” as he was now part of civilization, “statutes and codes of written law replaced the customary automatic tribal law.”  (Keith 1947, 21)  What Keith is attempting to express is the theory that was expressed by so many before and after him. Morals and ethics were the evolutionary response of man to his environment when he realized he needed other people in order to survive.  In short, since murder would weaken his tribe, then evolution thus ingrained within his genetics a distaste for murder, as it would make him less likely to survive.  This is the evolutionary explanation for morals and ethics.  As with humanism – his morality is entirely based both on a man’s personal opinion and the “situational ethics” of the era in which that man lives.  But how does evolution affect the modern day?

The rejection of God and His standards as seen in humanism have, in turn, profoundly influenced the educational landscape of modern society.   Perhaps one of the more interesting cases in recent days was the publication of the National Academy of Science’s Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science.  Published in 1998, this book was obviously evolutionary and humanistic in its approach, for it made such broad and definitive statements as “no one saw [the evolution of a horse] . . . but that does not mean that we cannot be confident that horses evolved.”  (Sarfati 1999, back cover)  Such a statement, while commendable in light of having intense confidence in the theory one is defending, nonetheless shows out the aspects of humanistic thought.  That is, since there is no way one can consider God as having had existed, then such things must have happened by natural processes, ergo, they did.  Not only is Teaching about Evolution very confident in its defense of evolution, but it is very anti-theistic in its approach.

As stemming from a humanistic mindset, one would naturally conclude that NAS, having been strongly influenced by evolution, would be anti-theistic in its approach.  And such is the case.  According to a survey taken in 1998, of all of the 517 members that responded (just a little more than half their ranks), nearly three-fourths were atheistic, one-fifth were agnostic, and only a small portion (7%) admitted to “believing in a personal God.” (Larson 1998, 313)  In defense of the NAS, not all of their scientists were counted, but if such statistics are any indication as to the mindset of the rest, one can probably safely say that evolution and humanism have destroyed the respect and belief in God (theism) of these scientists.  In fact, many other scientists have admitted that the entire conflict is more than a “science vs. religion” conflict, but rather one of world-views.

Several reputable scientists have claimed that the conflict of today has more than just “science vs. religion implications.”  Dr. John Polkinghome, a professor of Mathematical Physics at Cambridge, states that those people who try to claim that science proves  that “there is no God . . . those people are not telling you scientific things.  Those people are telling you metaphysical things, and they have to defend their position for metaphysical reasons.” (Stein 2008, 57:35)  Also, Alister McGrath, an Oxford professor, states furthermore that “some people are so deeply entrenched in their own world-views that they will not countenance the alternatives.” (Ibid., 58:05)  Scientists and others have noted exactly that.  The conflict goes far deeper than just science – it is a world-view conflict.  And those worldviews are humanism and Christianity.  Not only is evolution having a profound effect on world-views, but also on the scientists themselves.

Modern-day scientists have begun to be influenced by the world-view battle in evolution.  In his documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, economist Ben Stein traces the response many modern universities have had to teachers who dared to question to premise that there is no God.  One such scientist was Richard Sternberg, a doctor of Molectular Biology as well as an editor of a scientific journal that is connected to the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History.  For publishing an article that suggested that intelligent design may have been an appropriate explanation for the origins of the earth, he was strongly encouraged to resign his post.  (Stein 2008, 06:42)  He was viewed, in the words of a superior, as an “intellectual terrorist” because he gave “the topic of intelligent design some modicum of credibility.” (Ibid., 07:42) While not specifically and “educator,” Sternberg nonetheless is a scientist whose honest questioning in the realm of science, and subsequent condemnation, could have an profound affect on the science classrooms.  He was not the only scientist or educator that has received such treatment for doubting the evolutionary establishment.

Other scientists were also apparently persecuted.  At George Mason University, a cell biology teacher Caroline Crocker mentioned intelligent design in her class and was “released” from the college for “teaching creationism.”  (Ibid., 10:18)  She was then (as she described her treatment) “black-listed” and has had considerable difficulties getting a job since.  Guillermo Gonzalez, a professor at Iowa State University, wrote a book defending the idea that the universe was intelligently designed, and was forthwith denied tenure (Ibid., 13:56).  Many scientists have been confronted and some have been fired for casting doubt on evolution.  But where do these attacks originate?

Again, the National Academy of Science (NAS) and National Center for Science Education (NCSE) have spearheaded the effort against “Intelligent Design.”  In the words of David Berlinski, who has taught in such prestigious universities as Stanford, Rutgers, the City College of NY, as well as others, evolution is unquestionable in the eyes of many today because it is “strongly forbidden.” (Ibid., 43:00)  He states in those words the crux of the matter.  Because belief in God is inconceivable to the honest evolutionist (and thus, the humanist), He cannot be considered, not matter how the evidence may direct.  But How does this relate to the NAS?   In today’s education, much has been done to prevent Intelligent Design (and thus, Creationism) from ever appearing in the classroom.  The NCSE, according to researcher Larry Withham, has such control over teachers that “if you want to get grants. . . get awards as a promoter of public education of science, you can’t question the paradigm.” (Ibid., 45:20)  How do they keep their power?  While seemingly disconnected from the framework of scientific education, evolutionist and humanist groups have progressed considerably in their agenda by the interpretation of the constitution that apparently forbids any religious teaching from existing within the public schools.

Evolutionary scientists have mainly progressed through an agenda called “separation of church and state.”  This statement, the “wall of separation between church and state,” though not found in the Constitution of the United States, from whence it supposedly hails, is nonetheless used to shore up the evolutionist mindset that no religious teaching can be promoted within the schools.  On a historical note: this phrase actually stems from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a sect known as the Danbury Baptists.  This group was concerned that the government of their state (Connecticut) would impinge upon their free rights to worship as they saw fit.  Jefferson replied that the section in the first amendment declaring “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” erected a “wall of separation between church and state.”  (Beck 2009, 288-289)  He continued, stating that “The legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions.”  In short, the church was protected from the government, rather than people being restricted in their expression of religious ideas.  Such is the influence of evolutionary thought that these histories have been largely ignored in the interpretation of the laws.  Morris himself notes that law itself has been largely debated due to the Creation/Evolution conflict.  Eidsmoe, a theologian and attorney, states that “Underlying the disagreement over the interpretation of the Constitution is a major confrontation between two worldviews – the creationist . . . views of the Framers, versus the evolutionist, relativist, Darwinian views of most legal scholars today.”  (Eidsmoe 1987, 7)  Though this paper is not a defense or refutation of the current interpretation of the “establishment clause,” it is nonetheless clear that this concept has become a tool by which the evolutionary groups (such as the NAS and NCSE) have been able to stop the teaching of Intelligent Design, and therefore creationism.

Indeed, many groups have used the recent Supreme Court decisions of “separation of church and state to restrict or forbid the teaching of Creation or any anti-evolutionism in schools.  One major contributor to the NCSE is Eugenie Scott.  She, along with the NCSE, has stood strongly against any attempt to bring Creation into the school.  Another group, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have fought attempts of a similar nature.  In one such case, when Intelligent Design was being considered for introduction into the Pennsylvania schools, Walczak, of the ACLU, summarized the judge’s decision stating “we have spent an enormous amount of time trying to prove to the court what everybody already knows, that Intelligent Design is a particular religious belief.” (Stein 2008, 51:40)  In fact, for this cause (“separation of church and state”), the judge ruled against the instruction of Intelligent Design.  Other scientists also observe that this conflict is much more than a scientific debate, but a debate about the very existence of God.

The combined evolutionary-humanist influences have driven many scientists to atheism.  Dr. Schwartz, a psychiatrists from UCLA, admits that “this conflict [evolution] has become a religious war.  It is no longer about scientific investigation” (Ibid., 54:20)  One of the many outspoken antitheists is Richard Dawkins.  In discussing his work The God Delusion, he confesses that it is his “long-expected . . . full-frontal attack on religion.”  To him, “science is about trying to explain existence, and religion is about trying to explain existence.  Except that religion gets the wrong answer.”  (Ibid., 55:15)  Dawkins is a British educator, but his ideas, based on evolution and humanism, have no doubt had their influence on the world.  To demonstrate this fact, consider the sales of his book – over  one million copies worldwide as of 2008.  (Ibid., 55:00)  Furthermore, Richard Dawkins also confesses that his study of evolution had turned him toward atheism.  (Ibid., 48:32) After examining both the nature of the evolution conflict in the past and present, one can hardly come to any other conclusion than that the humanistic mindset prevailing over Darwin’s theory has greatly influenced the educational process of today.  But how should a Christian view this?

                The Biblical conflict with evolution and her philosophical offspring should be clear.  To fully explore these conflicts would no doubt fill volumes, but three of the major aspects presented in this paper will more than explain most of the problems present in humanistic theory, as derived from evolution.  The first philosophical child, skepticism, is clearly unbiblical.  The bible teaches Christians that questioning is noble (see Acts 17:11).  However, in this passage, the Bereans were a people-group that dared to compare what Paul said to the Scripture.  Since at face value, this examination seems to be antithetical to the premise that skepticism is unbiblical, an explanation is in order.  The Bereans understood a paramount truth – that is, the Bible is truth.  They then made the logical connection that anything that disagreed with Scripture would therefore be false.  This simple indictment, that it is noble to consider the Bible to be truth, and therefore compare everything to it, totally contradicts the humanistic idea of skepticism.  Using this reasoning, one can easily come to a similar conclusion about relativism.

                While relativism was not explored in great detail, it is nonetheless deeply entrenched in the philosophy of humanism.  Relativism, as implied previously, is that idea that one can determine truth by reasoning through it.  Thus, one’s mores can change based on what is “convenient” or “accepted” at the time.  This again goes against Scripture, as God has described His own Word as “truth,” (John 17:17) and has stated that there are many things that require study to understand.  (Prov. 25:2)  Logically, then, if man obtains glory by studying out an issue (to paraphrase the verse), then it would bear to reason that some things are true whether one understands them or not.  And since at times understanding goes hand-in-hand with agreeing, such a statement could be made that God does not care whether man agrees with Him or not.  He simply requires obedience.  (See this principle played out with Saul – 1 Sam. 15:22)  God does not expect man to work his opinion or his preference or his convenience upon Scripture, but expects man rather to simply submit.  This leads to the final (at least as far as this author is concerned) major tenet of humanism, and that is – their treatment of God.

                The anti-theistic mindset possessed by humanists by reason of their credos is clearly unbiblical.  Not only unbiblical, but this mindset is antibiblical.  Genesis, while not written to defend creation, per se, nonetheless lays out one of the most basic and elementary concepts from its very inception.  That is, God exists.  The first verse in the Bible is “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.”  (Gen. 1:1)  While the statement of this verse is obvious, one should note what this verse does not do.  It does not try to explain every aspect of how one may know that God exists.  In fact, it takes such knowledge for granted.  See also  Rom. 1:18-21, which states that God showed Himself clearly, and that man has chosen to reject the clear teaching.  The humanist and evolutionist culture of today has so clearly been able to see the design of God, but they choose to focus rather on “why does God allow good men to suffer,” “why would God allow this to happen,” and so on.  The humanist draws his eyes away from God, and instead of accepting by faith the existence and then trying to fit what he sees with what he knows (that is, the existence of a God as played out in Scripture), he denies the existence of God and then tries to fit all that he sees with that view.  That is how (as seen earlier) scientists can declare evolution to have occurred, because to them, the concept of God is so untenable, that the only other conclusion is that things must have evolved, otherwise how would everything have gotten here?

                In conclusion, the evolutionary mindset, especially as seen through the eyes of humanism, is profoundly influential in education, particularly when one considers its roots, its manifestations (both past and present), and the godly response.  Evolution’s influence is far-flung, from college campuses to high-school science laboratories.  For better or worse, evolution seems to be here to stay.  Since such may very well be the case, the Christian would do well to be aware of the true face of the evolutionary theory – that it goes far beyond the billions of years taught in the classroom.  It sinks down to the very heart and soul of the Scriptures.  Does God exist?  Does God have a purpose for mankind?  Is man bound by a moral code and obligation to obey his Creator?  If not, then why believe the Scripture? Why live morally?  The world-view of man – be it humanist or Creationist – will answer those questions, and in turn, impact the legacy that this generation passes on to the next.  Humanism or Creationism; formed or evolved – the influence that this education will have on the next generations will matter.

REFERENCES

American Humanist Association. 1933. “Humanist Manifesto I.”  The New Humanist 6 (May/June),

quoted in  Henry Morris, The Long War Against God. [Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1989]

Beck, Glenn. 2009. Arguing with Idiots.  New York: Threshold Editions.

Eidsmoe, John. 1987 “Creation, Evolution and Constitutional Interpretation,” Concerned Women 9

(Sept), quoted in Henry Morris, The Long War Against God. [Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1989]

Herrick, Jim. 2005. Humanism: An Introduction.  Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

Huxley, Julien, quoted in AHA promotional brochure, quoted in Henry Morris, The Long War Against

                God. [Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1989]

Keith, Arthur. 1947. Evolution and Ethics. New York: Van Rees Press.

Kurtz, Paul. 2000. Humanist Manifesto 2000. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

Larson, EJ. and L. Witham. 1998. “Leading Scientists Still Reject God,” Nature, 394(6691):313 (July),

quoted in Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Evolution. [Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1999]

Mayr, Ernst. 2001. What Evolution Is.  New York: Basic Books.

Morris, Henry, 1989. The Long War Against God. Green Forest, AR: Master Books.

Oldroyd, D.R. 1983. Darwinian Impacts. Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press, quoted in

Henry Morris, The Long War Against God. [Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1989]

Sarfati, Jonathan. 1999. Refuting Evolution. Green Forest, AR: Master Books.

Stein, Ben. 2008. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. DVD.  Directed by Nathan Frankowski. Universal City,

                CA: Vivendi Entertainment.

Watson, DMS. 1929. “Adaptation,” Nature, 124:233, quoted in Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting

Evolution. [Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1999]

Wilson, E.O. 1982. The Humanist (Sept/Oct), quoted in Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Evolution.

[Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1999]