Tuesday, March 31, 2015

American Humanists in Academia: the 21st century religious leaders

*This article originally appeared as a guest article on onlyjesussaves.com.*

As many people in Christian apologetics have pointed out in recent years, Humanism is a man-made religion that puts man on God’s throne, and evolution serves as their explanation for the origins of the universe and all life on Earth; evolution was created to explain away all the evidence supporting the truthfulness of scripture, the Flood, and God’s existence.

In 1981, Darwinist Richard Lewontin said the following:

“It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a FACT, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a FACT that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a FACT that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a FACT that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a FACT that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a FACT that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.”

However, in an article titled “Billions and Billions of Demons” on page 31 of The New York Review of Books from January 9, 1997, the very same Richard Lewontin admitted the following:

“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior 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 for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door.”

You have to give Lewontin credit; it takes a lot of guts to admit that everything you said about evolution being a fact 16 years earlier was a lie.  Since evolution is a materialistic explanation of how everything originated, Lewontin is admitting that materialistic explanations of the origin of life are “unsubstantiated Just-so stories”, meaning there is no observational evidence supporting it.  Lewontin also called materialistic explanations “counter-intuitive”, meaning that it goes against common sense and reason.

What I want to focus on in this article is when Lewontin said material explanations are “mystifying to the uninitiated”.  This implies that Evolution is a religion, and the professors who promote Evolution are initiating students into it.  In his article titled “A Religion For A New Age”, which was in the 1983 Jan/Feb issue of The Humanist, John Dunphy proved this:

“I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects what theologians call divinity in every human being.

These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level—preschool day care center or large state university.

The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new—the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism.
It will undoubtedly be a long, arduous, painful struggle replete with much sorrow and many tears, but humanism will emerge triumphant. It must if the family of humankind is to survive.”

As I have observed the world the past couple of years, I have noticed that there are a lot of similarities between the religious leaders of Jesus’ time, and the modern humanists who control the American academic community.

They Believe in Science, But They Deny its Observations

Matthew 15:1-9:  “Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, ‘Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!’

Jesus replied, ‘And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, “Honor your father and mother“ and “Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.”  But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is “devoted to God”, they are not to “honor their father or mother” with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.  You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:

“These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.  They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.“‘”

Jesus rightly pointed out that the religious leaders of his day claimed that they submitted to the God of the Bible, but they proved that they really didn’t by putting man-made traditions and rules over God’s commands.

The funny thing about evolutionists is they claim that their belief in evolution is based on their observation of the real world, yet when the observational evidence shows that biblical creation is true, they deny what their observations are telling them, and they impose their evolution narrative on the evidence.  On pages 118-119 of I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, Norman Geisler and Frank Turek show exactly that:

“Do darwinists insist on spontaneous generation because they just don’t see the evidence for design? Not at all. In fact, exactly the opposite is true—they see the evidence clearly! For example, Richard Dawkins named his book The Blind Watchmaker in response to William Paley’s design argument that we cited in the last chapter. The appearance of design in life is admitted on the first page of The Blind Watchmaker. Dawkins writes, ‘Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.’ Two pages later, despite acknowledging ‘the intricate architecture and precision-engineering’ in human life and in each of the trillions of cells within the human body, Dawkins flatly denies that human life or any other life has been designed. Apparently, Dawkins refuses to allow observation to interfere with his conclusions. This is very strange for a man who believes in the supremacy of science, which is supposed to be based on observation.

Francis Crick, codiscoverer of DNA and another ardent Darwinist, agrees with Dawkins about the appearance of design. In fact, the appearance of design is so clear he warns that, ‘biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.’ Crick’s little memo to biologists led Phillip Johnson, author and a leader in the Intelligent Design (ID) movement, to observe, ‘Darwinian Biologists must keep repeating that reminder to themselves because otherwise they might become conscious of the reality that is staring them in the face and trying to get their attention.’”

They Try to Appear Morally Superior To People Who Believe in God:

Matthew 23:27-28:  “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean.  In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.”

Back in Jesus’ day, the Pharisees and religious leaders did their best to appear righteous to the people, portraying themselves as morally superior to everyone else.  Jesus rightly called them out on it.

Some of the  humanists and evolutionists who control academia also view themselves as being morally superior to people who believe in God.  In an article titled “A Designer Universe?”, evolutionist Steven Weinberg showed that belief in the context of talking about how people used the bible to justify slavery back in the pre-civil war era:

“With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil–that takes religion.”

Some evolutionists and humanists take it a step further and suggest that not only are they morally superior to people who believe in God, but that they are morally superior to God himself.  On page 51 of The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins wrote the following slander of God’s character:

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction:  jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

Science Will Ultimately Condemn Evolutionists:

John 5:45-47:  “But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set.  If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.  But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?”

One of the beliefs that the Pharisees and religious leaders of Jesus’ time was that because they were the blood descendants of Moses and because their ancestors were the recipients of the Law, they thought they would get a free pass to heaven.  Jesus rightly pointed out that on the day of judgement, Moses himself would be the one to accuse them before God.

When these evolutionists and humanists stand before God on their day of judgement, if they try to accuse God of not leaving enough evidence of his existence, God will hold them accountable for creating a theory to explain away all the evidence he left behind, and he will hold them accountable for the countless people who went to Hell because they were led astray by the evolutionists and humanists.

Evolutionists Try to Convince Us That All Scientists Believe in Evolution:

John 7:45-49:  “Finally the temple guards went back to the chief priests and the Pharisees, who asked them, ‘Why didn’t you bring him in?’

‘No one ever spoke the way this man does,’ the guards replied.

‘You mean he has deceived you also?’ the Pharisees retorted.  ‘Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed in him?  No! But this mob that knows nothing of the law—there is a curse on them.'”

In Jesus’ day, the religious leaders tried to dissuade people from believing in Jesus by committing the appeal to authority fallacy.  Appealing to authority is a logical fallacy because authorities can come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink.  Therefore, whenever anyone appeals to authority to prove that evolution is true, you have the right to call them out for committing a logical fallacy.

The humanist and evolutionists in our society commit the same fallacy.  Frequently in my discussions with people who believe in evolution, they will tell me that evolution must be true because the most prominent scientists in our society tell us that it’s true, as if they’re somehow incapable of error, bias, dishonesty, or groupthink.  The scientists themselves frequently tell us that all real scientists believe in evolution.

The truth of the matter is that there are many scientists in the mainstream that don’t believe in evolution, but they almost never express their disbelief.  Why not?  Because of the following:

Scientists/Professors Don’t Express their disbelief in Evolution in Order to Keep Their Job:

John 12:42-43: “Yet at the same time many even among the leaders believed in him. But because of the Pharisees they would not openly acknowledge their faith for fear they would be put out of the synagogue; for they loved human praise more than praise from God.“

While the religious leaders of Jesus’ day were claiming that nobody among the religious leaders believed that Jesus was who he claimed to be, the truth was that many of the religious leaders kept their belief in Jesus to themselves because they knew that if they made their belief public, they would in effect “lose their job” as a religious leader, and they valued that more.

The same thing is going on today with the evolutionists and humanists who control academia.  They tell us that all real scientists believe in evolution, but then if one of those “real” scientists so much as hints that evolution is not true, they will lose their job.  If you don’t believe me, then watch the beginning of Ben Stein’s movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.  From the 5:00-15:32 mark, we see a number of testimonies about non-christian scientists who lost their job simply because they hinted at the possibility that evolution wasn’t true.

On page 162 of I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be An Atheist, Geisler and Turek write:

“…by admitting God, Darwinists would risk losing financial security and professional admiration.  How so?  Because there’s tremendous pressure in the academic community to publish something that supports evolution.  Find something important, and you may find yourself on the cover of National Geographic or the subject of a PBS special.  Find nothing, and you may find yourself out of a job, out of grant money, or at least out of favor with your materialistic colleagues.  So there’s a money, job security, and prestige motive to advance the Darwinian worldview.”

Not only do today’s evolutionists and humanists have those motives to advance their world view, but the religious leaders of Jesus’ day did as well.  Right after Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, the religious leaders had a little meeting to talk about Jesus:

John 11:47-48:  “Then the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin.

‘What are we accomplishing?’ they asked.  ‘Here is this man performing many signs.  If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our temple and our nation.‘”

The thing you have to understand about first-century Jerusalem is that while it was under Roman occupation, the Romans allowed the religious leaders of the day to govern their own people, and as a result, the religious leaders were the wealthy and elite of Jewish society; they were seen as the ones who made a better life possible and as the source of objective truth, just like today’s evolutionists and humanists are.

In other words, the religious leaders of Jesus’ day were worried about losing all their wealth, jobs, and prestige if they allowed Jesus to continue his ministry and continue converting people.  Aside from the fact that they really didn’t believe in God and his Word, those were their primary motives for killing Jesus.


It is just downright eery how similar the behavior and motives of today’s evolutionists and humanists are to to the behaviors and motivations of the religious leaders of Jesus’ day.  It is because of this that I make a bold proclamation:

If Jesus of Nazareth were walking around 21st century America today, I firmly believe that he would condemn the humanists and evolutionists for the same things that he condemned the religious leaders of his day for, and he would use remarkably similar language to do it.

Because of the fact that their behaviors and motivations are similar to the religious leaders of Jesus’ day, I believe that today’s evolutionists and humanists would do whatever it took to silence Jesus, up to and including putting him to death.

As you can see, humanists and evolutionists are nothing more than the 21st century equivalent of the religious leaders of Jesus’ day, and we need not fear them.

No comments:

Post a Comment