The Darwinian behaviour of creationists

Global WarmingMore than 99% of all the species which have ever lived on this planet are now extinct. Sometimes this resulted from sudden environmental changes. For example extinction of the dinosaurs is thought to have resulted from abrupt changes caused by collision of a comet with the earth. In most cases extinction was probably the result of the blind forces of Darwinian natural selection. The effects of overpopulation causing a detrimental environmental change leading the extinction.

Until now extinction may have been the inevitable fate for any species. However, human evolution has produced a species with a brain capable of planning and forethought.

In some ways this hasn’t helped – we have just been more efficient a changing our environment in a self-destructive way. But our species does have the capacity to look ahead and comprehend future problems. This is possible because of our scientific knowledge and our developed moral/ethical principles.

For the first time we have a species which just might be capable of overcoming the blind forces of Darwinian natural selection and mitigate its behaviour so as to prevent its own extinction.

But it is a close thing. So many of our species are denial. These individuals don’t want to admit possible future problems. They want to persist in activities based only on their own short-term interests. In short – they want to continue submitting to Darwinian natural selection.

The climate change deniers behave this way. They will look for any argument to justify their refusal to consider the consequences of the unthinking behaviour of our species.

I have already commented on the strange alliance between proponents of intelligent design/creationism (evolution deniers) and climate change deniers (see Intelligent design/creationism and climate change). Bill Dembski’s blog Uncommon Descent continues to post opinion pieces aimed at discrediting the science of climate change (see, for example The REAL Inconvenient Truth). They argue that “global warming is a net GOOD thing…. If the planet wasn’t warming we’d want it to be warming. If CO2 levels weren’t growing we’d want them to be growing.”

These creationists are behaving in a blind Darwinian fashion. They prefer to submit to the blind forces of natural selection. Presumably this is results from their rejection of the scientific knowledge which would enable then to look ahead and foresee possible future problems our species faces. It may also result from a warped moral/ethical sense which enables them to be blind to the responsibility we all have for our future.

Related articles
Intelligent design/creationism and climate change
The real climate change swindle?
Scientific dissent from . . . science?
Intelligent design and depression
A respectable man with a dangerous theory
Who are the “dissenters from Darwinism”?
Dissenters from Darwinism in context
Intelligent design and the threat to Christianity
Religious opposition to “intelligent design”
Intelligent design and scientific method
Intelligent design/creationism I: What is scientific knowledge?

4 responses to “The Darwinian behaviour of creationists


    The following dissertation on Darwin is lifted from Volume 1 of The Quest for Right, a series of seven books on origins based on physical science, the old science of cause and effect.

    On the outset, the reader should be aware that Darwin was a self-proclaimed agnostic; he did not deny the possibility that God exists but believed it was beyond one’s mental ability to decide if there is, indeed, any divine force. Darwin, in response to an invitation to become a Patron of the Cat Show (September 18, 1872), lightheartedly referred to himself and cronies as “atheistical cats.” By definition, an atheist either does not believe in, or denies the existence of God. Regardless of the profile, agnostics and atheists alike believe that all questions concerning origins, being, and the like may be explained fully by material phenomena and logic; scientists have since added a third dimension, the orderly application of mathematics, called electronic interpretation—read the matter in detail in Volume 1.

    A cultural note: a marked distinction separates men who profess to be disciples (followers) of Christ and adherents of the Bible and those who profess to be outside Christianity (called unbelievers). Regarding the current definitions of agnostic and atheist, the text of the New Testament refutes the associated attributes, specifically the possibility that man (for whatever reason) either does not believe in the existence of God or else believes it is beyond one’s mental ability to decide if there is a God. Countering the claim, the Apostle Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, penned, “For the invisible things of him [God] from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they [men who ‘hold the truth in unrighteousness’] are without excuse” (Romans 1:20-22). The things God created are aptly referred to as “the glory of God.”

    In deference to the biblical precept, the eternal power and Godhead (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are clearly evidenced (seen and understood) by the things that God created and made. One only has to observe his or her surroundings; for instance, a wilderness setting with stately trees reaching skyward, colorful wildflowers dotting the meadows, wood ducks by a pool, and animals scurrying about in the underbrush, to realize the knowledge of the existence of God. There are, however, men who do “not like to retain God in their knowledge” (Romans 1:28), and cast down every thought of God. Regrettably, the course of action is not without due penalty: “Because when they knew God [everyone has known God at one time in his or her life], they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:21, 22).

    In light of the foregoing scriptures, the current definitions of agnostic and atheist are wholly inept: men who hold the biblical precept to be patently false, professing either not to believe or know that there is an eternal power, are neither agnostic nor atheist, but willfully disobedient—willful, “done on purpose; deliberate.” The comprehensive assessment will be fully justified; please read on.

    Concurring with the biblical principle, Darwin may be charged with being willfully disobedient, as observed in his criticism of the tenets of Christianity. Of one certainty the reader may be assured, Darwin did not speak objectively when it came to Christianity—objectively, “uninfluenced by personal feelings, prejudices or agendas.” In a bitter denial of Christianity, Darwin complained that he “could hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.” Why was Darwin so embittered? Read Revelation 20:11-15; 21:7, 8.

    In order to access an online, audible Bible, and to read the biblical verses in context, go here:
    You may wish to bookmark the site. RealPlayer is required to listen to the Audio Bible.

    Darwin once confessed to being a theist, the belief in the existence of a god or gods, in particular the belief that God both created and rules all earthly phenomena. After the publication of the Origin, Darwin charged his original belief in God to the “constant inculcation” (instruction or indoctrination) in a belief in God” during his childhood, which was as difficult to cast down as “for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake.” With self-assurance, Darwin purposed in his heart that he would no longer retain God in his knowledge, resolving instead to become an “agnostic.” The reader is, therefore, cautioned that, whenever reading books and articles about Darwin, most, if not all, biographical authors are predisposed to depict him in a favorable light, oftentimes allowing pro-evolutionist sentiment to prejudice their work.

    The Old Testament did not escape Darwin’s inflamed rhetoric; concerning the validity of biblical histories (in particular, the Genesis account of creation), Darwin pointedly declared that “the manifestly false history of the earth….was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos (sic), or the beliefs of any barbarian.” Thus, Darwin likened the creation of the first man, Adam (Genesis 2:7-25), to a mere fairy tale. As an alternative to the counterfactual history, he summarily disposed of both creationism and God by declaring in the Origin that, once the reader entertains the “volumne (sic) on the origin of species…light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history,” meaning that man and apes diverged from a common ancestor through the agency of evolution without the aid or influence of God—there is no God.

    You will not want to miss the adventure of a lifetime which awaits you in Volume 1 of The Quest for Right.

    The Quest for Right, a series of 7 textbooks created for the public schools, represents the ultimate marriage between an in-depth knowledge of biblical phenomena and natural and physical sciences. The several volumes have accomplished that which, heretofore, was deemed impossible: to level the playing field between those who desire a return to physical science in the classroom and those who embrace the theory of evolution. The Quest for Right turns the tide by providing an authoritative and enlightening scientific explanation of natural phenomena which will ultimately dethrone the unprofitable Darwinian view.

    Visit the official website for additional information:


  2. C. David Parsons,
    I’m not fully sure what the point of your comment was here but it appears you may have misunderstood how Darwin’s discovery fits into our modern scientific understanding. Scientists who acknowledge his idea of ‘evolution by natural selection’ are agreeing that this idea perfectly describes what we observe and can test. Scientists don’t follow Darwin as you would do a prophet or cult leader. He could have been a paedophile-rapist-warmonger for all we care because any scientific discovery is about the idea not the person.

    Since Darwin’s publications other discoveries have been made that alter or enhance his initial thoughts on the matter (i.e. he didn’t know anything about genetics which made a huge difference to our understanding of how closely species are related to each other) but everyone agrees he pretty much hit the nail on the head when he explained that it’s the pressure of the environment combined with heredity that causes the diversity we observe in living things.

    I’m not sure whether you were paste-bombing to give us an interesting historical insight into this particular person or whether you were doing it in an attempt to discredit his ideas. Do you see where I’m coming from here?


  3. Pingback: To Hell with Expelled! « Dinosaurs and The Bible: A Creationist’s Fairy Tale

  4. Pingback: The Great Dinosaur Mystery and the Big Lie » To Hell With Expelled Revisited

Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s