by Dr. Fillmer Hevener, Pastor

It is no secret that over the last century, Darwinian evolution has made sharp inroads into the world's scholarly community, its scientific community, the Christian community, and all other areas of education.

Has this pervasiveness of the theory of evolution been founded upon the evidential strength of the theory itself, or are there other forces that have contributed largely to this theory's success?

Darwinian evolution has been assisted in our 20th and 21st centuries by such doctrines as: the supremacy of materialism, a rejection of the supernatural, and apostate Christianity.

Of course, a rejection of the supernatural realm and materialism are closely allied. Materialism holds that the only realm that exists is the material, the physical realm. If such a view were true, this doctrine would automatically preclude the supernatural, which is above and responsible for the natural world.

However even more insidious in the promotion of Darwinian evolution is apostate Christianity.


Before showing how the apostate Christian community has supported evolution, let's make a clear distinction between two types of evolution. Micro-evolution means variation within a family (species). For example, if we should breed a black cow with a white cow, the color patterns of the
offspring would probably be a mix of black and white. Or, if we were to breed a large horse and a smaller horse, the offspring would probably be a horse of medium size. This type of change WITHIN a family is supported by common knowledge and is well documented within the scientific community. Therefore, micro-evolution does take place regularly.

However, evolutionists would have us believe that because micro-evolution takes place, macro-evolution also takes place. This is not the case.

Macro-evolution is the teaching that one family (species) can produce another family (species). That is, that the cat family, for example, could produce a rabbit. Cats always produce cats, rabbits always produce rabbits, fruit flies always produce fruit flies, and dogs always produce dogs. Addressing the question of boundaries of micro and macro evolution, B.C. Collins writes: "Such wide crosses as the cat with the dog or the jack rabbit have never been obtained. (Elements of Genetics, 313.)

Horticulturists are constantly working to produce roses with new colors and new combinations and patterns of colors. They are working within the framework of micro-evolution and are producing new variations within a type. However, this operation is completely different from producing a new type from the same type, from producing a lilac from a rose, for instance. Roses produce roses, lilacs produce lilacs. Marsh writes: "...the most that hybridization can do in the matter of change is to give rise to another variety within some already existing kind." If dedicated, intelligent scientists cannot produce new types from the same type in the laboratory, why should one believe that blind chance could do something that scientists cannot do? (See: Evolution, Creation, and Science, Marsh, Chapter 9.)

Evolution has no answer to the question: Where and how did life begin? This point is crucial, for all evolutionists agree that no evolution can take place unless there is life. Evolutionists do not claim that dead plants and animals evolve. Therefore, the very basis of the theory of evolution must be built on the reality of living objects. Attempting to solve this problem of the origin of life through materialistic means, Dr. Lynn Caporale, makes the Alice-in-Wonderland assertion that: "...dust itself edged, in slow motion, over a boundary into life." (Darwin In The Genome, p.1.) Such nonsense is neither scientific nor honest!

What is the difference between a dead stick and a live sapling? One difference is that the live sapling has teleonomy in it (information stored within a living thing.) The sapling is a machine that is capturing energy to increase order. A dead stick, however, cannot thrive on sunshine, water, and nutrients of the soil, but rapidly decays.

What about so-called evidence supporting evolution in fossil records? The late Stephen J. Gould, a Harvard evolutionist, had this to say: "Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth; a species does not rise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." (Evolutions Erratic Pace, Natural History, 86.) Henry Gee, chief writer for Nature Magazine, writes: "To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story." (Quoted in Wells Icons of Evolution, 37.)

Then, there is the second law of thermodynamics. It is well known among the scientific community and laymen alike, that chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex. Therefore, in the real world, there is a downward trend toward disorder, not uphill toward order. In terms of organic life, it is clear that an open system, with access to the sun's energy, in and of itself, does not generate long-term growth and organization. The sun's energy may bathe a pile of steel from now on, but that steel will never become a functioning automobile and, most certainly, not a living organic entity. Availability of energy (by the first law of thermodynamics) does not stop the basic principle of decay (by the second law of thermodynamics.) "Quantity of energy is not the question, but quality." (Edward Blick, Ph. D., Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics, 3.) As Dr. Henry Morris writes: "In the case of a plant for example, there must be a coded system for its growth written into the template or code. Where does this code come from? A code always requires an intelligent coder," an intelligent designer. To believe that such living, organic marvels can come about by chance takes more faith than many objective thinkers can muster.

Language change also flies in the face of the theory of development from the simple to the complex. Just as there are physical laws, there are also linguistic laws. One of these laws is that the longer a language lives, the simpler it becomes in grammar and structure. For example, the objective case of the pronoun "whom" is rarely used today except in situations calling for formal English. It is being replaced by the subjective case "who." Consequently, in most situations, the English speaker or writer does not have to choose between "whom" and "who."  Instead, he takes the simpler path and uses the subjective case for both needs. In addition, middle English is more complex grammatically than modern English, and old English is more complex grammatically than middle English. If the law of complexity to simplicity continues back to early man, it would be absurd to have a simple sub-human form speaking a complex language. However, such a law would fit perfectly into the Genesis account where man is created mature, marriageable, intelligent, and with the ability to communicate through language.

In reality, evolution is a religion. Two widely held definitions of religion are: (1) A belief, founded largely upon faith, that attempts to answer such basic questions as: "Where did man come from, How did he arrive here, and Where is he going? A second simple, but comprehensive definition is: "a system of faith." Faith is the common element in each of these definitions. Evolution is a system of faith in materialism and chance. Therefore, evolution, a religion, should have placed upon it the same restrictions that other religions have placed upon them in the public schools of our nation.


An apostate is one who forsakes his moral principles and his faith.

For centuries, the Christian community, at large, has recognized the Decalogue, the Ten Commandments, as the basic moral guide in matters of one's relationship to his Creator and to his fellowman. The first four commandments have to do with one's relationship to God, man's Creator, and the last six commandments give guidance in one's relationship to his fellow man.

Although most Christians give lip service to all ten commandments, most of them ignore one of the ten. Which one is ignored? If you guessed the fourth commandment, you are correct.

Now, let's study the fourth commandment and by so doing, see how ignoring this commandment has opened the floodgates for materialistic Darwinism, macro-evolution.

The fourth commandment reads: "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall not do any work: you nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore, the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it." (Exodus 20: 8-11.) (Italics mine.)

Notice the following critical points made by God in this commandment:

a. "Remember" the seventh day (Saturday; look at your calendar) of the week because it is the weekly birthday of the world and all that is within it.

b. The seventh day of the week is a special day of rest, blessed and hallowed, honoring the Creator and His handiwork, the creation of the world.

c. The other six days of the week are to be days of labor.

Of course, it is no secret that the Christian world, generally, ignores the fourth commandment and its instruction to rest on this weekly holy, blessed day, the birthday of creation by the Creator God. Instead of resting on that day, the Christian world says, "No," we will work on the seventh day and rest on the first day of the week." (Sunday.)

By rejecting the fourth commandment, the Christian world has assisted materialistic evolution by refusing to recognize the Creator God identified in this commandment. Rejecting the fourth commandment has also helped to undermine the entire Genesis account of creation, for it is in this commandment that the Creator God is identified as well as the time-frame in which He carried out His creation.

Genesis speaks of the "evening and morning" as the first day, the second day, etc. This phrase would clearly indicate a twenty-four hour period, not long periods of time conjured up by Darwinian evolutionists. Therefore, in summary, by rejecting the fourth commandment and its information concerning creation and the Creator, the Christian world, at large, has opened the door for error concerning the question of origins. This rejection created a vacuum which has allowed materialistic evolution to slip into the thinking of both Christians and non-Christians. The fairy tale of macro-evolution is allowed to be taught as scientific truth in our public schools; the fact is, Darwinian evolution is a religion without basis in fact.

The Christian world has enabled Darwin and chance to push out of our thinking the Creator and His intelligent design of the universe and the world and all that is within them.

The time has come for the dedicated Christian to stand for truth and demand that the religion of Darwinian evolution be taken from our public classrooms and that it be treated as all other religions are treated in public education.

Let your local school board representatives know how you stand on this issue. Let them know that you are a voter and that your vote will go to one who treats macro-evolution for what it is, a MATERIALISTIC RELIGION!

 © 2005 Guthrie Memorial Chapel