web metrics






Gerardus D. Bouw, Ph.D.



Lyell is most firmly convinced that he has shaken the faith in the deluge far more efficiently by never having said a word against the Bible, than if he had acted otherwise ...



Thus wrote Charles Darwin on the twenty-second and twenty-fourth of October 1873.[1]  At first reading this passage appears rather incongruous, but actually it reflects the true nature of the resurgence of evolution in the Nineteenth Century: but to see this, it be­hooves us to look back further in history; back to the root of evolution as an idea and creed.





It will come as a surprise to many to learn that evolution is not a modern idea, spawned by the pressure of scientific evidence.   Evolution’s roots go back several millennia; back to ancient Babylon and Sumer.

The word “evolution” means “unfolding.”   When applied to the creation of the universe it tacitly supposes that God, at best, had a more-or-less passive role in the history of the creation.   By “God” I mean, of course, the God of the Bible.   The ancients had other gods which they held accountable for the creation.   The earliest surviving extra-Biblical account of the creation  came to us from the ancient Babylonians.   The Babylonian creation accounts are typified by that found in the Epic of Gilgamesh.   From said epic we learn that the Babylonians believed the universe to have had a chaotic beginning. 

Some centuries later, under Alexander the Great, the Greeks inherited the Babylonian culture, complete with its mythol­ogy.   In the Greek writings we find a strong reinforcement of the superstition of evolution: that the world as we now know it was not created in its present form and that the life it bears evolved into its present forms through tens of millennia.   To the Greeks the creator of the universe was the god, Chaos.   The most prominent Greek advocates of evolution were Thales, Anaximenes, Aristotle and Lucretius.

Although the Greek myths of the creation were interpolated from the Babylonian before 200 B.C., we can still find the same myth in modern “science.”   Today, “scientists” no longer share quite the same animistic theological bent as held by the ancient Greeks and so it is that modern “science” does not claim that the god, Chaos, created the universe.   So as not to smack of the super­natural, “science” instead drops the title “god” and writes the “god’s” name with a lower-case letter.   Hence modern “science” claims that the cosmos came into being, by chance (or chaos) and that it had a chaotic beginning (that is, it exploded into existence).   Though other terminology may be used today, the idea is still basically the same as that held by the ancient Greeks; the only difference being that the modern version of cosmogony avoids using the words “god” and “creator”.

The speculation that the universe had a chaotic origin is not the only place where modern “science” partakes of the fables of the ancients.   Circa A.D. 50 Hinduism was born with its belief in the life cycles of reincarna­tion.   The Hindus extrapolated the reincarna­tion theme to the very universe itself.   To them the universe was reborn only to die, only to be reborn, only to die, and so on and so on.   Today we find the same whim alive and well in modern “science” here some variations of the “Big-Bang” have the universe exploding into existence and then collapsing back onto itself only to blaze forth again in another “Big-Bang” only to die again only to be reborn and so on and so on.   Lest the reader think it merely a coincidence, we submit that the original model for the “oscillating Big-Bang” (also called the “gnaB-giB”) had a “reincarnation” life-cycle of about 50 billion years.   This “happens” to be the same cycle time held by the Hindus.   Furthermore, at the time that the “gnaB-giB” model was proposed, the universe was held to be about 7 billion years old -- the same age the Hindus hold for this present reincarnation.   (Actually, the Hindus claim to know that age to the exact year.)

But the Hindu model of the universe was not the first reincarnation model.   Before them a Jewish cult, called the “Cabalists” for their reverence of a mystical book called the Cabala, had advocated that the universe would undergo seven “reincarnation” cycles of seven thousand years each.   Each seven-thousand year cycle would have its seventh millennium as that of the Lord’s rest.   It is from the Caballists that we have received the “Gap theory” of creation -- the belief that a pre-existent world is referred to in Genesis 1:1 and that said world was destroyed and that the creation account starting at Genesis 1:2 is actually a re-creation and does not at all describe the creation



Church “Fathers”


Evolution, as a faith, entered Christian thought through some of the so-called church “fathers.”   One of the earliest was Origen who maintained, in his Principia, that the Genesis account of creation was a myth and that evolution was actually God’s method in creating the world.

Similarly, in the Fourth Century, Augus­tine insisted that God had, at the creation, in­stilled in non-living things the power to evolve into other life forms.   Hence the sea spawned fish and the earth spawned animals, although he did not believe in evolution in the sense that one day a lizard laid an egg and a bird hatched out.  Yet Augustine did not believe that the six days of creation were literal days.  Between Origen and Augustine the stage was set for the current, official stance of Roman Catholicism on evolution, namely, that evolution is Biblical: at least by, the Papal interpretation of Scripture albeit not in official doctrine.



The Hibernation Years


Throughout the Middle Ages the evolu­tionary myth survived, primarily outside of Europe.   In Europe evolution could only be found in the field of sociology.   Evolution would have remained there, still confined to an area which has political rather than scien­tific application, were it not for the founding of Masonry late in the Middle Ages.  

Originally, Masonry started within the Roman church and was designed as a secret order with political overtones.   Masonic tradition is steeped in mythology (for ex­ample, Masonry perpetuates the claim that Jesus was a member of the lodge at Damas­cus and that there is where he learned His miraculous skills).   To such a mystical group, evolution is a “natural” and it was adopted as a central tenet.   Thus it was that evolution surreptitiously entered the religio/political arena in late Medieval Europe.



Setting the Stage for the Evolution Revolu­tion


How did evolution, if it was primarily a socio/political speculation, enter the presumably apolitical realm of science?   The key to the answer to that question lies in the post-Renaissance revolutions of Europe.

After the Copernican Revolution of the seventeenth century, the authority of the Roman Catholic Church in particular and churches in general had been severely cur­tailed.   This was primarily due to the fact that these organizations had maintained the Bible to be the ultimate authority, yet they had denied the Bible’s authority in the ques­tion of whether the earth goes around the sun or the sun goes around the earth.  

The “discrediting” of geocentricity in the Bible led directly to a weakening of the Bible as the foundation for not only scientific, but, by implication, political and spiritual authority as well.   This was not a process that happened overnight, however; it took some two hundred years.   Some of the phases through which the decline of Biblical authority passed included the belief that the moon, stars and planets and even the sun are inhabited.   In fact, in the Seventeenth Cen­tury that superstition became so strong that men actually held the “fact” that the sun and moon were inhabited as “proof” against the Bible!   The transition continued with the ac­ceptance of the ideas of lower and the higher Bible criticism and on to the notion that natural revelation is to the realm of the physi­cal what the Bible is to the spiritual.   Throughout all of these phases the natural sciences became more and more authoritative in areas where the Bible had previously been regarded as the final authority.

Thus it was that at the turn of the Eighteenth Century the liberals in Britain tended towards agnosticism and atheism.   Out of their European counterparts had come several bloody revolutions of which the French Revolution was the prime example; and the liberals in Britain wanted to foment just such a violent revolution in Britain.   By the early 1830s a group of lawyers and professional politicians had taken control of the London Geological Society which had been founded by Sir Humphrey Davy in 1807 as an informal enclave to discuss the politics of geology.   Although few professional geologists were in the membership, let alone the leadership of the Society, it nevertheless became a very prestigious group, rivaling the Royal Society.

In the fourth decade of the Nineteenth Century the leadership of the Society rested in men like Scrope, Lyell and Erasmus Dar­win, (grandfather of Charles Darwin).   Hardly one of these men was a scientist by any stretch of the imagination, let alone a geologist; but that did not phase either them nor the world after them.   It was in Lyell that the evolutionary myth became wedded to European science.



Whigs and Torries


Early in the Nineteenth Century there were two strong political parties in Great Britain.   The one which was in power and had been for some time was called the Torries.   The other party, the Whigs, were the liberals of whom were Lyell and Charles Babbage (the only one with any scientific credentials).

The Torries’ main claim to power was that the monarchy was the divinely appointed form of political power on earth and heaven.   This idea was not drawn so much from the Bible as it was from “natural revelation” and had been put forth back in 1673 by the Roman Catholic Bishop Bossuet, tutor to the French Dauphin (prince).   This idea was picked up by Robert Filmore in Britain and was subsequently incorporated into the two-volume work on natural theology by the Reverend William Paley.   A perverted “interpretation” of Romans 13:1 was coupled with Paley’s arguments in his Natural Theol­ogy to “establish” the dogma termed the “Divine Right of Kings” which can be summed-up by saying that no matter what the king did, moral or immoral, the king, being divinely appointed, could do no wrong.  

It was the liberals’ intent to replace the monarchal government with Jean Jacques Rousseau’s “social contract” form of govern­ment.   In order to institute Rousseau’s scheme, it was necessary to convince the public and other politicians that the monar­chal form of government is “unnatural.”   To accomplish this the liberals decided that their best shot was to discredit the Bible.   Now frontal attacks on the Bible had been at­tempted numerous times, most recently in France, and without any success.   Thus it was that Charles Darwin once wrote:


I have lately read Morley’s Life of Vol­taire and he insists strongly that direct at­tacks on Christianity (even when written with the wonderful force and vigor of Voltaire) produce little permanent effect: real good seems only to follow the slow and silent side attacks.[2]  (Emphasis added.)


Lyell took the lesson to heart and came up with a much subtler idea.   Rather than directly attacking the Bible, he choose to at­tack it indirectly by maintaining that the Noachic Flood was merely a myth and that maintaining it as fact impeded the “progress” of geology.   In his work, Lyell skillfully avoided all evidence for the Flood and, indeed, any form of evidence for catastrophic events in the geological record.   Lyell main­tained that “the present is the key to the past” by which he meant that the rock strata could be accounted for by processes which are cur­rently happening on the surface of the earth.   This concept is called the uniformitarian principle.   What Lyell passed off as pure science ended up being nothing but subtly disguised political propaganda; a deliberate lie.



Enter Evolution


Although the uniformitarian principle gained a degree of acceptance which even surprised the perpetrators of the deception, just to be certain of acceptance by the scien­tific community of his ruse, Lyell attempted to gain as much “respectable” support for his Principles of Geology as he could muster.   Thus he wrote Charles Babbage for his sup­port while the latter was Lucasian Professor of Mathematics.   In response to Lyell, Bab­bage wrote:


I think any argument from such a reported radical as myself, would only in­jure the cause, and I therefore willingly leave it in better hands.[3]


In a similar vein, George Poulett Scrope had written some time before:


by espousing you, the conclave have decidedly and irrevocably attached them­selves to the liberal side, and sanctioned in the most direct and open manner the principle things advocated .  At the same time I have a malicious satisfaction in seeing the minority of bigwigs swal­low the new doctrine upon compulsion rather than from taste and shall enjoy their wry faces as they find themselves obliged to take it like physics to avoid the peril of worse evils.   I feel some satisfaction in this.[4]


The machinations of the liberal Whigs led, in part, to the shift from the monarchal paternalism to liberalism which was em­bodied in the “Great Reform Bill” of 1832.   Throughout, one of the figures in the shadows was Erasmus Darwin.

Erasmus Darwin was a most devout radi­cal, hating the true God while giving lip serv­ice to the natural god of the Spinozan pan­theists.   It was because of his grandfather’s influence that Charles Darwin learned his hatred for the God of Scripture (see the quote at the start of this paper), as well as the myth of evolution.   The principle of uniformitarianism, as promoted by Lyell, provided the very foundation needed to intro­duce evolution into the “respectable sciences.”   In the middle of the Nineteenth Century Charles Darwin plagiarized a manuscript sent to him for review and pub­lished it as his own under the title: The Origin of Species.   Evolution had entered biology.



Evolution in Politics


Within a very few years after Darwin’s book was published, Karl Marx applied the evolutionary principle of survival of the fit­test to politics.   Marx particularly applied the principle to governments and their economic systems.   With communism, man became merely another commodity to be bought and sold.   Man had become merely a cog in a mechanistic universe where chance was the only creator and might made right.   With Marx there came to a logical conclusion the mechanization of mankind which mechanistic view originated some 250 years earlier with Tycho Brahe’s accused murderer, Johannes Kepler.



Applied Evolution


Natural selection, accompanied by sur­vival of the fittest, became the central concept for evolution in the social and biological sciences.  Man, the machine which had evolved as the result of a cosmic accident, had become “aware” of the “grand design” of nature, evolution, and so could take his evolu­tion into his own hands.

With such reasoning the philosopher Nietsche proclaimed that man’s ultimate des­tiny was to evolve into superman.   About a half a century later a young Austrian would publish a book in which he “reasoned” more “correctly” that the ultimate destiny of man was not a “superman”, but supermen and superwomena super race.   That young man, named Adolph Hitler, later obtained Papal permission to set up an evolutionary experi­ment designed to usher in a thousand years of peace and a super race.   The result was that some twenty million people lost their lives.

Marx’s applied evolution has led to an even greater toll of human life.   Estimates of the loss of life in establishing and maintaining communism in the world range from 400 to 600 million dead since the Bolshevik Revolu­tion alone.

But the toll of evolution in terms of human suffering is not restricted to the politi­cal realm.   The application of evolution in the field of biology and medicine has also led to much needless suffering and death.

One of the evolutionists’ first “achievements” was the assignment of every organ for which they, the evolutionists, knew not the function to the realm of the vestigial.   Vestigial organs were speculated to be organs which had once evolved to serve a useful function; but in time that function was no longer required as other evolutionary factors took over but the organ remained in the human or animal body anyhow.   In a creationist perspective such a concept is un­thinkable since God does not do or make any­thing for nothing.   But to the blind chance-god of evolution such useless accidents are the rule.   By the last quarter of the Nineteenth Century the toll of vestigial or­gans in the human body numbered about two hundred.

Among the vestigial organs were the “tailbone”, tonsils, and appendix.   These three were about the last for which the use was recognized in human physiology.   Without the so-called “tailbone” to anchor certain muscles we would be unable to sit up, and walking would be impossible.   Both the tonsils and appendix turn out to be useful in fighting infections.   In fact, without either one of them, research has shown, one is about six times more likely to develop certain types of cancers than with them; but because of the prevalence of the evolutionary supersti­tion in medicine, millions of individuals had tonsils and appendix needlessly removed be­cause they “are just a potential source of in­fection and serve no useful purpose anyhow.”  

The number of deaths resulting from the superstition of evolution cannot be accurately ascertained but it definitely runs well into the hundreds of millions.





We have only scratched the surface.   In the Copernican and Darwinian Revolutions lie hidden far more consequences than those hinted at above.   For example, the “Green Revolution,” an attempt to alleviate hunger by hybridizing high-yield crops has fallen flat on its evolutionary face because none of the hybrids can survive for more than a handful of generations.   And so it goes on and on.

Evolution has been shown to be an an­cient myth with its roots in the priestly classes of Babylon and Egypt.   It was adopted by the Greeks and from thence it slowly spread into Europe where it resided in the social “sciences” and in Masonic tradition from which it sprang into the scientific realm as the result of a deliberate deception, a political ploy designed to change the structure and nature of the British Government in the early 1830s.   Having set a political stage it was adopted into the sciences by mere presupposition and without any real physical evidence.   This is why the fundamentally more sound sciences such as physics were the last to fall for evolution.   Subsequently evolution spawned the Bolshevik Revolution and the bloody forms of communism known in the twentieth century.   In addition Hitler’s utopian views were derived from Nietschian evolution and an amillennial interpretation of Revelation 20:6.   Lastly, it has been shown that the application of evolution in the realm of biology and medicine has led to countless illnesses and deaths because of the irrespon­sible removal of so-called “useless vestigial organs” which turned out to be very useful after all but whose functions evolutionary “scientists” were merely too ignorant and ill-equipped to discover in the first place.

In short: evolution is dangerous to your health.


For additional reading see:  R. Porter, The Making of Geology, (New York: Cambridge University Press), 1977.

Revised and reprinted from The Proceedings of the Northcoast Bible-Science Con­ference, June 28 and 29, 1984. 



[1]       Himmelfarb, G.  Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution.  (New York: W. W. Norton and Co.), p.387, 1962.

[2]       Ibid.

[3]       Letter from Babbage to Lyell dated May 3, 1832.

[4]       Letter from Scrope to Lyell dated April 12, 1831.