Evolutionism, Scientism, and the Demise of Atheism

brown framed light bulb
Photo by Skitterphoto on Pexels.com

Sometimes a single domino falls and hundreds more fall in rapid succession. I have reason to believe this may soon be the case with evolution.  How could this occur?  Well, in reality just one thing needs to happen. Real science must be allowed to freely take its course.

Secular scientists should be among the first to recognize the importance of seeking truth. Science is a study based on ruling out false hypotheses, and continually seeking a truer understanding of our physical universe. Science can ONLY be advanced by the honest and objective analysis of both our successes AND our failures. A repetitive refusal to acknowledge failed hypotheses is not just bad science.  It is not science at all. But in the case of these three inextricably linked arguments (evolution, scientism, and atheism) the failure of any one piece exposes the logical, philosophical, and scientific fallacies of the others.

As science advances, even in spite of the extreme pro-evolutionary bias of  our institutions of higher learning, the scientific underpinnings of evolution have been progressively undermined to the point that belief in evolution is now held completely on the basis of faith, not science. (see prior posts on Science vs Reason, Hoaxed, Natural Selection, the Cambrian Explosion, and The Data in the Strata.)

But as early as Shakespeare, the phrase was used, “The truth will out.”
Or as Buddha said, ““Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.” And this is exactly what is occurring in society today as we discuss evolutionism, scientism, and atheism.
Evolutionism describes the belief in the evolution of organisms. Its exact meaning has changed over time as the study of evolution has progressed. In the 19th-century, it was used to describe the belief that organisms deliberately improved themselves through progressive inherited change (orthogenesis).The teleological belief went on to include cultural evolution and social evolution. (1)

Unfortunately, although evolution has lost scientific credibility as explained in prior posts, it remains as the current foundational teaching for biology in our schools. In addition there is an intricately woven web of assumptions and presuppositions developed over the last century in which science has sought NOT the truth, but merely sought to support evolution.  Rather than searching for truth, atheistic biologists and cosmologists sought support for their own atheistic assumptions.  This is referred to as scientism (see prior posts on scientism).

Scientism is an ideology that promotes science as the purportedly objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values.“(2) Don’t let that  definition deter you. It is actually quite simple.The key principle is that Scientism is an ideology, and a philosophy.  Scientism is not science!
In previous posts the failures of Scientism have been discussed more thoroughly, but for now suffice it to say that Scientism is completely illogical, and ultimately self defeating. As stated by Edward Feser, “Scientism is the view that all real knowledge is scientific knowledge—that there is no rational, objective form of inquiry that is not a branch of science…Despite its adherents’ pose of rationality, scientism has a serious problem: it is either self-refuting or trivial. Take the first horn of this dilemma. The claim that scientism is true is not itself a scientific claim, not something that can be established using scientific methods. Indeed, that science is even a rational form of inquiry (let alone the only rational form of inquiry) is not something that can be established scientifically.”(3)
Or as JP Moreland has written about the self-refuting nature of Scientism, “The only knowledge we can have about reality are those that have been properly tested in the hard sciences” is not itself a statement about reality that has been properly tested in the hard sciences, so it cannot be a knowledge claim about reality. It is actually a claim of philosophy to the effect that all claims outside the hard sciences, including those of philosophy, cannot be known to be true. Thus, it is an inherently self-refuting claim.”(4)
Atheism has a similar problem. Of course Atheism, as we had inferred earlier is totally dependent on evolution and scientism in order to explain its very existence. But that is not all. As written by Matt Slick in his discussion of materialistic atheism, “Materialism is the theory that matter is the only thing that exists in the universe, and that all phenomena can be explained in terms of it and its properties. This would mean that everything must operate within the bounds of physical laws, including the human brain. But this presents a problem for the materialistic atheist. A materialist atheist has no intellectual justification whatsoever to trust his own thinking because his physical brain cannot exceed the limits of physics and chemistry. Therefore, there’s no reason for him to conclude that his rationality is correct since his brain is acting “mechanically.” (5)
The good news in all this is that recently thousands of scientists are beginning to clearly understand and espouse the failures of evolutionism and scientism. As they write and speak clearly of the scientific reasons that neither life, nor the universe have created themselves, millions of people may reject atheism and once again feel free to explore the more rational and spiritually fulfilling alternative of belief in an Almighty God who created the universe, and humanity, for His divine purposes.
The good news is that Atheism is no longer able to assume the stamp of philosophical or scientific approval.
The good news is that life has meaning.
The good news is you are not just made up of matter. You Matter!


John 8:45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me!
(1) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionism
(2) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
(5) carm.org/materialistic-atheism-self-refuting

Published by


Emergency Room Physician. Student of science and student of scripture. Defending truth in a post-truth society. I believe that Truth exists, and I believe it is our duty and privilege to seek it out, amidst ignorance, frivolity, and misconceptions.

44 thoughts on “Evolutionism, Scientism, and the Demise of Atheism”

  1. Interesting strawman attack. To define ‘evolutionism’ and attack ‘evolution’ with the false statement that ‘evolution has lost scientific credibility’ is intellectually disingenuous and of suspect ethical basis. The scientific notion of the mechanics of evolution has been refined over the years, as this is precisely what scientific method is supposed to do—to refine a definition based on new information, rather than to hold to a doctrine despite additional evidence.

    Scientifically speaking, evolution is precisely not teleological. There is no goal. It just happens based on the state of an organism in interaction with its environment.

    You are correct that scientism is not science; rather, it’s the fetishising of science into religious zeal. And like religion, it favours dogma over reality.

    Contrary to your assertion, atheism and agnosticism are increasing in the world, and your dualistic bias is showing. It is also disingenuous to lump all atheists into one bucket, and there are degrees of atheist as well as myriad motivations behind disbelief. Besides, even if there were material and immaterial components of reality, it does not follow that there is any intelligence or divine constituent to the immaterial part.

    In the end, this is a very unscientific ‘scientific’ case against evolution. #JustSaying

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Can you specify at which point the argument is a straw man argument? My statement that evolution has lost scientific credibility is based on the 50 earlier posts over the last 6 months. If you read those, or read the book “In Six Days”, or look at the concept of Uniformitarianism objectively I think you will find that Evolution as a theory was far more plausible 100 years ago than it is now. On your other point, I do not believe I said atheism was not increasing, rather, the point was that it has been increasing for decades, at least in part due to the false secular dogma taught in public schools. Exposing the scientifically weak position of evolution is, from my viewpoint, a good thing. Facts matter. Science matters. Good science doesn’t perpetuate myths, like evolution.


      1. Hi, the strawman is attacking ‘evolutionism’. I am pretty sure that is not a thing in any significant way. Separately, evolution is decidedly neither deliberate nor teleological. I am also pretty sure that no scientist of genetics would agree to that definition. Darwin, for one, did not ascribe to this notion.

        I see that you cite a Wikipedia entry as a source where it further references a definition from https://www.amazon.com/Chambers-Encyclopedic-English-Dictionary-Robert/dp/0550110003 (following the footnote), where the author makes a claim without basis. The claim of ‘widely held’ belief is a weasel phrase and reflective of poor editorial execution.

        Evolution is probabilistic. Period. It is based (somewhat oversimplified for our purposes) on small, incidental mutations that in concert with the prevailing environmental factors of the day make the organism more or less likely to survive to produce offspring, who in turn would propagate this gene. As long as it continues to provide more benefit than some alternative (whether status quo or some other mutation), the progression will continue. So, unless you enter transhumanism into the equation, there is no deliberate anything. And the outcome is not preordained, so neither is this effect teleological. Prior to Darwin’s notion of evolution, there had been a teleological factor. In fact, Classical Virtue ethics assumed that there was some archetypal form one could approach.

        After attacking this odd notion of ‘evolutionism’, (and without skipping a beat or explaining how you see these connected), you attack ‘evolution’, a tangential but different topic. And whilst the scientific understanding of the mechanisms of evolution has changed as we gain more insight into how genetics operation through DNA sequencing and so on, the concept has hardly lost credibility among geneticists or even the broader population. I suppose you might feel the concept is less credible, but the scientists who study it don’t share your belief.

        Before you wrap up this paragraph and lead into the next, you make two claims: (1) that these scientists do not seek truth; and (2) seeking support for ‘their own atheistic assumptions’ is referred to as Scientism.

        (1) Don’t confuse ‘truth’ with ‘facts’. There is no truth to seek. There are only facts.
        (2) Scientism is approaching science with blind zeal in the same manner as a religious believer does. However, if this were the case, then your earlier claim that the definition of evolution doesn’t sound as plausible. Besides your own definition in the subsequent paragraphs does not even support your claim. It seems you are mixing metaphors.

        As this response has taken more time than I had anticipated, I’ll limit my critique to this paragraph.


      2. In reply to you note that evolution is probabilistic, I offer the comments of Sir Fred Hoyle, the brilliant British astronomer, mathematician, and cosmologist, who wrote, “Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly miniscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate … . It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect … higher intelligences … even to the limit of God … such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.”(5)

        Hoyle also wrote, “Life cannot have had a random beginning … The trouble is that there are about 2000 enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10^40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.”

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Yet, here we are.

        Before becoming a management consultant, I was a statistician and economist, having taught undergraduates for the better part of a decade. To make a statement of the evidence of some highly improbable event as evidence that it could not happen is to fundamentally misunderstand the laws of probability. In fact, the genesis of life need have only occurred once in the entire expanse of time for us to eventually arrive at a point where we could have this conversation.

        To be fair, Hoyle’s quote you cite is his opinion and not the result of ‘science’, as it were. However, if we are playing the probability game, the occurrence of God and the occurrence of life may have approximately the same probability, so your choice of one over the other is a matter of your own convenience to support your own metanarrative.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. ‘To make a statement of the evidence of some highly improbable event as evidence that it could not happen is to fundamentally misunderstand the laws of probability.’

        When a thing is ludicrously improbable it is ludicrously unlikely to have happened.

        Liked by 1 person

      5. In response to the comments about evolutionism and evolution. I think you may misunderstand. I absolutely and intentionally conflate the two. I fully believe that the teaching of evolution has become the dogma of the last half century. For 50 years scientist have sought proof in the geological strata, or in the fossil record, or in genomics, but have found nothing. (If you have proof of evolution I hope you will bring it forward, because all I have ever seen, read, or heard is unsubstantiated theory.)
        In the meantime I believe you will enjoy this article…

        Liked by 1 person

      6. As you said earlier, the concept of evolution has evolved over time. In fact, this is the nature of scientific inquiry and discovery. I am not a ‘scientist’ in either the ordinary or pejorative sense of the term. I do believe in the fundamentals of logic and reason, but, like you, I believe that people hide behind science, making it into a religion.

        This said, looking for evidence of genetic evolution in fossils is somewhat akin to searching for bacteria with a telescope. One is micro and one is macro. Separate to this, it is important to understand what a fossil is—a reverse impression of an object along with ossified content. The manner in which fossils are created favours water-based environments over land. A lot has changed (read: advanced) in the understanding of genetics and evolution, and many gaps in the fossil record have been filled in, but, again, this is a rather specious misdirection, as it still follows the path of hunting for microbes with a telescope.

        The evidence of genetic evolution is in the DNA record, not the fossil record. Genetic variations result from changes, or mutations, in the nucleotide sequence of DNA, the molecule that genes are made from. Such changes in DNA now can be detected and described with great precision.


      7. I appreciate your thoughtful comments. I think we are have, in essence three separate discussions going within a single thread. This is probably my fault for not making it clear when I jump from one type proof to another. I certainly was not attempting to correlate genetics with fossils. ( Not yet anyway, although the finding of RBCs and proteins in supposedly 350 million year old fossils might allow that someday.) I was simply trying to inform the reader that there is no support for evolution from fossils in the geological strata, and archeologists are increasingly admitting that. And separately to note that there was also no support found in other areas such as genomics. I would be interested as to your comment that “the evidence of genetic evolution is in the DNA record”. I know that was felt to be true 20 years ago, but in my understanding that line of study was absolutely unfruitful. It seems to me that DNA studies have NOT correlated with the supposed “tree of life” or evolutionary branching at all! Finally, as to the “genesis of life need have only occurred once in the entire expanse of time”, I think you will find my comments on that in the prior blog entitled “Microevolution under the Microscope”. Thanks again.

        Liked by 2 people

      8. Quite right. I was brought up on a diet of pro evolutionary information and its supposed beauty. It took me several decades to see through it. It is the Emperor’s New Clothes of the current age.

        Liked by 1 person

      9. Interestingly enough, even if the theory of Evolution were to be entirely disproven, it would still not do a thing to provide support for a Creation-based hypothesis. #JustSaying 😉


      10. You are correct, that no one this side of eternity can prove the existence of God. This is probably why the Bible states “Without faith it is impossible to please Him.” Nevertheless, I believe that pushing secular atheism in the schools deprives many youth of an opportunity to “try faith”. And I believe that for many of them a life of learning about Christ and the Holy Spirit would be immensely fulfilling.


      11. Here’s the thing: the number one predictor of a person’s religion of choice is their parents’ practised religion.

        I’m sure you’ve heard the quip that Christian’s don’t believe in thousands of gods, so, in effect, they are atheists in all but 1 degree. It’s not a leap to lose belief in just one more. 😉


      12. No unfortunately it is not a leap. However, I cannot imagine life without a loving God. I cannot imagine having to face all the evil in the world without a hope of a perfect eternity.


      13. Haha. I’m not sure to whom the ‘you’ refers in this statement, but the content I presume it is in response to does not imply a binary choice. In fact, it makes a claim that these two concepts are not mutually exclusive. This being said, the question of whether the concept of Creationism is factual or not is binary. On the other hand, there are myriad ways Evolution may be factual, as there are many different ways that it may manifest, and these ways are not mutually exclusive either.


      14. Although the secular school system implies there really is only one choice which is evolution, I assume you have some other option in mind for your 3rd or 4th or 5th choice. I would be curious exactly what that might be.


  2. You and I and every other great ape shares identical damage to a portion of our DNA that was caused by a simian virus. Not a human virus. Simian. If we were created, why duplicate this now useless piece of DNA in all the great apes?


    1. First, the assumption is that this is only from a simian virus, which has been suggested but not proven . Second, It is not even proven that this damage was caused by a virus. It is just one explanation, posited by secular atheist scientists. I will look up the evidence for this and comment further after this 72 hour week in the ER. In the future please do not assume I have had the opportunity to read your post immediately. It is often not the case, as I work 12 hour shifts, and I am raising a 5 y/o.


    2. Simian virus 40 (SV40) is a monkey virus that was administered to human populations by contaminated vaccines which were produced in SV40 naturally infected monkey cells.

      Recent molecular biology and epidemiological studies suggest that SV40 may be contagiously transmitted in humans by horizontal infection, independently from the earlier administration of SV40-contaminated vaccines


      1. You are quite welcome. With further research you will find that much of the information passed along as supportive of evolution is “bung” information. Even the textbooks are full of thoroughly discredited or fraudulent “proofs”.


      2. If you are seeking the truth, look up Piltdown man, Haeckel’s embryos, Darwin’s Tree of Life, Java man, Nebraska man, Lucy the hominid, Orce man, Archeoraptor, horse evolution fraud, and others.


  3. Although I like science I would posit a third (and my)reason to be an atheist—Observing Christianity and comparing the doctrine and promises to the outcomes since it’s inception.
    As a Christian I actually knew very little about evolution—only what was drawn from a poisoned well.
    Turns out for some good reason I decided to go line by line and compare what we see versus what we are told. A domino effect collapsing the theory of evolution would do nothing to right religion.
    They’ve had 2000 years to reach their objectives—and nothing. Evolution does nothing to change that.


  4. Jim, I totally understand your disappointment over human interventions under the name of religion. Although many have performed wonderful things in Jesus name, and there are millions of good christians out serving Christ as missionaries and humble servants in all walks of life, it is equally true that there are many brazen failures among Christianity and many wolves in sheep’s clothing so I do not disagree with your assessment. However I would point out there is a huge difference between Christianity which involves a personal relationship with Christ and religion which is just man’s attempt to find God. I hope you will continue to seek God because this scriptures promise that those who seek can find him.


  5. Creationism must be the most widespread conspiracy theory ever. It demands, that the entire scientific community – save few “creationist scientists” – is in cohoots to tell very complicated lies to the general public in order to refute one particular “true” religion. You wrote: “…recently thousands of scientists are beginning to clearly understand and espouse the failures of evolutionism and scientism.” Where are all those thousands? Wich religious affiliation are they part of? Wich god do they think was responsible for the creation?

    The thing about conspiracy theories is that conspiracies do happen, but the theories about them are less plausible according to how many people need to be involved. There are few conspiracy theories (exept maybe the flat earth conspiracy, or even the climate change conspiracy) that would demand such a large crowd of people to remain loyal to the conspiracy as the notion that evolution is a conspiracy by scientists against a particular religion. Besides, what is supposed to be their motivation? Why do all these scientists, of all the people, whose very job it is to reveal and study the nature of our existance be the ones who try to trick us? It is not like they would be out of their jobs as researchers, if they revealed, that this one fundamental theory is actually bunk. On the contrary, they would be celebrated, if they could prove their point. That is how science works. Do they join in some secret rituals within universities and institutes to make a pact to withold the truth, or are they simply victims of false information, that somehow seems to fit their own research no matter what? You do know, that a good number of scientist who support the theory of evolution belong to a number of religions and they do not find their beliefs contradictory to the theory of evolution and that they see the parts of their religions that explain creation as mythical? Is it possible that the creation myths of the world are infact myths?

    Such a nonsensical conspiracy theory as creationism must be somehow powered by the superstitions it is out to defend. It would really need a very powerfull magical entity to keep up this game of pretence, such as the Devil or some other similar antagonist, but where does that put the alledgedly benevolent gods then? One can hardly retreat behind any claims about the free will of people in this issue? Even if the story about a god given free will was true, it would not be a reason for any gods not to interveen on behalf of truth, would it? What would be the ethical excuse of gods not upholding the truth? How could people who hold false beliefs about evolution (be those either way) possibly act according to any free will scenario and make the right choises, if their choises were clouded by false information? People seem to divert on the issue of evolution greatly based on where they are born and to whom. So, would a benevolent god divide people into false and correct beliefs by accident of birth? Does the average Chinese mom deserve eternal torture for not believing a culturally alien story about a god sacrificing themselves as some sort of scapegoat to save people from eternal torment, this god had designed for humans who do not believe the story? Oh, but alledgedly all gods have always preferred some people over others according to the accident of birth to a particular culture or geographical area, even long before the recognition of evolution. Are gods, as it seems, themselves tribal moralists?


    1. I can certainly understand how this might appear to be a “conspiracy theory” to many who have been trained in the sciences. I do no ask anyone to suspend their sense of healthy suspicion in defense of science over the many nutty theories out there. Some claim life on earth originated a an implant from outer space. Some claim we all came from another dimension. Some claim life and the universe were forced into existence because nature abhors a vacuum. All clearly nuts.

      However, what I hope to point out is that the supposed “scientific” explanations for life, or the universe, are clearly nothing more than speculation. The “flat universe” theories are no more scientific than the flat earth theories.
      As to your question about” where are the thousands of scientists who reject traditional claims of evolution”, I wold point you to https://evolutionnews.org/2006/02/over_500_scientists_proclaim_t/
      (which is in reality the mere tip of the icebrgr, for it does not count the tens of thousands of physicians and other very intelligent persons who, having great intellectual ability, and being fully trained in the scientific method, nevertheless reject evolution). Also please see http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/item/31694-over-1-000-scientists-openly-dissent-from-evolution-theory
      To address your question about “how many need to be involved”, That would indeed be a very good question, if the question had ever actually been addressed. Unfortunately, the “assumption” of evolution began, as you know, with MANY fraudulent examples in textbooks, and with a very simplistic understanding of the complexity of life itself. It was promoted “from the top” by a relatively few persons with a secular atheistic mindset, over the objections of literally tens of thousands of practicing scientists and educators, by those who created (and continue to create) our textbooks and set educational goals. Those persons CONTINUE to publish fraudulent tests in support of evolution for quite literally for decades after various “proofs” have been exposed as false.
      Since it’s fraudulent inception, few have bothered to re-examine evolution’s underlying principles, but most have instead just “accepted it as the basis of biology”. Those who are brave enough to discuss the flaws of evolution are usually attacked, some lose their tenure, and so many just “go along” with the assumption rather than risk professional suicide.
      Thanks for your comments.


    1. I am comforted by the God who created a world for us, wrote letters of instruction in the Bible to help us understand His love, and sent His Son to die on the cross so we could finally see how much we need Him, and how much He loves us.


  6. Megalomania is impossible for an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient God. Human history is filled with genocide, have you read any? Or do you just quote Dawkins like a good little liberal?


Leave a Reply to jim- Cancel reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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