Ideologies‎ > ‎Darwinism‎ > ‎

Evolutionary Agenda

Do evolutionistshave an agenda?

Nathaniel Darnell

A while ago I wrote an article about the Answers in Genesis creationmuseum, and received a comment from someone calling herself “The HappyFeminist” who asserted that evolutionists do not have an agenda. She claimedthat evolutionists are only interested in the truth, but is herclaim true? I wish there was such a thing as a “Two Kingdom”evolutionist, but I’ve never run into an evolutionist who believes that weshould simply keep evolution in the science theory books. Most want to spreadthe implications of evolution to every other field, such as the practice of law. Idon’t know of any evolutionists who promote the kind of dualistic view of lifeto their worldview that some Christians seem to encourage for the Christianworldview. The evolutionists most definitely have an agenda for all of life andculture, and it is necessary for Christians to oppose their agenda at everylevel and promote God’s agenda for life, as revealed in His Word, in furtheranceof the Great Commission.

“The Happy Feminist” wrote:

I now see one of the bases of misunderstanding between peoplewho believe in Biblical creation versus people who accept the theory ofevolution. Creationists, I now see, think that evolutionists have an agenda, anagenda above and beyond the search for truth by means of the scientific method.

In response to this claim of objectivity and harmlessness,consider the following quotes by various evolutionary, humanistic leaders on ahandful of significant areas of life and culture.

The Evolution Agenda for Marriage & the Family

Evolutionary, humanist leader Lawrence Casler asserted that manmust evolve away from the Christian concept of marriage because “marriage andfamily life have been largely responsible, I suggest, for today’s prevailingneurotic climate, with its pervasive insecurity, and it is precisely thisclimate that makes so difficult the acceptance of a healthier way of life.”[1]

Fellow evolutionist author George Simpson explained the need forevolution away from Christian marriage and family this way:

The doctrine of cultural evolution emphasized the adaptivestages of human development, ways of social living, and forms of groupexistence. That is, various social forms came to be seen as selected means forcarrying on the struggle for existence. Thus each family form had to beconsidered as valuable only relative to the adaption of the people of aparticular group. Hence the western family system was not permanent and finalbut only one of many possible forms.[2]

As Casler further explains, from the evolutionary viewpoint,marriage and family are out-dated.

Marriage, for the most part, has outlived its usefulness and isdoing more harm than good. The solution is not to make divorces more difficultto obtain, but to recognize the so-called divorce problem for what it is: asymptom of the marriage problem.[3]

So do evolutionary humanists have an agenda about marriage andfamily? Apparently, they do, and their agenda is that they are against it. Forevolutionists, it is time for society to evolve away from marriage and thefamily.

The Evolution Agenda for Politics

Evolutionist Walt Anderson explained his belief that evolution“urges us to see political development itself as an advanced form of biologicalevolution, to look at humanity not as a cog in a vast social machine but ratheras (in Julian Huxley’s phrase) evolution become conscious of itself.”[4]

How should evolutionists make their views of politcs become“conscious” of their belief in evolution? Evolutionist Timothy J. Madiganwrites:

Humanism holds that the planet Earth must be considered oneecosystem, which is to say it is no longer feasible to arbitrarily divide itinto separate states and hope that each one can satisfactorily manage itself. .. . Quite simply, national borders can no longer be considered sacrosanct whenmanipulation of the environment can easily lead to worldwide devastation.[5]

Thus, evolutionists believe in a world-wide government. Asevolutionist spokesman Paul Kurtz wrote,

We believe, however, that it is necessary to create a globalscale new democratic and plurastic institutions that protect the rights andfreedoms of all people. As a first step, humankind need to establish a systemof world law and to endow the World Court with enough moral force that itsjurisdiction is recognized as binding by all the nation-states of the world.[6]

Using this one-world government, evolutionists believe they shouldforce total disarmament. Evolutionist Linus Pauling wrote, “The only hope forthe world lies in achieving control of the methods of waging war and ultimatelyto reach to goal of total and universal disarmament.”[7] Evolutionist Erich Fromm agreed, writing, “The first stepsin avoiding nuclear cataclysm and preserving democracy are to agree onuniversal disarmament.”[8]

Evolutionist Lucile W. Green listed the “essentials for worldgovernment” as “disarmament, effective peacekeeping machinery, financialsecurity for the United Nations, a world court, a world legislature, and aworld executive.”[9]

Do evolutionists have an agenda for politics? Apparently, they do,and it entails a one-world government and global disarmament.

The Evolution Agenda for Morality

What about ethics or morality? Do evolutionists have an agenda onthose subjects? Evolutionist spokesman Paul Kurtz seemed to think so. He wrote:

If man is a product of evolution, one species among others, in auniverse without purpose, then man’s option is to live for himself and todiscover new areas of significance and achievement.[10]

Evolutionist Max Hocutt expressed a similar notion:

The fundamental question of ethics is, who makes the rules? Godor men? The theistic answer is that God makes them. The humanistic answer isthat men make them. This distinction between theism and humanism is thefundamental division in moral theory.[11]

How does that “fundamental division” play itself out? EvolutionistWilliam Provine explains the basic premise:

No inherent moral or ethical laws exist, nor are there absoluteguiding princples for human society. The universe cares nothing for us and wehave no ultimate meaning in life.[12]

If there are no absolute guiding principles for human society,then how does an evolutionst think he is supposed to behave? The Humanist Manifesto II states, “Weaffirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics isautonomous and situational, needing no theological or ideological sanction.”[13]

Kurtz agrees, stating thatevolutionists “are committed to free thought and to the view that ethicalvalues are relative to human experience and needs.”[14] Using a specific ethical situation as an example,evolutionist Dr. Arthur E. Gravatt elaborates, “The morality or immorality ofany behavior, including sexual behavior, has been put in the context of‘situation ethics.’ In this approach moral behavior may differ from situationto situation. Behavior might be moral for one person and not another or moralat one time and not another.”[15]

The HumanistManifesto II goes into even greaterdetail. “We believe that intolerant attitudes, often cultivated by orthodoxreligions and puritanical cultures, unduly repress sexual conduct,” it says.“The many varieties of sexual exploration should not in themselves beconsidered ‘evil.’ . . . individuals should be permitted to express theirsexual proclivities and pursue their life-style as they desire.”[16]

Evolutionist Corliss Lamont makes another application.“Historically,” he writes, “a primary reason for the enormous importance givento genital faithfulness and unfaithfulness was the lack of reliablebirth-control techniques. Now that those techniques, including abortion, aregenerally available, this importance has more and more diminished.”[17]

So do evolutionists have an agenda for morality? Apparently, theydo. Namely, moral relativism — allowing for sexual promiscuity and abortion,among other things.

The Evolution Agenda for Truth?

Pretendingthat evolutionists do not have an agenda — when they have published so muchdetailing their agenda on various aspects of life — comes across as absurd.Even more absurd is the contradictory idea that evolutionists are commited tothe truth when they have denied any basis for the concept of truth. Why shouldmankind uphold truth, if there is no God who requires that we uphold truth? Thevery concept of truth is a Christian concept, and the evolutionist is forced toborrow from the Christian worldview in order to have any sense of stability inhis life.

Yet the “Happy Feminist” writes that “the point of the scientificmethod is to search for truth regardless of where it leads or where we wish itto lead.” Why? Why should an evolutionist adopt the scientific method? Whyshould an evolutionist search for truth? What is the standard of truth in theevolutionary worldview? As evolutionist Max Hocutt revealed, the standard fortruth in an evolutionary worldview is man.

Man in the evolutionary, humanist religion, has in effect becomegod on earth. He holds the position other religions reserve for God. He makeshimself, and he sets his own rules. His belief in himself or the scientificmethod as a standard of truth is a faith-based belief. He has no way to useeven the scientific method to prove that the only realities in the world arematerial. The evolutionist has exchanged one faith for another.

As Romans 1:25 says,evolutionary humanists have “exchanged the truth of God for a lie, andworshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessedforever. Amen.”


1.       LawrenceCasler, “Permissive Matrimony: Proposals for the Future,” TheHumanist, Sept/Oct 1969, p. 5. []

2.       GeorgeSimpson, People in Families (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1960), p.4. []

3.       Casler,“Permissive Matrimony: Proposals for the Future,” p. 4. []

4.       WaltAnderson, Politics and the New Humanism (Pacific Palisades, CA:Goodyear Publishing Company, 1973), p. 83. []

5.       Timothy J.Madigan, “Humanism and the Need for a Global Consciousness,” The Humanist,March/April, 1986, pp. 17-18. []

6.       Paul Kurtz,“A Declaration of Independence: A New Global Ethics,” Free Inquiry, Fall1988, p. 6. []

7.       LinusPauling, “Humanism and Peace,” The Humanist, 1961, no. 2, p. 75. []

8.      ErichFromm, May Man Prevail? (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1961), p. 248. []

9.       Lucile W.Green, “The Call for a World Constitutional Convention,” The Humanist,July/August 1968, p. 13. []

10.   Paul Kurtz,ed., The Humanist Alternative (Buffalo: Prometheus, 1980), p. 179. []

11.    Max Hocutt,“Toward an Ethic of Mutual Accomodation,” in Humanist Ethics, ed. MorrisB. Storer (Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1980), p. 137. []

12.    William Provine,“Scientists, Face It! Science and Religion are Incompatible,” TheScientist, September 5, 1988, p. 10. []

13.    HumanistManifesto II, p. 17. []

14.    Paul Kurtz,“Does Humanism Have an Ethic of Responsibility?”, in Humanist Ethics, ed.Storer, p. 11. []

15.    Arthur E.Gravatt, cited in William H. Genne, “Our Moral Responsibility,” Journal ofthe American College Health Association, vol. 15 (May 1967), p. 63. []

16.    HumanistManifesto II, p. 18. []

17.    CorlissLamont, Voice in the Wilderness (Buffalo,NY: Prometheus Books, 1974), p. 97. []