O Homem segundo a Religião
Esta treta ocorreu-me recentemente, daquelas coisas que fazem click na cabeça. Em geral, nas religiões Ocidentais a nossa espécie é vista como algo especial, separado do resto do reino animal por alguma propriedade única. Somos o animal racional.
Mas o que é ser racional? Não deve ser pensar, aprender, ou ter inteligência, porque isso muitos animais também fazem. Principalmente nos primatas, há claras evidências que animais não humanos concebem planos complexos, antecipam acontecimentos, e assim por diante.
Racional, para ser algo único à nossa espécie neste planeta deve querer dizer ter razões. Nós somos capazes de dar e exigir razões para fundamentar uma afirmação. Gritar «Vem aí uma àguia!» até os macacos Colobus conseguem. Mas perguntar «Como é que sabes?», uma das perguntas favoritas dos meus filhos, é aparentemente uma capacidade única dos humanos.
O curioso (e irónico) é que é precisamente esta capacidade que as religiões normalmente querem suprimir. Chamam-lhe fé. Como se fosse um acto, como se fosse uma coisa e não apenas a ausência do daquilo que nos distingue como humanos: perguntar por que razão havemos de aceitar algo como verdade.
Por outro lado, se adoptarmos como "racional" o que é postulado pelos axiomas da(s) teoria(s) matemática(s) da decisão (por exemplo, os avançados por von Neumann e Morgenstern), nem então os seres humanos poderão ser considerados "racionais" pois violam sistematicamente cada um dos mesmos.
ResponderEliminarComo costumo afirmar (obviamente em tom de gozo): O ser humano distingue-se dos restantes animais por ser o único animal que se preocupa em se distinguir dos restantes animais...
Excelente blog!
Olá Nuno,
ResponderEliminarObrigado pelo comentário. E concordo, acho que o racional do humano tem pouco a ver com a noção de decidir bem, mas mais a ver com a idéia de procurar razões (i.e. desculpas) para racionalizar as asneiras que fazemos :)
Penso que aqui existe uma necessidade, por parte do ser humano, não tanto de se destinguir dos outros animais, mas mais de se destacar, de provar a superioridade.
ResponderEliminarUma vez, um padre deu-me uma lição (de moral?), postulando que o homem é superior a todas as outras criaturas, apontando como exemplo como os forcados vencem um touro, numa arena.
(Quando eu contrapus com virus HIV, ele mudou tácticamente de conversa...).
Se nós tivessemos caninos como o tigre dente de sabre, então diríamos que o que nos diferencia dos outros animais eram os dentes, pois esses premitiam-nos arrancar a jugular das nossas presas mais eficazmente, provando assim a nossa superiorides sobre os outros animais.
Aliás, estou convencido que, se os tigres dentes de sabre tivessem capacidade de raciocínio abstracto, sería exactamente isso que pensariam.
Resumindo: não se trata de uma vontade de diferenciação,mas sim uma necessidade de provar a superioridade, mesmo contra todas as evidências, ou seja, bem ao gosto do pensamento religioso :o)
Uma outra característica de um animal racional é a capacidade de criar abstrações religiosas a partir de experiências empíricas.
ResponderEliminarPara um macaco Colobus uma águia é apenas um risco para a sobrevivência, para um humano pode ser um sinal dos deuses a indicar a aproximação de um inimigo.
Evolution Is Religion--Not Science (#332)
ResponderEliminarby Henry Morris, Ph.D.
Abstract
The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion.
The writer has documented in two recent Impact articles1, 2 from admissions by evolutionists that the idea of particles-to-people evolution does not meet the criteria of a scientific theory. There are no evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed, either during human history or in the fossil record of the past; and the universal law of entropy seems to make it impossible on any significant scale.
Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists. Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists.
Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more harm than good, but scientists still need to counter the creationist message.3
The question is, just why do they need to counter the creationist message? Why are they so adamantly committed to anti-creationism?
The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. Some may prefer to call it humanism, and New Age evolutionists may place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man.
The core of the humanistic philosophy is naturalism—the proposition that the natural world proceeds according to its own internal dynamics, without divine or supernatural control or guidance, and that we human beings are creations of that process. It is instructive to recall that the philosophers of the early humanistic movement debated as to which term more adequately described their position: humanism or naturalism. The two concepts are complementary and inseparable.4
Since both naturalism and humanism exclude God from science or any other active function in the creation or maintenance of life and the universe in general, it is very obvious that their position is nothing but atheism. And atheism, no less than theism, is a religion! Even doctrinaire-atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism cannot be proven to be true.
Of course we can't prove that there isn't a God.5
Therefore, they must believe it, and that makes it a religion. The atheistic nature of evolution is not only admitted, but insisted upon, by most of the leaders of evolutionary thought. Ernst Mayr, for example, says that:
Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.6
A professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State University says:
Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.7
It is well known in the scientific world today that such influential evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould and Edward Wilson of Harvard, Richard Dawkins of England, William Provine of Cornell, and numerous other evolutionary spokesmen are dogmatic atheists. Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion!
Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. 8
Another way of saying "religion" is "worldview," the whole of reality. The evolutionary worldview applies not only to the evolution of life, but even to that of the entire universe. In the realm of cosmic evolution, our naturalistic scientists depart even further from experimental science than life scientists do, manufacturing a variety of evolutionary cosmologies from esoteric mathematics and metaphysical speculation. Socialist Jeremy Rifkin has commented on this remarkable game.
Cosmologies are made up of small snippets of physical reality that have been remodeled by society into vast cosmic deceptions.9
They must believe in evolution, therefore, in spite of all the evidence, not because of it. And speaking of deceptions, note the following remarkable statement.
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.10
The author of this frank statement is Richard Lewontin of Harvard. Since evolution is not a laboratory science, there is no way to test its validity, so all sorts of justso stories are contrived to adorn the textbooks. But that doesn't make them true! An evolutionist reviewing a recent book by another (but more critical) evolutionist, says:
We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.11
A fascinatingly honest admission by a physicist indicates the passionate commitment of establishment scientists to naturalism. Speaking of the trust students naturally place in their highly educated college professors, he says:
And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal—without demonstration—to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.12
Creationist students in scientific courses taught by evolutionist professors can testify to the frustrating reality of that statement. Evolution is, indeed, the pseudoscientific basis of religious atheism, as Ruse pointed out. Will Provine at Cornell University is another scientist who frankly acknowledges this.
As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.13
Once again we emphasize that evolution is not science, evolutionists' tirades notwithstanding. It is a philosophical worldview, nothing more. Another prominent evolutionist comments as follows:
(Evolution) must, they feel, explain everything. . . . A theory that explains everything might just as well be discarded since it has no real explanatory value. Of course, the other thing about evolution is that anything can be said because very little can be disproved. Experimental evidence is minimal.14
Even that statement is too generous. Actual experimental evidence demonstrating true evolution (that is, macroevolution) is not "minimal." It is nonexistent!
The concept of evolution as a form of religion is not new. In my book, The Long War Against God,15 I documented the fact that some form of evolution has been the pseudo-rationale behind every anti-creationist religion since the very beginning of history. This includes all the ancient ethnic religions, as well as such modern world religions as Buddhism, Hinduism, and others, as well as the "liberal" movements in even the creationist religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam).
As far as the twentieth century is concerned, the leading evolutionist is generally considered to be Sir Julian Huxley, primary architect of modern neo-Darwinism. Huxley called evolution a "religion without revelation" and wrote a book with that title (2nd edition, 1957). In a later book, he said:
Evolution . . . is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth.16
Later in the book he argued passionately that we must change "our pattern of religious thought from a God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern."17 Then he went on to say that: "the God hypothesis . . . is becoming an intellectual and moral burden on our thought." Therefore, he concluded that "we must construct something to take its place."18
That something, of course, is the religion of evolutionary humanism, and that is what the leaders of evolutionary humanism are trying to do today.
In closing this summary of the scientific case against evolution (and, therefore, for creation), the reader is reminded again that all quotations in the article are from doctrinaire evolutionists. No Bible references are included, and no statements by creationists. The evolutionists themselves, to all intents and purposes, have shown that evolutionism is not science, but religious faith in atheism.
References
Morris, Henry M., "The Scientific Case Against Evolution—Part I," (Impact No. 330, December 2000), pp. i-iv.
Morris, Henry M., "The Scientific Case Against Evolution—Part II," (Impact No. 331, January 2001), pp. i-iv.
Scott, Eugenie, "Fighting Talk," New Scientist (vol. 166, April 22, 2000), p.47. Dr. Scott is director of the anti-creationist organization euphemistically named The National Center for Science Education.
Ericson, Edward L., "Reclaiming the Higher Ground," The Humanist (vol. 60, September/October 2000), p. 30.
Dawkins, Richard, replying to a critique of his faith in the liberal journal, Science and Christian Belief (vol. 7, 1994), p. 47.
Mayr, Ernst, "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought," Scientific American (vol. 283, July 2000), p. 83.
Todd, Scott C., "A View from Kansas on the Evolution Debates," Nature (vol. 401. September 30, 1999), p. 423.
Ruse, Michael, "Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians," National Post (May 13, 2000), p. B-3.
Rifkin, Jeremy, "Reinventing Nature," The Humanist (vol. 58, March/April 1998), p. 24.
Lewontin, Richard, Review of The Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. In New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997.
Bowler, Peter J., Review of In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999), American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169.
Singham, Mark, "Teaching and Propaganda," Physics Today (vol. 53, June 2000), p. 54.
Provine, Will, "No Free Will," in Catching Up with the Vision, Ed. by Margaret W. Rossiter (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), p. S123.
Appleyard, Bryan, "You Asked for It," New Scientist (vol. 166, April 22, 2000), p. 45.
Morris, Henry M., The Long War Against God (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1989), 344 pp.
Huxley, Julian, Essays of a Humanist (New York: Harper and `Row, 1964),
p. 125.
Ibid., p. 222.
Ibid.
* Dr. Morris is Founder and President Emeritus of the Institute for Creation Research
Um artigo interessante, do Institute for Creation Research (www.icr.org) sobre o carácter religioso do evolucionismo. O evolucionismo afirma que o Universo, as galáxias, as estrelas, o sistema solar, a Terra, a Lua, a vida, etc., surgiram por acaso, mas, evidentemente, só pode fazer essas afirmações pela fé, na medida em que as mesmas não se apoiam em qualquer evidência empírica observável. Do mesmo modo, nunca ninguém observou uma mutação a codificar novas estruturas e funções, nem documentou a evolução gradual no registo fóssil. Os evolucionistas são, portanto, crentes. A única coisa que os distingue dos criacionistas é que a fé criacionista apoia-se em evidências [v.g. ausência de fósseis intermédios na "coluna geológica", extrema complexidade do DNA (que só por por absurda irracionalidade do Ludwig Kripahl compara a um ovo cozido!), extrema complexidade da dobragem de uma simples proteína], ao passo que a fé evolucionista é totalmente desprovida de suporte empírico. Os criacionistas também têm fé. Mas felizmente, Deus não requer de nós a fé cega que o darwinismo pede dos seus crentes. O evolucionismo é, essencialmente, uma religião sem Deus. Euma religião sem Deus é uma religião destituída de qualquer racionalidade. O evolucionismo denota essa flagrante irracionalidade.
ResponderEliminar1) Francis Crick afirmou claramente que as probabilidade de o DNA ter sido sintetizado por acaso é zero. No entanto, os evolucionistas acreditam (sem qualquer evidência) que o DNA surgiu por acaso.
2) Carl Sagan disse que uma simples célula tem mais informação do que toda a Biblioteca do Congresso. No entanto, o Ludwig Krippalh continua obstinadamente a negar que o DNA contém informação (que diria o RNA mensageiro?). Para o Ludwig, o DNA é tão complexo como a água ou um ovo cozido. Mais ridículo é impossível. Isto não é ciência. isto é negação do óbvio. Não há cego pior do que aquele que não quer ver.
3) Stephen Hawking, no seu Livro A Brief History of Time, diz que o Big Bang é o melhor modelo de explicação sobre a origem do Universo, apesar de não conseguir explicar a origem das galáxias (que são só cerca de 300 biliões (!)de acordo com algumas estimativas).
4) Richard Dawkins afirma que a aparência de design na natureza é esmagadora, embora conclua que todas as espécies vegetais, animais e humana surgiram por mutações aleatórias. Para "demonstrar" a sua tese, mobiliza algorítmos (inteligentemente pré- concebidos e programados)para demonstrar a evolução aleatória. Como não a consegue demonstrar no mundo real da genética, da biologia e da paleontologia, arranja uns programas informáticos!
5) Só uma pessoa muito religiosa é que pode afirmar que toda a matéria e a energia contidas no Universo estiveram um dia contidos numa partícula infinitesimal (cujas origem e miniaturização não são nunca explicadas).
Por aqui se vê (e muitos outros exemplos poderiam ser avançados) como a fé evolucionista conduz à mais pura irracionalidade. Daí a adequação da designação "Que Treta!" para um espaço comunicativo de evolucionistas para evolucionistas.
Aqui vai o artigo, através do qual é possível compreender melhor a religião evolucionista.
Evolution Is Religion--Not Science
by Henry Morris, Ph.D.
Abstract
The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to.
It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion.
The writer has documented in two recent Impact articles 1, 2 from admissions by evolutionists that the idea of particles-to-people evolution does not meet the criteria of a scientific theory.
There are no evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed, either during human history or in the fossil record of the past; and the universal law of entropy seems to make it impossible on any significant scale.
Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists.
Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists.
Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more harm than good, but scientists still need to counter the creationist message.3
The question is, just why do they need to counter the creationist message? Why are they so adamantly committed to anti-creationism?
The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator.
Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. Some may prefer to call it humanism, and New Age evolutionists may place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man.
The core of the humanistic philosophy is naturalism—the proposition that the natural world proceeds according to its own internal dynamics, without divine or supernatural control or guidance, and that we human beings are creations of that process.
It is instructive to recall that the philosophers of the early humanistic movement debated as to which term more adequately described their position: humanism or naturalism. The two concepts are complementary and inseparable.4
Since both naturalism and humanism exclude God from science or any other active function in the creation or maintenance of life and the universe in general, it is very obvious that their position is nothing but atheism.
And atheism, no less than theism, is a religion! Even doctrinaire-atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism cannot be proven to be true.
Of course we can't prove that there isn't a God.5
Therefore, they must believe it, and that makes it a religion. The atheistic nature of evolution is not only admitted, but insisted upon, by most of the leaders of evolutionary thought. Ernst Mayr, for example, says that:
Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.6
A professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State University says:
Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.7
It is well known in the scientific world today that such influential evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould and Edward Wilson of Harvard, Richard Dawkins of England, William Provine of Cornell, and numerous other evolutionary spokesmen are dogmatic atheists. Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion!
Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. 8
Another way of saying "religion" is "worldview," the whole of reality. The evolutionary worldview applies not only to the evolution of life, but even to that of the entire universe.
In the realm of cosmic evolution, our naturalistic scientists depart even further from experimental science than life scientists do, manufacturing a variety of evolutionary cosmologies from esoteric mathematics and metaphysical speculation. Socialist Jeremy Rifkin has commented on this remarkable game.
Cosmologies are made up of small snippets of physical reality that have been remodeled by society into vast cosmic deceptions.9
They must believe in evolution, therefore, in spite of all the evidence, not because of it. And speaking of deceptions, note the following remarkable statement.
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.10
The author of this frank statement is Richard Lewontin of Harvard.
Since evolution is not a laboratory science, there is no way to test its validity, so all sorts of justso stories are contrived to adorn the textbooks. But that doesn't make them true! An evolutionist reviewing a recent book by another (but more critical) evolutionist, says:
We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.11
A fascinatingly honest admission by a physicist indicates the passionate commitment of establishment scientists to naturalism. Speaking of the trust students naturally place in their highly educated college professors, he says:
And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal—without demonstration—to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.12
Creationist students in scientific courses taught by evolutionist professors can testify to the frustrating reality of that statement.
Evolution is, indeed, the pseudoscientific basis of religious atheism, as Ruse pointed out. Will Provine at Cornell University is another scientist who frankly acknowledges this.
As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.13
Once again we emphasize that evolution is not science, evolutionists' tirades notwithstanding. It is a philosophical worldview, nothing more. Another prominent evolutionist comments as follows:
(Evolution) must, they feel, explain everything. . . . A theory that explains everything might just as well be discarded since it has no real explanatory value. Of course, the other thing about evolution is that anything can be said because very little can be disproved. Experimental evidence is minimal.14
Even that statement is too generous. Actual experimental evidence demonstrating true evolution (that is, macroevolution) is not "minimal." It is nonexistent!
The concept of evolution as a form of religion is not new. In my book, The Long War Against God,15 I documented the fact that some form of evolution has been the pseudo-rationale behind every anti-creationist religion since the very beginning of history.
This includes all the ancient ethnic religions, as well as such modern world religions as Buddhism, Hinduism, and others, as well as the "liberal" movements in even the creationist religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam).
As far as the twentieth century is concerned, the leading evolutionist is generally considered to be Sir Julian Huxley, primary architect of modern neo-Darwinism. Huxley called evolution a "religion without revelation" and wrote a book with that title (2nd edition, 1957). In a later book, he said:
Evolution . . . is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth.16
Later in the book he argued passionately that we must change "our pattern of religious thought from a God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern."17 Then he went on to say that: "the God hypothesis . . . is becoming an intellectual and moral burden on our thought." Therefore, he concluded that "we must construct something to take its place."18
That something, of course, is the religion of evolutionary humanism, and that is what the leaders of evolutionary humanism are trying to do today.
In closing this summary of the scientific case against evolution (and, therefore, for creation), the reader is reminded again that all quotations in the article are from doctrinaire evolutionists. No Bible references are included, and no statements by creationists. The evolutionists themselves, to all intents and purposes, have shown that evolutionism is not science, but religious faith in atheism.
References
Morris, Henry M., "The Scientific Case Against Evolution—Part I," (Impact No. 330, December 2000), pp. i-iv.
Morris, Henry M., "The Scientific Case Against Evolution—Part II," (Impact No. 331, January 2001), pp. i-iv.
Scott, Eugenie, "Fighting Talk," New Scientist (vol. 166, April 22, 2000), p.47. Dr. Scott is director of the anti-creationist organization euphemistically named The National Center for Science Education.
Ericson, Edward L., "Reclaiming the Higher Ground," The Humanist (vol. 60, September/October 2000), p. 30.
Dawkins, Richard, replying to a critique of his faith in the liberal journal, Science and Christian Belief (vol. 7, 1994), p. 47.
Mayr, Ernst, "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought," Scientific American (vol. 283, July 2000), p. 83.
Todd, Scott C., "A View from Kansas on the Evolution Debates," Nature (vol. 401. September 30, 1999), p. 423.
Ruse, Michael, "Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians," National Post (May 13, 2000), p. B-3.
Rifkin, Jeremy, "Reinventing Nature," The Humanist (vol. 58, March/April 1998), p. 24.
Lewontin, Richard, Review of The Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. In New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997.
Bowler, Peter J., Review of In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999), American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169.
Singham, Mark, "Teaching and Propaganda," Physics Today (vol. 53, June 2000), p. 54.
Provine, Will, "No Free Will," in Catching Up with the Vision, Ed. by Margaret W. Rossiter (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), p. S123.
Appleyard, Bryan, "You Asked for It," New Scientist (vol. 166, April 22, 2000), p. 45.
Morris, Henry M., The Long War Against God (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1989), 344 pp.
Huxley, Julian, Essays of a Humanist (New York: Harper and `Row, 1964),
p. 125.
Ibid., p. 222.
Ibid.
* Dr. Morris is Founder and President Emeritus of the Institute for Creation Research