Scientific (including creation)

The myth of neutrality

The myth of neutrality
Dominic Statham Dominic is a Chartered Engineer and graduate of Loughborough University in the UK. He has extensive experience of both manufacturing and product development and holds a number of patents. As an emplo
01 December, 2013 6 min read

Those seeking to secularise society often claim that their position is the most reasonable, because it is the only one that’s neutral — the only one free from influences arising from religious beliefs.

Prominent among these is Jonathan Miller, who rejects the label ‘atheist’, describing himself simply as a ‘disbeliever’. This, of course, implies that he has no belief. How ridiculous!

As someone who doesn’t believe in a creator, he must believe the alternative — that life arose by only natural processes. As someone who doesn’t believe in God, he must believe that there is nobody to whom we are morally accountable.

Presumably, as an ardent Darwinist, he also believes along with Richard Dawkins that we are no more than ‘survival mechanisms — robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes’.

More myths

Many people, including most atheists, fail to realise the implications of accepting such views. Indeed, they appear blind to the threat that such thinking poses to the very foundations upon which our society is built.

If we are just survival mechanisms programmed to preserve our genes, then we are not responsible for our actions. Can you imagine a society in which people behave as if this is really true?

If there is nothing more than the material (matter and energy), what basis is there for a belief in right and wrong? Can you imagine the consequences of raising a generation upon such thinking?

People like Miller and Dawkins, of course, do not baulk at the implications of their doctrines because they flatter themselves with the belief that they, along with the rest of humanity, are basically good.

They imagine that we can all get along fine without deferring to a Creator, who has determined for us what is right and wrong and to whom we must all one day give an account of ourselves.

In this, however, they are both inconsistent and terribly deceived. Firstly, if they are correct about there being nothing more than matter and energy, then there is no such thing as good and evil.

Secondly, the testimony of God’s Word and the history of mankind make clear that ‘the human heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked’ (Jeremiah 17:9). The reality is that God has only to lift his hand of restraint briefly and millions will die, as was demonstrated in atheist states such as Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China and Pol Pots’ Cambodia.

Religious fervour

Another myth propagated by secularists is that their position is the most rational because it is fact-based rather than faith-based. Nothing, however, could be further from the truth.

Even Dawkins admits that scientists cannot point to natural processes that appear remotely capable of assembling the bio-molecules needed for life. In fact, the laws of chemistry dictate that these would never form, because they would break down much faster than they would build themselves up.

Evolutionists, of course, believe that if they continue their research, they will discover natural processes capable of producing life from non-life. However, not only is this faith-based, but it is contrary to the facts of science. How rational is this?

It is difficult to see how evolution by natural selection could produce brilliant mathematicians or concert pianists, as such abilities would contribute little if anything to survival.

Needless to say, evolutionists and their secular counterparts have great faith that Darwin’s theory will ultimately provide an answer. The words of the leading philosopher and historian of science Professor Marjorie Grene (1910-2009) are very apt here:

‘It is as a religion of science that Darwinism chiefly held and holds men’s minds … Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with religious fervour, and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers, imperfect in scientific faith’.

‘Progressive thinking’

According to the eminent historian of science Sir Alfred Whitehead, science arose out of Christian theology, that is, out of faith in the rationality of God and the associated belief that the natural word is orderly and intelligible.

Not surprisingly, many of the founders of modern science were creationists, including Galileo, Kepler, Pascal, Boyle, Newton, Faraday, Babbage, Mendel, Pasteur, Kelvin and Maxwell. In some cases, the writings of these early scientists make clear that much of the motivation for their work came from their creationist beliefs.

Those who promote secularism are not championing objectivity or impartiality, but a dogmatic belief system that has the potential to alter our society beyond recognition.

For example, the present UK government, smitten by ‘progressive thinking’, has pressed ahead with its plans to jettison the biblical concept of the family and even redefine marriage itself.

Yet legalising ‘homosexual marriage’ undermines an institution that has been foundational to healthy societies for centuries. A report by the Free Church of Scotland warned that redefining marriage would be a ‘huge social experiment, in which the guinea pigs are children’.

Indeed, the evidence that marriage provides the best environment for children rises by the month. And what will come next? If it is appropriate for two people to marry simply ‘because they love each other’, then why not three people?

As one commenter remarked, ‘If heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage, why should monogamy continue to be so important?’ Some appear also intent on redefining gender itself and have proposed that small boys be allowed to wear skirts to school, in case they wish to be transgender.

History’s warnings

Christianity logically leads to the understanding that people have value — whether young or old, healthy or sick, able bodied or handicapped. It teaches that we should put others first and love our neighbours as ourselves; and it warns that one day we will all be held accountable for our actions.

This is the world view that has influenced our society for centuries. In contrast, secularism, and its foundational doctrine of evolution, logically lead to the view that people are nothing more than bags of chemicals; that only the fittest have value; that you need to look after ‘number one’; and that you can live as you wish and at the end of your life there will be no consequences.

Michael Ruse, who was Professor of Philosophy and Zoology at the University of Guelph, Canada, remarked: ‘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. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but … the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion’.

The facts of history, however, make clear that to build a society upon evolutionary ideology is to court unmitigated disaster. For a particularly sobering example, we need go back less than 100 years, to the ‘race hygiene’ policies of Nazi Germany.

Their embracing of ‘social Darwinism’ led to a desire to ‘repent of sins of natural selection’, as the ‘unfit’ had been allowed to thrive in German society. This led to physically and psychiatrically ‘defective’ people being sterilised or even murdered in order to ‘preserve the purity of the Aryan race’.

It also provided a justification for the Holocaust, as made clear from statements made by Adolf Eichmann shortly before his execution in 1962. Dr Wilder-Smith’s account of Eichmann’s last consultation with his prison chaplain is most revealing.

Eichmann said: ‘Both of [the churches in Germany] believe that God’s method of creation was to wipe out the handicapped and to wipe out the less fitted. And as the Jews are less fitted than our people, I have only helped God in his methods. I have only catalysed God’s way of working. And when I meet God I shall tell him so’.

Revealing fruit

Speaking of false prophets, Jesus said: ‘Do people pick grapes from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit’ (Matthew 7:16-17).

This principle of judging according to fruit applies to beliefs too. The doctrine of evolution confuses people about morality and has led to some of the greatest wars and atrocities in history. It causes people to question the authority of Scripture and goodness of God, and turns people into atheists.

In contrast, biblical Christianity led to a belief in human dignity and the sanctity of life, abolition of slavery, emancipation of woman, education for the under-classes, social compassion and the rise of modern science.

Dominic Statham BSc, DIS, MIET, CEng

Edited and abridged, with kind permission, from a

Creation Ministries International web article (the full article, with footnotes and references, is on
Dominic is a Chartered Engineer and graduate of Loughborough University in the UK. He has extensive experience of both manufacturing and product development and holds a number of patents. As an emplo
Articles View All

Join the discussion

Read community guidelines
New: the ET podcast!