11, 12. How did belief in evolution prove to be a factor contributing to both world wars?

¹¹ This generation has seen two world wars, and belief in evolution was a factor that led to both of them. Does that sound strange? In discussing the effect of Darwin’s thesis in support of evolution, H. G. Wells in The Outline of History says: “The Darwinian movement took formal Christianity unawares, suddenly. . . . The new biological science was bringing nothing constructive as yet to replace the old moral stand-bys. A real de-moralization ensued.” Then, showing the connection of this with the attitude toward war, he continues: “Prevalent peoples at the close of the nineteenth century believed that they prevailed by virtue of the Struggle for Existence, in which the strong and cunning get the better of the weak and confiding. . . . Man, they decided, is a social animal like the Indian hunting dog . . . so it seemed right to them that the big dogs of the human pack should bully and subdue.” In full accord with evolution’s concept of survival of the fittest in the struggle for existence, they plunged into a war unequaled in history till that time.

¹² Not only atheistic evolutionists, but also those who try to cling to some semblance of piety by saying that they are Christian evolutionists, are thus influenced. Philip G. Fothergill in his book Evolution and Christians notes: “From scientific evolution there can arise an evolutionary philosophy, and by false extension, an evolutionary ethic, which may determine a non-Christian’s outlook on morality, and if allowed to permeate Christian thought may subtly undermine Christian belief. . . . Wood Jones maintained that the rise of the mentality which induced the tragedy of 1914, and later Nazism and its evil excesses, could be traced in great part to the effect of a certain type of Darwinian teaching.”

14. (a) In what ways does evolutionary thinking influence conduct on city streets? (b) When parents accept evolution, with what serious problems may they find that they are confronted?

¹⁴ Not all the violence demonstrated in this century was in the two world wars, nor even in smaller wars. The same “survival of the fittest” philosophy is reflected in the animalistic assaults that characterize street crime. This thinking reaches right into the home and disrupts family ties. When parents go along with the teaching of evolution, and thus infer that life has no meaning, on what basis can they tell their children that they should not ruin their lives with narcotics and loose living? How can they convince them that they should not end it all, if they choose, by suicide? Even parents who may say that they believe in God face this problem if they accept evolution. Why? Because it is the Bible that contains the principles for right living, and by endorsing evolution they reject the Bible.

16. Against what situation as to sexual morality are evolutionists left without safeguards, but what wholesome guidance does the Bible provide?

¹⁶ One’s viewpoint toward sexual morality is also influenced by his belief as to the origin of man. The believer in the Bible knows that God’s law forbids adultery, fornication and abortion, and respect for that law is a genuine protection for him in many ways. (Heb. 13:4; Rom. 13:9, 10; compare Exodus 21:22, 23.) Catholic priest Raymond Nogar, though himself going along with the worldly philosophy of evolution, acknowledges that the trend of thinking among evolutionists “touches immediately upon man’s philosophy of life, his morals, his religion,” and that as a result changes are taking place.a Why so? Because even churchmen who accept evolution do so by classifying the Bible as “unscientific.” When people come to believe that the first book of the Bible is not to be taken seriously, then they do not take the rest seriously either. Even the governments of men are removing legal restrictions on adultery, abortion and homosexuality. And since men who reject belief in creation acknowledge no authority higher than themselves and their government, they are thus left open to the disease, frustration and insecurity in which such conduct results. Taught from youth that he is simply a descendant from a beast, man often acts that way.​—Rom. 1:22-27.

17. To what other degrading trap does evolution lead, but how does the Bible make available the needed protection?

¹⁷ Since evolution results in rejection of God and the righteous standards of his Word, it comes as no great surprise that it also lays its adherents open to yet another trap, against which Bible believers are safeguarded. What is that? Alfred R. Wallace, who was a disciple of Darwin, was a spiritist, according to evolutionist Ernst Benz. And he says: “It is significant that the founder of parapsychology . . . writes: ‘It is Darwinism which leads us to mysticism.’” Also: “Julian Huxley . . . deliberately turns to Buddhist ideas and forms of meditation and expects an increase of parapsychic capacities of man.”b In their desire to become something more than man now is they thus make themselves vulnerable to the control of superhuman spirits. The Bible does not leave one in the dark as to the source of such powers. It firmly warns against involvement in mysticism, identifying the Devil and the demons as its source. (Acts 16:16-18; Eph. 6:10-13) Thus, God’s inspired Word provides the guidance that all men need as protection against the degrading practices that surround them, and to enable them to use their lives in full harmony with the will of their Creator.

WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS

18. What future did an evolutionist of the past century envision for the human race, but how have his expectations proved wrong?

¹⁸ Though the theory of evolution holds out no hope that any individual now living will benefit from the changes that future generations may see, some of its advocates see a glowing future for the human race. Alfred Wallace is quoted as saying of the man that he envisioned that evolution would develop: “While his external form will probably ever remain unchanged, except in the development of that perfect beauty which results from a healthy and well-organized body, refined, and ennobled by the highest intellectual faculties and sympathetic emotions, his mental constitution may continue to advance and improve till the world is again inhabited by a single homogeneous race, no individual of which will be inferior to the noblest specimen of existing humanity. Each one will then work out his happiness in relation to that of his fellows; perfect freedom of action will be maintained, since the well-balanced moral faculties will never permit any one to transgress on the equal freedom of others.” All this, keep in mind, is seen as a result of evolution, not because of divine intervention in human affairs. But do the developments of the past fifty years give sound reason for believing that this is the direction that man, by himself, is heading? The writer just quoted died in the year 1913, so he did not see the events that burst upon the world in the following year. The facts of our day refute his claims.

19. What kind of future do advocates of evolution in our own time see, and how does such an outlook affect men?

¹⁹ In contrast with the above view, the American Museum of Natural History in New York, during 1969 and 1970, featured the theme “Can Man Survive?” This museum, which gives prominence to displays advocating evolution, acknowledges in its Calendar of Events sheet for March 1970: “A rapidly increasing human population coupled with the impact of an undisciplined technology has brought man​—and his environment—​to the edge of disaster and has placed the survival of the species in doubt.” What they now see for the future looks dim, and, of course, when there is no solidly based hope for the future men readily become mentally unbalanced. This is a fruitage of belief in evolution.