Darwin,Evolution,Fossils,Creation,Christianity,Intermediates Does it matter
Site MapAbout the authorsAdaptation/MutationAnti CreationBecome a ChristianBig bangBooks to buyConclusionsContact usCreationDarwinDating methodsDinosaursEarly manFloodFossilsGeological columnJoe Baker's pagesLinks to other sitesMake a manOrigin of manQuestions & AnswersReferencesScientific quotesSimple cellsTheory of EvolutionVideos to buyWin $ 1 millionYour comments
Img72.pngMost of us would agree that it is wrong to kill a newborn child, but there is tremendous disagreement about whether abortion is acceptable and if so up to what age of the foetus (Johnson, 1995). We agree in general about the sanctity of human life post birth, even if there is disagreement about the sanctity of life prior to birth.

Our belief systems, values and perceptions of life do affect how we behave. Apartheid was instigated by those who believed that white people were superior to black people, and as a consequence untold suffering was caused. During the second World war there were those who believed one race was superior to others with horrendous consequences. In more recent years there has been ethnic cleansing in Countries where one race or people group has considered itself superior to another.

What does this have to do with the Theory of Evolution?


Dangerous beliefs?


Morality and belief. 

Science or Dogma?

Science or Dogma?

The material on this site would argue that the Theory of Evolution is a belief system based on assumptions rather than being based on facts or verifiable scientific evidence (see also Conclusions). Others would argue that Creation is a myth or dogma.

However, repeatable experiments can verify most aspects of science. For example, repeatably experiments can demonstrate that objects are drawn to the Earth by a force that we call gravity, or that blood carries oxygen around the body or that plants need light for photosynthesis or that antibiotics kill some bacteria. We can build on reliable scientific evidence for all sorts of things from designing rockets, to treating malaria, to improving crop yield etc. The Theory of Evolution can not be verified by such means though.  (To top).

Dangerous beliefs?

It could be very dangerous to treat life threatening disease if the scientific understanding of the disease and the cure were wrong and if the safety of the substance to treat the disease had not been established.

During the second world war within Nazi Germany there was a belief that sterilisation and even killing of people with physical or mental abnormalities would rid the human race of defective genetic material. This ideal is generally known as "Eugenics".

Hitler in Mein Kampf said "..our planet has been moving through the spaces of ether for millions and millions of years, uninhabited by men, and at some future date may easily begin to do so again - if men should forget that wherever they have reached a superior level of existence, it was not the result of following the ideas of crazy visionaries but by acknowledging and rigorously observing the iron laws of Nature." Mein Kampf, Ch.XI".

Regardless of whether such action of sterilisaing and killing people with physical or mental abnormalities is morally right or not, it was based on limited and misunderstood science. This therefore gives an example of how dangerous it can be to base our actions on misunderstanding science, even if the morality behind our actions is faultless. However, in this case very few would accept the morality behind sterilisaing and killing people with physical or mental abnormalities as being good.

Is it possible that the Theory of Evolution is a belief system that is so widely accepted around the world that it can for some mold their thinking and redefine their values. Could this be dangerous as the Theory of Evolution is based on assumptions rather than solid science? Could the implementation of practices such as Eugenics be based on a belief in the Theory of evolution as being fact? (To top).

Morality and belief.

Taken literally, the Theory of Evolution implies that:-

1. All life on Earth arose by chance. Abiogenesis followed by random mutations, and hence the existence of God is not required for life as we know it.

2. If all life arose by random chance, then the value of a human life is diminished compared to if that life was in specially created by God.

3. In the absence of God, man as one of the most complex results of evolution should look to no higher authority than himself in matters of morality.

4. If Science has proved Evolution to be true, then those who hold to an supposedly unscientific belief in Creation must be irrational or feeble minded or bigoted or narrow minded or all of these!

5. For those who have a Christian faith, the Bible says God created man in his own image. If man was actually a result of a series of chance mutations and is in the image of God, then this implies that God is a result of a series of chance mutations.

Dr Colin Brown who researched nineteenth-century theology stated that "By far the most potent single factor to undermine belief in the existence of God in modern times is the evolutionary theory of Charles Darwin" (Ankerberg, 1998b).

Below are a couple of examples of how the Theory of Evolution can be so universally accepted that it begins to affect laws concerned with teaching about creation and the freedom to think differently:-

National Academy of Sciences:- "Teaching creation Science would be contrary to the Nation's need for a scientifically literate citizenry and for a large, well-informed pool of Scientific and technical personnel ..... Special Creation is neither a successful theory nor a testable hypothesis for the origin of the universe, the earth, or life thereon (The National Center for Science Education)".

The National Committee for Public Education and religious liberties:- "Teaching Creationism is impermissible as a matter of law, either in lieu of scientific Evolution or as a companion theory (The National Center for Science Education)". (To top).

Eugenics (The material below in blue on Eugenics is taken directly from another website - see links page).

Eugenics involves notions of racial purity, racial superiority, and the heritability of intelligence, virtue, or vice. Although Hitler is its most notorious proponent, eugenic thinking has held a prominent place in Western intellectual history since the 1860's, when Darwin's disciple, Francis Galton, began to put about the idea that the governing classes of England should consciously guide the development of the human genetic heritage. 
 A comprehensive history of early eugenic thinking can be found in The Legacy of Malthus by Allen Chase. And additional background of a historical sort can be found in Aristotle to Zoos by Peter Medawar, himself a member of the English Eugenics Society. Medawar quotes Galton, as follows:

"I do not see why any insolence of caste should prevent the gifted class, when they had the power, from treating their compatriots with all kindness, so long as they maintained celibacy. But if these continued to procreate children inferior in moral, intellectual and physical qualities, it is easy to believe the time may come when such persons would be considered as enemies to the State, and to have forfeited all claims to kindness." (Fraser's Magazine 7 [1873] quoted in Aristotle to Zoos, Peter and Jean Medawar, 1983 p. 87)

By the turn of the 20th century, such ideas were commonplace. Margaret Sanger, a member of both the American Eugenics Society and the English Eugenics Society, is a particularly well-known proponent of eugenics. This is but one of many similar comments by Sanger,

"Those least fit to carry on the race are increasing most rapidly ... Funds that should be used to raise the standard of our civilization are diverted to maintenance of those who should never have been born." (from The Pivot of Civilization quoted in Margaret Sanger. by Elsah Droghin.) (To top).

Abortion (below was written by )

Through sonograms and other technology, we can clearly see that unborn children are members of the human family as well. They reflect our image, and they are created in Gods own image”. (President George W. Bush).

Background: Most Christians have long stood for the life of a human fetus but many believers and unbelievers could not tell you why. In this article, I hope to share my belief that the pro-life position is true, and hopefully to help you form your own reasons.

Sometimes the reasons we believe what we believe about life’s most important issues never get clarified. Our parents have told us that things like abortion is wrong and most of us have just assumed it was wrong but often the reasons why aren't ever spoken of because the inflexibleness of the pro-life position is dogmatically assumed. This leaves many Christians standing for a position they cannot defend when they have met up with a well-versed pro-abortionist.

The great abortion debate pivots on the great question of “What makes you and I a human” and fundamentally “When did we become human”?

Something inside each one of us tells us that the taking of innocent human life is categorically wrong. I have been defending the pro-life position since I was a small fourth grade boy. After talking to many people about the issue I have found that there are four categories that pro-choice advocates use to persuade people into believing that a person is not a person until birth. The Categories are: size, level of development, environment and degree of dependence (making the acronym SLED). Let us discuss each one.
Size: Is size what makes you and I more or less human? If this were true the NBA would rule the world. There are numerous diseases and genetic defects that cause some people to never grow larger than a small toddler and yet they are just as much human and have the right to freedom and life as you and I. Men are generally larger then women but no pro-choice advocate that I have ever met would suggest that women have less right to life. Personhood is not a matter of size, skill, or degree of intelligence. Scales or rulers are no measurement of human value or worth. Intuitively we all understand the truth put so simply by Dr. Sues in Horton Hears a Who: Because, after all, a person is a person no matter how small.

Level of dependence: Advocates of the Pro-abortion position will often say, The unborn embryo or a fetus - is just a blob of tissue, not a baby. Abortion is terminating an unwanted pregnancy, not killing a child. A sunset would be just as special and beautiful if you gave it another poetic name. A person is still a person no matter what you call their stage in development. The word Fetus was once an elegant way of speaking about a very young human being. Fetus is now used as a subhuman connotation. The Pro-choice advocates are very careful not to use the B-word, because anyone who is arguing for the right to kill babies is fighting an uphill battle. Language is not just the expression of minds, but also the molder of minds. Abortionists will say things like: “The termination of a pregnancy is a women's right or: we will just scrape the lining of the uterus or: we will empty the uterus” rather than saying: suck out the baby or: scrape away the child.

Hitler’s command to send the Jews to their death in the camps was couched in the phrase: empty the ghettos. The way that words are used can tremendously influence someone’s receptivity to an idea - even an idea that communicated in straightforward terms would be abhorrent.

The word fetus is used to define the developmental stage of a human being just like the word toddler or adolescence. To be consistent in arguing that level of development has something to do with being human one would have to suggest that a toddler is more human than a newborn and has more right to life. A four-year-old girl does not have a developed reproductive system like a fourteen-year-old girl and yet I have never met a pro-choice advocate that would say that the fourteen year old is more human than the four year old. There are many cases where children are born undeveloped in one form or another and these children are currently regarded as persons in America. So should the not completely developed child yet in the mother’s womb. Full personhood begins at conception and requires full protection.

Environment: In America Abortion is defended under the disguise of freedom or choice because Pro-abortionists want the public to believe that a developing child is part of the mother’s body making it her arbitrary right to have it removed or not, just like her tonsils or her appendix. Scientifically this is as false as a statement can be. Every cell of the mother’s tonsils, appendix, heart, and lungs share the same genetic code. A body part by definition must have the same genetic code as the rest of the body, but the unborn genetic code differs from the mothers. If one body is inside another, but each has its very own unique genetic code, then there is not one person, but two separate people. A Chinese zygote placed inside a Swedish woman will always be Chinese.

John Jefferson Davis stated that: "It is a well-established fact that a genetically distinct human being is brought into existence at conception. Once fertilization takes place, the zygote is its own entity, genetically distinct from both mother and father. The newly conceived individual possesses all the necessary information for a self-directed development and will proceed to grow in the usual human fashion, given time and nourishment. It is simply untrue that the unborn child is merely part of the mother’s body. In addition to being genetically distinct from the time of conception, the unborn possesses separate circulatory, nervous, and endocrine systems".

Our human value has nothing to do with where we are. I have been to three different continents and felt just as human on all three. Where you are has nothing to do with who you are or where your value comes from. An eight-inch journey down the birth canal has absolutely nothing to do with being human. A person is a person no matter where. The mother’s womb needs to be the safest place to live in America, not the most dangerous.
Degree of Dependence: Pro-Abortionists will argue that because a human fetus is dependent on its mother it is therefore not a person. This as well has nothing to do with you or I being human. Many humans are dependent on insulin or prescription drugs for survival, and they are not considered less human. Newborn babies are completely dependent on their mothers for survival, along with toddlers. I still ask my parents for money once in a while and am dependent on them for survival. Thirty-five percent of babies born at five and a half months survive. In the last three decades viability has been reduced from 30 weeks to less than 20 weeks. Viability depends not only on the child but also the technology that we have to save her life. Someday technology may be advanced enough that babies will be able to survive and grow up healthy outside the womb just a few weeks after conception. Can we honestly believe that children at twenty-one weeks were not human thirty years ago but are human now because of improved technology? Or can we believe that the unborn at eighteen weeks, who is just barely nonviable, is not a human being, but ten years from now he will be because hospitals will have better equipment? Technology will constantly change; but babies do not. Surly we cannot believe that the sophistication of life support systems determines the reality or worth of human life!

So what does make us Human? And when do we become human after all? The pro-abortion position defines life pragmatically, meaning that your value is determined by what you can do, what you look like, or where you are. I believe that you and I have been given great value in this universe and it has nothing to do with your personal performance. You and I have value my friend because of the image that we bear. Contrary to the world’s definition the scriptures define human life essentially meaning that your value is determined by who you are. And you my friend are a creature made in the image of God! 
If evolution is true: Then there is no need for a creator then you can define life however you want. You can choose to dispose of life however you want, and since there are no absolutes in the naturalistic paradigm you will in essence never do anything wrong since there is no such thing as right or wrong. If evolution is true we can justify the killing of some for the preservation of others, and natural selection can validate any kind of genocide that you want. If evolution is true you and I have no value to preserve or fight for. If evolution is true The Blood Hound Gang said it right when they stated that: You and me baby, we ain’t nothing but mammals”.


Don’t be deceived: Please don't be deceived, God made you and he loves you. You have value and your life is sacred. Your life and the life of unborn children is more valuable than anything in this entire material world.

You can make a difference. You can change this world and take a stand against this heinous act of infanticide in your own town by talking about the subject with your friends. Remember that Jesus died for our sins and can even forgive those who have murdered their children. If you speak out on abortion make sure to treat your opponents as though they are made in the image of God, love them as God would as you present the truth. Do not compromise, do not give in, and do not surrender until Human life is treated with the dignity that it deserves.

Never underestimate the power of one individual. I believe in you, if you have read this far you definitely have what it takes to help end this great crime. Joe Baker.


"On the ultrasound screen, I could see the heart beating...The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he's going to fall." 

Brenda Pratt Shafer (nurse), 1996, Testimony before Senate Committee).

(To top).


Suggested reading:-

Darwin's Leap of Faith, by John Ankerberg and John Weldon.

Reason in the balance, by P. E. Johnson.

The long war against God, by H. Morris and D. Jeremiah.   



Home Page | Site Map | About the authors | Adaptation/Mutation | Anti Creation | Become a Christian | Big bang | Books to buy | Conclusions | Contact us | Creation | Darwin | Dating methods | Dinosaurs | Early man | Flood | Fossils | Geological column | Joe Bake's pages | Links to other sites | Make a man | Origin of man | Questions & Answers | References | Scientific quotes | Simple cells | Theory of Evolution | Videos to buy | Win $ 1.3 million | Your quotes

Go Daddy Software