“The world around you is full of amazing things. . . . These things, or others . . . may lead you to ask a question. A question is the beginning of science. Science is the knowledge obtained by observing the natural world in order to discover facts and to formulate laws and principles that can be verified or tested” (Holt 4). Science is the pursuit of knowledge, but only of a particular kind. It deals specifically with the natural world, and cannot cross over to another realm. As defined above, science makes observations on the natural world. However, the boundaries of science have seemingly disintegrated over the past century. Barely two pages later, the question “Why Ask Questions?” is given as a title to the next topic. The same textbook answers: “Although scientists cannot answer every question immediately, they do find some interesting answers” (Holt 6). Now if one is to accept science as a discerner of truth, they must also acknowledge the fallacious philosophy: that science can answer every question, which imasquerades under a single theory.

Evolution, as known today, belongs not even to the wisdom of science, but to the philosophical branch of materialism called scientism, which in itself is not a very successful standing. To this effect Keith Ward, in his book Is Religion Dangerous?, states: “Looking around my philosopher colleagues in Britain, virtually all of whom I know at least from their published work, I would say that very few of them are materialists… the point is that religious views are underpinned by highly sophisticated philosophical arguments” (Ward 91). This materialistic philosophy is humorously self-defeating, as portrayed by the definition given in an article by David Menton: “Scientism is the belief that the assumptions, methods and even the speculations of science are equally appropriate, if not essential, for the proper understanding of all knowledge including religion. Scientism explicitly denies both the special revelation of truth and the existence of a sovereign, supernatural and eternal being” (Menton). Simply put: scientism asserts that only scientific statements are significant, which in itself is not a scientific statement (but a philosophical one), and thus, contradicts itself. Menton continues: “Scientism teaches that all things have their being and origin in the intrinsic properties of nature. It follows that if gods were to exist, they too would only be a part and product of nature. The social and philosophical implications of Scientism for man are embodied in the religion of Secular Humanism” (Menton). As expected, these implications have been proven devastating to the human condition and will continue to do so.

In truth, there exists a great multitude of philosophies which undermine the sanctity of life, but none so prevalent. Philip Johnson defines the doctrine of philosophical naturalism as:

. . . so deeply ingrained in the thinking of many educated people today, including theologians, that they find it difficult to imagine any other way of looking at things. To such people Darwinism seems so logically appealing that only a modest amount of confirming evidence is needed to prove the whole system, and so the evidence of something like the peppered-moth example seems virtually conclusive. (Johnson)

But that is only the beginning. Scientism has installed in itself a backdoor; a method to dodge any deficiency in knowledge it may experience. Johnson continues on this point: “Even if they do develop doubts about whether such modest forces can account for large-scale change, their naturalism is undisturbed. Since there is nothing outside of nature, and since something must have produced all the kinds of organisms that exist, a satisfactory naturalistic mechanism must be awaiting discovery” (Johnson). Such is the danger behind statements which insinuate that science will eventually have an answer for everything. But Darwinism has gone beyond even this indoctrination and has spread through all aspects of life as if the majority consciously accepted scientism. In fact, Daniel Dennett, author of Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, likens evolution to an “universal acid: it eats through just about every traditional concept, and leaves in its wake a revolutionized world-view, with most of the old landmarks still recognizable, but transformed in fundamental ways” (Dennett 82).

Despite these advocates, perhaps Darwin did not plan for his theory to go so far. However, he did mention in his Recapitulation and Conclusion: “When the views entertained in this volume on the origin of species, or when analogous views are generally admitted, we can dimly foresee that there will be a considerable revolution in natural history” (Darwin 555). Darwin not only thought that his discovery would spur science onto new grounds, but would introduce another branch entirely.

The other and more general departments of natural history will rise greatly in interest. The terms used by naturalists of affinity, relationship, community of type, paternity, morphology, adaptive characters, rudimentary and aborted organs, &c., will cease to be metaphorical, and will have a plain signification. When we no longer look at an organic being as a savage looks at a ship, as at something wholly beyond his comprehension; when we regard every production of nature as one which has had a history; when we contemplate every complex structure and instinct as the summing up of many contrivances, each useful to the possessor, nearly in the same way as when we look at any great mechanical invention as the summing up of the labour, the experience, the reason, and even the blunders of numerous workmen; when we thus view each organic being, how far more interesting, I speak from experience, will the study of natural history become! (Darwin 557)

However, in his introduction to The Descent of Man scientism in Darwin’s works becomes the most prevalent “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science” (Darwin #). Here he clearly states his view that those who believe an answer will not be given by science are ignorant. Within the same work, his theory begins spiraling into domains outside of the scientific method.

Here Darwin’s position on the matter leans closer to contemporary atheistic evolutionists than the agnostic he claims to be:

There is no evidence that man was aboriginally endowed with the ennobling belief in the existence of an Omnipotent God. On the contrary there is ample evidence, derived not from hasty travellers, but from men who have long resided with savages, that numerous races have existed, and still exist, who have no idea of one or more gods, and who have no words in their languages to express such an idea. The question is of course wholly distinct from that higher one, whether there exists a Creator and Ruler of the universe; and this has been answered in the affirmative by some of the highest intellects that have ever existed. . . . The belief in God has often been advanced as not only the greatest, but the most complete of all the distinctions between man and the lower animals. It is however impossible, as we have seen, to maintain that this belief is innate or instinctive in man. On the other hand a belief in all-pervading spiritual agencies seems to be universal; and apparently follows from a considerable advance in man’s reason, and from a still greater advance in his faculties of imagination, curiosity and wonder. I am aware that the assumed instinctive belief in God has been used by many persons as an argument for His existence. But this is a rash argument, as we should thus be compelled to believe in the existence of many cruel and malignant spirits, only a little more powerful than man; for the belief in them is far more general than in a beneficent Deity. The idea of a universal and beneficent Creator does not seem to arise in the mind of man, until he has been elevated by long-continued culture. (Darwin 96/662)

Darwin explains that the concept of God spawns directly from the evolutionary heritage of humans. His evidence for this is taken from those who have lived by ‘savages’ and have experienced their culture. His implication that these people are of less evolutionary value because of their lack of religion is evident. It is no wonder future evolutionists would continue to say that atheism is the next step from theism. Some go as far as to say that “Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist” (Dawkins 6). In fact, the same man has gone far enough to say in an interview: “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that)” (Dawkins).

Even the reductionist principles seen in modern evolutionism seem to have emerged in Darwin’s autobiography:

The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection had been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows. Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws. (Darwin 87)

Already the evidences of God are being dismantled, despite Darwin not even knowing that which his mechanism acts upon. It seems that Darwin’s statement was wholly correct: “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.” Sigmund Freud also proves Darwin’s declaration to be accurate: “Since the assumption of the existence of instinct is mainly based on theoretical grounds, we must also admit that it is not entirely proof against theoretical objections. But this is how things appear to us now, in the present state of our knowledge; future research and reflection will no doubt bring further light which will decide the matter” (Witt 354). The concept of a Creator has been greatly undermined by such reduction. In fact, it led Julian Huxely, in his book Religion without Revelation, to remark:

The supernatural is being swept out of the universe in the flood of new knowledge of what is natural. It will soon be as impossible for an intelligent, educated man or woman to believe in a god as it is now to believe the earth is flat, that flies can be spontaneously generated . . . or that death is always due to witchcraft. . . . The god hypothesis is no longer of any pragmatic value for the interpretation or comprehension of nature, and indeed often stands in the way of better and truer interpretation. Operationally, God is beginning to resemble not a ruler but the last fading smile of a cosmic Cheshire cat. (Huxley 58)

Indeed, if more and more ‘ground’ is ‘given’ to the atheistic evolutionists, what is to stop them from triumphantly declaring victory over the battle-worn and blood-soaked image of God? How much more can God’s power be limited until He recedes past the point of existence? Or has that point come already? In a debate with William Craig, Atheist Frank Zindler had this to say about the dilemma that evolution places on Christianity:

The most devastating thing though that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a saviour. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed. I think that evolution is absolutely the death knell of Christianity. (Zindler)

To paraphrase American Atheist Magazine: “There is no need for salvation, because there is no Adam, nor original sin” (Bahr).

Not only does Darwin inspire this brand of atheism, but continues to sow the seeds of moral relativism and racism. In fact, in an earlier quote, Darwin had already branded several ‘less evolved’ groups of humans ‘savages’. In an article entitled “Charles Darwin”, Donald deMarco and Benjamin Wiker explain the evolution of not only the morality of man, but also the conscience itself:

For Darwin, in contrast to the natural law account, the “moral faculties of man” were not original and inherent, but evolved from “social qualities”, and these “social qualities” were likewise not original but acquired “through natural selection, aided by inherited habit”. Just as life came from the nonliving, so also the moral came from the nonmoral. Right from the beginning, then, Darwin rejected the natural law argument, found in Stoicism and Christianity, that human beings were moral by nature. Instead, he assumed that human beings were naturally asocial and amoral, and only became social and moral historically. (DeMarco)

Similarly to his concept of the creation of God through evolutionary mechanisms, Darwin also purports that social and moral development began at a stage where man had no specific qualities of each. Likewise, Sigmund Freud believes that since there is this evolution of ‘good’ values, there also must be that of evil. He makes this obvious in Civilization and Its Discontents: “For “little children do not like it” when there is talk of the inborn human inclination to “badness,” to aggressiveness and destructiveness, and so to cruelty as well” (Witt 354).

To be more exact, for Darwin, we first had to become social before we could become moral. How, then, did we become social? “In order that primeval men, or the ape-like progenitors of man, should have become social,” Darwin reasoned, “they must have acquired the same instinctive feelings which impel other animals to live in a body.” These instincts were not peculiar to human beings or to their “progenitors”, nor were these instincts natural in the sense of being built in from the beginning. The “social instincts” of man (as of other social animals) were the result of variations in the individual bringing some benefit for survival. Those born with stronger social instincts were bound together into stronger, more coherent, and more effective tribes. Those born with little or no social instinct were eliminated in the struggle for survival. “Selfish and contentious people will not cohere, and without coherence nothing can be effected.” Above and beyond the social instincts, particular “moral” instincts (such as fidelity and courage) were selected because they benefited the tribe as a whole, causing it to “spread and be victorious over other tribes” in the “never-ceasing wars of savages”. (DeMarco)

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, in their The Communist Manifesto, provide the perfect example of evolving social instincts:

The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones.

Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other — bourgeoisie and proletariat.

From the serfs of the Middle Ages sprang the chartered burghers of the earliest towns. From these burgesses the first elements of the bourgeoisie were developed. (Witt 289)

After each struggle, Marx and Engels elucidate, new classes emerge from the ashes to continue their evolution of social instincts. Freud uses an extremely similar language to Darwin. He also speaks of emotions and values as ‘instincts’, or combinations of such, as if nothing else but this social evolution could have created them. “I know that in sadism and masochism we have always seen before us manifestations of the destructive instinct (directed outwards and inwards), strongly alloyed with erotism; but I can no longer understand how we can have overlooked the ubiquity of nonerotic aggressivity and destructiveness and can have failed to give it its due place in our interpretation of life” (Witt 354). In fact, much like Darwin, he uses these instincts as proof against God:

God has made them [children] in the image of His own perfection; nobody wants to be reminded how hard it is to reconcile the undeniable existence of evil—despite the protestation of Christian Science—with His all-powerfulness or His all-goodness. The Devil would be the best way out as an excuse for God; in that way he would be playing the same part as an agent of economic discharge as the Jew does in the world of the Aryan ideal. But even so, one can hold God responsible for the existence of the wickedness which the Devil embodies. In view of these difficulties, each of us will be well advised, on some suitable occasion, to make a low bow to the deeply moral nature of mankind; it will help us to be generally popular and much will be forgiven us for it. (Witt 354)

DeMarco and Wiker continue:

As with the other animals, there is no rest from such struggle. In the course of time each tribe “would, judging from all past history, be in its turn overcome by some other and still more highly endowed tribe.” Through this natural battle of tribe against tribe, “the social and moral qualities would tend slowly to advance and be diffused throughout the world”. Significantly, the evolutionary development of the moral qualities that human beings happen to have depended essentially upon a long history of incessant conflict among different tribes for inadequate resources; thus, the evolutionary “progress” of morality could not have occurred “had not the rate of increase [of the populations in tribes] been rapid, and the consequent struggle for existence [been] severe to an extreme degree”. (deMarco)

Freud speaks similarly of this struggle, using his own terms:

I may now add that civilization is a process in the service of Eros, who purpose is to combine single human individuals, and after that families, then races, peoples, and nations, into one great unity, the unity of mankind. Why this has to happen, we do not know; the work of Eros is precisely this. These collections of men are to be libidinally bound to one another. Necessity alone, the advantages of work in common, will not hold them together. But man’s natural aggressive instinct, the hostility of each against all and of all against each, opposes this programme of civilization. This aggressive instinct is the derivative and the main representation of the death instinct which we have found alongside of Eros and which shares world-domination with it. And now, I think, the meaning of the evolution of civilization is no longer obscure to us. It must present the struggle between Eros and Death, between the instinct of life and the instinct of destruction, as it works itself out in the human species. This struggle is what all life essentially consists of, and the evolution of civilization may therefore be simply described as the struggle for life of the human species. And it is this battle of the giants that our nurse-maids try to appease with their lullaby about Heaven. (Witt 355)

But Darwin does not end there. Instead he continues to attempt a definition of another aspect of human uniqueness through evolutionary heritage:
 

What we call “conscience” was also the result of natural selection. Darwin described it as a “feeling of dissatisfaction which invariably results … from any unsatisfied instinct”. Since the “ever-enduring social instincts” were more primitive and hence stronger than instincts developed later, the social instincts were the sources of our feelings of unease, when some action of ours violated them. Rather than being a kind of divine light guiding our choices, conscience was merely an evolutionary reminder of a more deeply rooted, earlier instinct.
  Darwin’s evolutionary account of morality provided a seemingly scientific foundation for moral relativism. (deMarco)

And many took to this relativism. Such is why teleology is the anathema of evolution. Atheistic Darwinism states that there is no purpose to life, the universe and everything. This allows for the opportunity for everyone to make up their own meanings of life. Carl Sagan made his: “We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers” (Sagan 193). Menton then points out: “As a further extension of this “boot strap” theology Sagan maintains that man has evolved by mere chance to the point where he can now take over and direct his own evolution [p. 320]. With this, the ultimate goal of Scientism and Secular Humanism is finally achieved; man becomes his own creator and thus “god”” (Menton). Scott Huse agrees with Menton in the fact that evolution has created a need for the philosophy of secular humanism to fill humans’ moral parameters:

Our current social and moral problems are largely a result of the humanistic philosophy that has been spawned by evolutionary thinking. This so-called new morality we are presently witnessing is actually no morality, the inevitable result of the atheistic, evolutionary philosophy. Indeed, there are virtually no areas of thought and life today which have remained impervious to the effects of this popular viewpoint. (Huse 11)

He blames the problems today on evolution, but offers no historical evidence to back his claim. Perhaps because none is required. Glancing back upon some of the most devastating times, it is lucidly recognized that all have begun from the reductionist principles that Darwinism has spread. Not only moral relativism, but racism, and on the level of mass genocide. Donald deMarco and Benjamin Wiker again explain Darwin’s views, this time pertaining to the races:

The inevitability of racial extermination was derived directly from Darwin’s evolutionary arguments in the Origin (the full title of which was The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life). The different races or varieties of anything created by natural selection were necessarily and beneficially locked in the severest struggle for survival precisely because of their very similarity. As Darwin argued in the Origin,

the forms which stand in closest competition with those undergoing modification and improvement will naturally suffer most. And … it is the most closely-allied forms, — varieties of the same species, and species of the same genus or of related genera, — which, from having nearly the same structure, constitution, and habits, generally come into the severest competition with each other; consequently, each new variety of species, during the progress of its formation, will generally press hardest on its nearest kindred, and tend to exterminate them.

. . .

Of course, natural selection works not only between races, but also among individuals within races. Issuing a complaint that would become standard among later eugenicists, Darwin maintained that savage man has an advantage over civilized man. In savage man, the intellectual and moral qualities are not as developed, but that also means that savages enjoy the direct “benefits” of natural selection without softening by sympathy. “With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health.” (deMarco)

Marx and Engels establish this fact very early on in The Communist Manifesto, only theirs deals not with races, but instead, classes:

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes. (Witt 289)

The struggle for power between these two factions is identical to the one that Darwin portrays between the ‘savages’ and the ‘civilized’. In fact it also resembles greatly Freud’s concept of Eros against Death:

This organization of the proletarians into a class, and, consequently, into a political party, is continually being upset again by the competition between the workers themselves. But it ever rises up again, stronger, firmer, mightier. It compels legislative recognition of particular interests of the workers, by taking advantage of the divisions among the bourgeoisie itself. Thus, the Ten-Hours Bill in England was carried.

Altogether, collisions between the classes of the old society further in many ways the course of development of the proletariat. The bourgeoisie finds itself involved in a constant battle. At first with the aristocracy; later on, with those portions of the bourgeoisie itself, whose interests have become antagonistic to the progress of industry; at all time with the bourgeoisie of foreign countries. In all these battles, it sees itself compelled to appeal to the proletariat, to ask for help, and thus to drag it into the political arena. The bourgeoisie itself, therefore, supplies the proletariat with its own elements of political and general education, in other words, it furnishes the proletariat with weapons for fighting the bourgeoisie. (Witt 292)

Darwin looks ahead to the future and declares that eventually the ‘civilized man’ will eradicate the ‘savages’. This scenario plays out much like Marx’s own:

This argument translated directly to his assessment of the evolutionary history of human races and the necessary and beneficial extinction of the least “Favoured Races”:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes [that is, the ones which look most like the savages in structure] … will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope … the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

Whatever antagonism Darwin had against slavery — which was indeed considerable, given his dissenter upbringing — these too are his words. Whatever grandiose statements he made on behalf of the beauty of moral sympathy, these too are his words. And these words could not be more clear. According to the laws of natural selection, the European race will emerge as the distinct species homo sapiens, and all the transitional forms — the gorilla, the chimpanzee, the Negro, and the Australian Aborigine — will be extinguished in the struggle. (deMarco)

Darwin’s statements resemble those made by the bringers of perhaps the greatest tragedy in history. That the greater race will eventually conquer the less evolved, the ‘transitional forms’.

In Nazi Germany more than anywhere else the roots of evolution were abundant. Arthur Keith, the famed British evolutionist had this to say:

If war be the progeny of evolution—and I am convinced that it is—then evolution has “gone mad”, reaching such a height of ferocity as must frustrate its proper role in the world of life—which is the advancement of her competing “units”, these being tribes, nations, or races of mankind. There is no way of getting rid of war save one, and that is to rid human nature of the sanctions imposed on it by the law of evolution. Can man … render the law of evolution null and void? … I have discovered no way that is at once possible and practicable. “There is no escape from human nature.” Because Germany has drunk the vat of evolution to its last dregs, and in her evolutionary debauch has plunged Europe into a bath of blood, that is no proof that the law of evolution is evil. A law which brought man out of the jungle and made him king of beasts cannot be altogether bad. (Keith 105)

And it is clear where Hitler’s concepts on social (and biological) evolution originated. Adnan Oktar explains:

Hitler’s most important idea-moulder, the racist German historian Heinrich von Treitschke, was strongly affected by Darwin’s theory of evolution and based his racist views on Darwinism. He used to say, “Nations can only develop by violent competition like Darwin’s survival of the fittest,” and declared that this meant lasting and inevitable war. His view was that, “Conquering by the sword is a way of bringing civilisation to barbarism and knowledge to ignorance.” He thought: “The yellow races have no understanding of artistic ability and political freedom. It is the destiny of the black races to serve the whites and to be the target of the whites’ loathing for all eternity…” (Oktar)

The creatures which have emerged from evolution are shunned in society, yet few and far between are the attempts to stop the conception of a new fiend. The underlying principle for Marxism, Freudian psychology and Nazism is Darwinism. If the principles found in Darwinism seem amiable, then by all means should society continue to uphold them. But if the implications in evolution give birth to evil in its purest form, how can good men stand idle? In the 18th century, evolution was an extremely intelligent answer to the question of life’s complexity. However, nothing new has been brought to aid the survival of evolution as a scientific theory, despite the dogma behind it. Where is the century old evidence? Forsooth, all of such has already been belied, yet it still remains a canon biology. Let not one be fooled, evolution has passed no investigation to date, but exists only in the philosophy that so many hope for. “We know it as the perception and conviction of our minds; otherwise the belief would not endure with such stability, it would not be strengthened by lapse of time, nor could it have become fixed as the ages and generations of men advanced. We see that length of time has made other beliefs, that were false and groundless, decay” (Cicero). May the same be said of scientism.

References:

Bahr, Alfred “Of Man and His Soul.” American Atheist (2005). 6 Apr. 2008. 
    <http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-4634386/Of-man-and-his-soul.html>.
Cicero, Marcus T. De Natura Deorum. Ed. C. D. Yonge. Rome, Italy: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1877. 2 Feb 07
    <http://thriceholy.net/Texts/Cicero.html>.
Darwin, Charles. The Descent of Man. New York: Penguin Classics, 2004.
Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. New York: Gramercy; New edition, 1995.
Dawkins, Richard Personal Interview Sep 2001.
Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker. New York: W. W. Norton; reissue edition, 1996.
deMarco, Donald Charles Darwin. 2004. Online. 6 Apr 2008.
    <http://catholiceducation.org/articles/civilization/cc0265.htm>.
Dennett, Daniel C. Darwin’s Dangerous Idea. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996.
Holt., and Rinehart. Integrated Science. Austin: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 2008.
Huxley, Julian. Religion Without Revelation. New York: The New American Library, 1958.
Johnson, Phillip E. Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism. 1 Feb 1990. Online. 6 Apr 2008.
    <http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/pjdogma1.htm>.
Keith, Arthur. Evolution and Ethics. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1946.
Menton, David N. Carl Sagan: Prophet of Scientism. 1991. Online. 6 Apr 2008.
    <http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/sagan.htm>.
Oktar, Adnan The Terrible Alliance Between Darwin And Fascism. Online. 6 Apr 2008.
    <http://www.unionoffaiths.com/article5_6.html>.
Ward, Keith. Is Religion Dangerous?. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2007.
Witt, Mary Ann F., and Charlotte V. Brown. The Humanities. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005.
Zindler, Frank “Debate with William Craig.” Atheism vs. Christianity. Zondervan. 1996.

Posted: 04|11|08 at 1:00 am. Filed under: Aaron's Posts, Thoughts.
Comment | Trackback