Rational Faith
Evolution: Fact or Newspeak?








The language of evolution has evolved into the 1984 Language of Newspeak.

In George Orwell's dystopian novel "1984" a totalitarian government - represented by an ever watching Big Brother tries to control everything about life - including what you think and believe. Specially crafted tools were created to bring about the desired belief and thought outcomes. The government-made language Newspeak is used to manipulate what you think and the government-endorsed Doublethink is used to manipulate what you believe. Newspeak is epitomized by the slogans:


Clearly, one of the purposes of Newspeak is to redefine the plain meaning of a word and substitute another, often opposite meaning. Thus even during war, the government could claim they were at peace. As we'll see this tactic has been subtly  adapted to evolutionary speak to the same end: to manipulate what you believe.

Doublethink is epitomized by the Newspeak word blackwhite a word that incorporates both concepts:

"Doublethink is basically the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them."[2]

To disagree with Big Brother and claim any of their nonsense was not true would be committing a "thoughtcrime," "a Newspeak term for the 'essential crime that contained all others in itself.' "[3]

As I watched an episode of the science documentary series How the Universe Works I was struck by how much like the tactics of Big Brother in 1984 are the tactics secular scientists have adopted to try to convince people that the patently false theory of evolution is true.

You think I exaggerate? Consider the evidence. Let's start with the episode's title:  "The Universe's Greatest Miracle."  This is a masterpiece of Doublethink. Ask a secular  scientist if miracles are possible and he'll tell you no, or course not. Ask if the universe is capable of providing the intelligence and purposeful intent required of a miracle. Again no. To be clear regarding purpose, the late atheist, evolutionist, and former Cornell University professor Will Provine would have told you:

Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us, loud and clear, and I must say that these are basically Darwin’s views: there are no gods, no purposive forces of any kind.[4]

So why are the writers of a secular science documentary using the word  "miracle" - a suspension or superseding of the laws of physics (which they deny) -  performed as an act of discretion by a deity (which they also deny) - to describe what happens as they attempt to explain the origin of life? Is it merely poetic? To which I ask, why use incorrect and misleading poetry when trying to explain the laws of biology and physics? Or could it be that they want to attribute supernatural powers (which they don't believe in) to help personify and empower an otherwise obviously lifeless universe? Could it be they want to redirect what they know people understand intuitively in their hearts - that God created all life - and attribute that wonder to a lifeless process? Could it be they want the wonder and amazement due the divine being redirected to the cold, lifeless universe - effectively  as the apostle Paul says "exchanging the truth of God for a lie" and praising a created thing instead of the creator who is "forever praised?" (Rom 1.25)

And the title is just the opening salvo. Since I cannot cover here all the Orwellian tactics let me jump to a masterpiece of Newspeak which occurs about 3/4 of the way through the episode when they summarize the "landmarks of evolution" :

If we think of Landmarks in evolution there aren't very many.

I would think of just three:
- The origin of life
- The rise of complex life associated with oxygen
- the rise of intelligence

That's it. To me, that's the story of life on earth.[5]
Chris McKay, Astrobiologist

These 3 claims are another masterpiece of Newspeak, attributing what are clearly acts of power and intelligence to a lifeless, powerless, purposeless, unintelligent process. Orwell himself couldn't have done better. Consider how far from the truth it is for evolutionists to claim evolution is responsible for these events:

1. The origin of life
Evolutionists like astrobiologist Chris McKay credit evolution for the origin of  life. But the truth of the matter is Darwin's initial theory never made such claims nor even addressed the issue of the origin of life.  Darwin's claims were made based on having already existing, reproducing creatures. But even the current Neo-Darwinian[6] variation of Darwin's classic theory of evolution has no mechanism to create life and thus evolutionary biologists have no idea how life started. They've posited the primordial soup based on Stanley Miller's discredited experiment,[7]  crystals[8] (for their self replicating features) and alkaline thermal vents[9] (for their protection from ultraviolet rays while still providing a warm climate) but none of  these have ever been shown to be the catalyst for the origin of life. Crediting the purposeless, lifeless evolutionary process for the origin of life is quite obviously Newspeak.

2. The Rise of Complex Life
Since evolutionists believe life started with a single replicating cell, evolutionary theory predicts a slow and steady rise in the number and complexity of living creatures.  The Cambrian explosion is the sudden appearance of many and varied complex creatures deposited in the fossil record in a time period that secular scientists estimate as 500 million years ago[10]. Since Darwinism requires a slow and steady increase, evolutionists have no explanation for this event. Indeed, Darwin himself who was aware of the problem confessed:

"If my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, and during these periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures. To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earlier periods prior to the Cambrian, I can give no satisfactory answer."[11]
Charles Darwin

At least Darwin recognized the problem and acknowledged it. This new breed of scientists is trying to give evolution credit for an event that is impossible under any evolutionary scenario. Giving any credit to evolution for the Cambrian explosion is clearly Newspeak.

3. The Rise of Intelligence
Astrobiologist Chris McKay states:

"The key difference between life and just simple chemistry is the information content. Using computer words, it's not the hardware that's so amazing, it's the software."[12]

In describing the difference between life and "simple chemistry" Mckay points out the Achilles heel in the evolutionary story telling: the lack of an origin for the information found in biological systems. Put another way, where does the information in DNA and other biological systems come from? Information does not arise from mindless purposeless processes. Thus evolution - being a mindless, purposeless process - has no answer to this question.

Philosopher of science Stephen Meyer, who has done extensive research in the matter of the origin of information in biological systems answers the question this way:

"We also know from broad and repeated experience that intelligent agents can and do produce information-rich systems: we have positive experience-based knowledge of a cause that is sufficient to generate new specified information, namely, intelligence."[13]

Thus in the cause-effect chain, Meyer's research points unequivocally to this simple truth:  the effect of  information in biological systems was caused by a non-material intelligent mind that necessarily existed before any physical life did. (That is as close as scientists who espouse Intelligent Design (ID)  can get to the biblical statement "In the beginning, God..." without leaving the bounds of the scientific discipline.) So to summarize, evolutionists have no idea how life started; yet instead of recognizing evolution as an incomplete theory lacking in many key areas, evolutionists instead - in good newspeak fashion - proclaim evolution a "fact." Further, they deride dissenters who believe the evidence points to an intelligent designer based on what we know from experience, claiming such are deniers and purveyors of a theory based on "ignorance."

Considering the three "landmarks of evolution"  it's clear to see the favored evolutionary propaganda  "evolution is a fact" is really nothing more than a newspeak-like slogan worthy of 1984. And like Big Brother, many secular scientists have become intolerant of any view other than the evolutionary one, and like big brother work to stifle any dissent in the ranks just as Big Brother stifles thoughtcrime. A recent example: the mere mention of the word "creator" in a scientific journal caused outrage among many evolutionists, causing the journal to withdraw the article.[14] In 1984, the penalty for thoughtcrime includes extermination. Thankfully we haven't reached that stage, we're still merely at censorship.


A scene in the Tony Award winning musical play Evita depicts the cut throat realities of politics as practiced by corrupt, control hungry military leaders - the kind you'd expect would run Big Brother. As they eliminate one another (depicted by a game of musical chairs) they sing "The Art of the Possible." The first verse:

One has no rules, is not precise
One rarely acts the same way twice
One spurns no device -
Practicing the art of the possible

After watching this propaganda piece for evolution, these lyrics came to mind. The points of similarity are striking:
- Evolutionary science does not follows the rules of science  There is nothing observable, repeatable, falsifiable or verifiable about molecules to man evolution. (Additionally many adherents don't follow the rules ofdecorum - often calling creationists "liars.") 
- Evolutionists cannot precisely identify any evolutionary process for any of the above three "landmarks" of evolution. 
- And apparently secular scientists will spurn no device - including Newspeak and doublethink and censorship - practicing the art of making evolution not only palatable, but also the only acceptable belief about origins.   

The only defense against such misinformation and misdirection is a clear knowledge and understanding of the truth. That starts at Genesis 1.1. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.


Duane Caldwell | 3/19/2016




1 Wikiquote, "Nineteen Eighty-Four" accessed 3/14/2016 https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four

2 Wikipedia, "Nineteen Eighty-Four" accessed 3/14/2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four

3. Karen Brodeur quotes George Orwell's 1984 for this definition of thoughtcrime in:
Maxnotes - George Orwell's 1984, New Jersey, Research & Education Association, 2011 (Kindle Edition), Loc 99

4.  William Provine, referenced from "Atheism", Ken Ammi, 6/11/2009, http://creation.com/atheism

5. Chris McKay, Astrobiologist, How the Universe Works" episode "The Universe's Greatest Miracle", Science Channel documentary, 2015

6. Neo-Darwinism adds the mechanisms of genetics and mutations to Darwinian theory. Darwin published his Origin of Species in 1859, and the basics of Mendel's genetics weren't published until 1866. Since they were initially rejected by the scientific community, his genetic concepts were not popularized until after his death in the 1900's. So Darwin was unaware of genetics and mutations when he published Origin of Species. All evolutionists today are thus technically Neo-Darwinists since they accept genetics and mutation as part of the evolutionary process.

7. Contrary to the initially claimed success, scientists have since concluded that Miller's experiment didn't correctly represent the conditions of the early earth. Author Jonathan Wells records the current view:

" 'Fox and Dose concluded: 'The inference that Miller's synthesis does not have a geological relevance has become increasingly widespread.'
Since 1977 this view has become a near-consensus among geo-chemists. As Jon Cohen wrote in Science in 1995, many origin-of-life researches now dismiss the 1953 experiment because 'the early atmosphere looked nothing like the Miller-Urey simulation.' "
Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, Washington DC: Regnery Publishing Inc., 2000, p. 21


8. Prominent Darwinist Michael Ruse explains "One popular theory is it might have started off on the backs of crystals." Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed, Documentary, 2008

9. As Narrated in the episode we're considering,

"Alkaline vents are the leading theory for the origin of life."

How the Universe Works" episode "The Universe's Greatest Miracle", Science Channel documentary, 2015

10. This is of course an evolutionary timeline and scenario. Since the universe is less than 10,000 years old the Cambrian explosion obviously didn't happen 500 million years ago. The Cambrian Explosion is a result of Noah's flood (which was about 4,300 years ago) which created fossils on a global scale.

11. Charles Darwin, referenced from  - Darwin's Dilemma, The Mystery of the Cambrian Fossil Record, Illustra Media documentary, 2009

12. Chris McKay, Astrobiologist, How the Universe Works" episode "The Universes Greatest Miracle",  Science Channel documentary, 2015

13. Stephen C.Meyer, Signature in the Cell, New York: Harper Collins, 2009, p. 376

14. Ham, Ken Secularist Intolerance Against Scientific Paper That Briefly Mentions Creator Answers In Genesis, 3/6/2016 https://answersingenesis.org/who-is-god/creator-god/secularist-intolerance-against-scientific-paper-briefly-mentions-creator/