Though Charles Darwin knew his evolutionary conception ultimately meant that man was not created in the spiritual image of the living God but was rather a soulless, mindless evolved ape, he nevertheless preferred not to involve himself in the controversies engendered by the publication of his Origin of Species in 1859. Not so Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895) who enthusiastically, â€œâ€¦leapt to the fray, even dubbing himself â€˜Darwinâ€™s bulldogâ€™. Darwin called him, â€˜My good and kind agent for the propagation of the Gospelâ€”i.e. the devilâ€™s Gospel.â€ (Darwinâ€™s bulldogâ€”Thomas H. Huxley, Grigg, creation.com, Oct. 14, 2008)
When applied to the Bible, Darwinâ€™s evolutionary conception twists, distorts and inverts the Revealed Word of God, hence the devilâ€™s gospel is a very fitting description with which the respected traditionalist metaphysician Rene Guenon (1886-1951) would agree.
In his brilliant critical analysis of Theosophy and Spiritism entitled, "The Spiritist Fallacy" Guenon writes that in early Theosophist and spiritist (mediums/channelers) circles use of the word 'progress' or 'progressivist' preceded the use of the word 'evolution.' The roots of Theosophy, hence of evolution, stretch back to the ancient Upanishads of India and to ancient Greece and Babylonia, and in its modern version, progress and/or evolution describes the progress (transmigration) of life and/or soul as it inhabits or incarnates within a succession of bodies of different kinds of beings over the course of thousands or even millions and billions of years.
Guenon defines progress, progressivism, and evolution as satanic, thus agreeing in principle that the devilâ€™s gospel is a very fitting description of Darwin's conception. But where the egotistic Huxley sneered and mocked at Christian compromisers, Guenon describes Huxley and all adherents of evolutionary thinking--including Christian compromisers--- as unconscious Satanists because for the most part their hubris and ignorance blind them to the extreme dangers of the "infernal fire" they play with:
"..every theory that notably disfigures the Divinity should in some measure be regarded as satanic; and conceptions of a limited God and of a God who evolves should here be placed in the front rank...." Thus "evolutionism" in general and Modernist "conceptions" in particular are satanic. The 'immanentist' Christ-force of the Liberal Church is satanic because it "openly submits the Divinity to becoming." (ibid, p. 257)
Eventually the word evolution became preferred, especially among empirical realists, positivists and materialists like Karl Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Freud because it had a more 'scientific' allure. Guenon wrote:
"This kind of 'verbalism'...provides the illusion of thought for those incapable of really thinking..." (ibid, p. 231)
In other words, early adherents of Darwin's conception knew from the start that evolution and transmigration of soul are one and the same but they chose to deceive gullible sheep by redefining it as empirical science. Darwinism has nothing to do with empirical, or observational science.
So just what is Darwinism?
According to occult expert Kurt Koch (1913-1987), a noted German theologian, minister, and evangelist who pastored and counciled those suffering from the occult in its various forms throughout the world in 65 countries and 5 continents, Darwinism is a form of occult movement. In his book, "Occult ABCs" Koch calls Darwinism "Descent From the Ape" and comments:
"As long as there are people who despise the Bible, the legend of the ape will not die out....The tragedy is that thousands of believing parents must send their children to school to be taught by such teachers and theologians (evolutionary theists). If you absolutely insist on coming from the ape, rejoice in your ancestors, and go to your relatives in the jungle and eat bananas." (p. 54)
That the Devil's Gospel and evolutionary Christianity share a common spiritual genus is clearly seen by the fact that when applied to the Bible, beginning with the Genesis account of creation, evolution disfigures, distorts, and inverts God's Revealed Word thereby compromising the Biblesâ€™ main theme: manâ€™s need of redemption.
For example, the Genesis account speaks of manâ€™s relationship with the living God starting at the pinnacle of Creation week in the Garden of Eden. It teaches that Adam and Eve were created in the spiritual image of the living God and then fell, as Godâ€™s Word and His prophetsâ€“who long ago declared the fall of man and his need for a Saviorâ€”declared. But the Devil's Gospel and evolutionary Christianity in particular turn the Genesis account upside-down and teach that man started at the bottom and evolved his way to the top via the old chemical (matter)-to-amoeba-to-fish-to-dinosaur-to-ape-to-man story that originated in ancient Egypt and is known today as macroevolution. This twisting, distorting, and inversion of God's creation and Revelation to man is satanic.
For the living God there was and is no step-by-step evolutionary process. God Who exists in eternity, outside of time, created ex nihilo---from nothing. In his best-selling book, "Hostage to the Devil," Malachi Martin explains:
"It was one decision englobing spirits...and God-made man. And it was a decision not made at any given point in time but in eternity." (p. 414)
Dr. R. Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary agrees that evolutionary thinking twists, distorts and inverts the Bible:
"...the injury to Christian convictions is incalculable. At the very least, the acceptance of evolutionary theory requires that the first two chapters of Genesis be read merely as a literary rendering that offers no historical data. But, of course, the injury does not end there. If evolution is true, then the entire narrative of the Bible has to be revised and reinterpreted. The evolutionary account is not only incompatible with any historical affirmation of Genesis, but it is also incompatible with the claim that all humanity is descended from Adam and the claim that in Adam all humanity fell into sin and guilt. The Bibleâ€™s account of the Fall and its consequences is utterly incompatible with evolutionary theory. The third chapter of Genesis is as problematic for evolutionary theory as the first two." (Creation vs. Evolution â€” The New Shape of the Debate, AlbertMohler.com, February 1, 2011)
Naturalistic evolutionists emphatically deny the existence not only of a living God Who exists outside of time but of man's mind, will, and soul. They are now pressing their case in both pseudo-moralistic and morally-bankrupt intellectual terms. Increasingly, said Mohler, they are arguing that a refusal to accept evolution represents a thought crime of sorts.
Contemporary proponents of theistic evolution and evolutionary Christianity (i.e., BioLogos) are now engaged in the public rejection of biblical inerrancy,
"...with some calling the affirmation of the Bibleâ€™s inerrancy as an intellectual disaster and â€œintellectual cul-de-sac.â€ Others now openly assert that we must forfeit belief in an historical Adam, an historical Fall, and a universal Flood." (ibid, Mohler)
If Darwin's bulldog, Thomas Huxley, came back today, he would doubtless receive as much if not more unholy pleasure from pouring his acidic contempt and bile upon contemporary Christian compromisers as he did from excoriating compromisers of his own day:
â€œWhen Jesus spoke, as of a matter of fact, that â€œthe Flood came and destroyed them all,â€ did he believe that the Deluge really took place, or not? It seems to me that, as the narrative mentions Noahâ€™s wife, and his sonsâ€™ wives, there is good scriptural warranty for the statement that the antediluvians married and were given in marriage; and I should have thought that their eating and drinking might be assumed by the firmest believer in the literal truth of the story. Moreover, I venture to ask what sort of value, as an illustration of Godâ€™s methods of dealing with sin, has an account of an event that never happened? If no Flood swept the careless people away, how is the warning of more worth than the cry of â€œWolfâ€ when there is no wolf? If Jonahâ€™s three daysâ€™ residence in the whale is not an â€œadmitted reality,â€ how could it â€œwarrant beliefâ€ in the â€œcoming resurrection?â€ â€¦ Suppose that a Conservative orator warns his hearers to beware of great political and social changes, lest they end, as in France, in the domination of a Robespierre; what becomes, not only of his argument, but of his veracity, if he, personally, does not believe that Robespierre existed and did the deeds attributed to him?â€ (Why Darwin's Bulldog Huxley Felt Contempt for Evolutionary Christians http://patriotsandliberty.com/?p=18077 )
Dr. Mohler argues that there can be no question but that the authority of the Bible and the truthfulness of the Gospel are now clearly at stake:
" The New Testament clearly establishes the Gospel of Jesus Christ upon the foundation of the Bibleâ€™s account of creation. If there was no historical Adam and no historical Fall, the Gospel is no longer understood in biblical terms. This is the new shape of the debate over evolution. We now face the undeniable truth that the most basic and fundamental questions of biblical authority and gospel. Are you ready for this debate? (Mohler)
Will you stand your ground on Truth or capitulate to those who absolutely insist on coming from apes?