by Carl Wieland
First published in:
Creation 14(4):16–19
September–November 1992
Harvard’s renowned Professor Stephen Jay Gould1 is a vigorous anticreationist (and Marxist), and perhaps the most knowledgeable student of the history of evolutionary thought and all things Darwinian.
I’m glad he and I are on the same side about one thing at least — the real meaning of ‘Darwin’s revolution’. And we both agree that it’s a meaning that the vast majority of people in the world today, nearly a century and a half after Darwin, don’t really want to face up to. Gould argues that Darwin’s theory is inherently anti-plan, anti-purpose, anti-meaning (in other words, is pure philosophical materialism). Also, that Darwin himself knew this very well and meant it to be so.
By ‘materialism’ he does not mean the drive to possess more and more material things, but the philosophical belief that matter is the only reality. In this belief system, matter, left to itself, produced all things, including the human brain. This brain then invented the idea of the supernatural, of God, of eternal life, and so forth.
It seems obvious why Christians who wish to compromise with evolution, and especially those who encourage others to do this, would not want to face this as the true meaning of Darwinism. Such ‘theistic evolutionists’ believe they can accept the ‘baby’ of evolution (thus saving face with the world) while throwing out the ‘bathwater’ of materialism. I will not here go into the many reasons why the evolution/long geological ages idea is so corrosive to the biblical Gospel2 (even if evolution could be seen as the plan and purpose of some ‘god’).
My purpose is (like Gould’s, but with a different motive) to make people aware of this very common philosophical blind spot, this refusal to wake up to what Darwin was really on about. Why is it true, as Gould also points out, that even among non-Christians who believe in evolution the vast majority don’t wish to face the utter planlessness of Darwin’s theory? Because they would then no longer be able to console themselves with the feeling that there is some sort of plan or purpose to our existence.3
The usual thing vaguely believed in by this majority of people (at the same time as they accept evolution) is some sort of fuzzy, ethereal, oozing god-essence — more like the Star Wars ‘force be with you’ than the personal God of Scripture. They usually obtain some comfort from a vague belief in at least the possibility of some sort of afterlife, which helps explain the success of recent movies like Flatliners and Ghost.4
Gould appears to deplore these popular notions as unfortunate, illogical and unnecessary cultural hangups. He, of course, starts from the proposition that evolution is true. He knows the real message of Darwin to be that ‘there’s nothing else going on out there — just organisms struggling to pass their genes on to the next generation. That’s it.’ In which case it is time for people to abandon comforting fairytales and wake up to this materialistic implication of evolution.
I also regard such notions (of cosmic purpose in a Darwinian world, of life-after-death without belief in the existence of the holy God of the Bible) as tragic fables, for different reasons. They lead people away from the vital revealed truths of Scripture, the propositional facts communicated by the Creator of the universe. It is also tragic that professing Christians can be deluded into embracing a philosophy (evolution) which is so inherently opposed to the very core of Christianity, and has done so much damage to the church and society.
Climbing the ladder
As evidence for this widespread desire to see purpose and plan in the planlessness of evolution, Professor Gould points to the overwhelming tendency among evolution-believers of all levels of education to see the message of Darwin as progress. Evolution is usually illustrated (even on the cover of some foreign translations of Stephen Gould’s books, much to his chagrin) as a 'ladder of progress' or similar.
Why is this?
Think of this. If the evolutionary scenario is true, then man’s arrival on the scene has come only at the end of an unspeakably long chain of events. For example, it would have taken 99.999% of the history of the universe to get to man. After life appears, two-thirds of its history on earth doesn’t get past bacteria, and for half of the remainder it stays at the one-celled stage! In order to escape the obvious (which is that in such an evolutionary universe, man has no possible significance, and just happened to come along), our culture, he argues, has had to view these vast ages as some sort of preparation period for the eventual appearance of man. This works if the idea of progress is clung to. The universe, then organisms, just got ‘better and better’, till finally we came along.
Puncturing myths
However, there is no hint of this popular mythology of ‘evolution-as-progress’ in Darwin’s ‘grand idea’. Variations happen by chance. Those organisms which happen, by chance, to suit their local environment more effectively and thus have a better chance to pass their genes on to the next generation, are favoured by natural selection. That’s all. In the theory, the giraffe that develops a longer neck is not a better giraffe — just one with a longer neck. Given a certain change in the environment, that long neck can just as easily be a disadvantage.
There is therefore nothing 'inevitable' about the appearance of man, or intelligent self-aware beings, for that matter. I would add to Gould’s comments my opinion that it is this belief in evolution as having been an 'onwards and upwards' force leading to us, and then to greater intelligence as a historical inevitability, which makes many dedicated evolutionists so sure that there must be intelligent aliens out there somewhere.
Radical
But isn’t Gould going a bit far to suggest that Darwin knew how radically anti-God his philosophy was? After all, wasn’t he a kindly, doddery naturalist who just happened to be in the right place at the right time, who was persuaded by what he saw in the Galápagos?
Wrong on all counts. If what follows sounds too revisionist, remember that Gould (an undisputed intellectual giant who has made a very careful study) is not alone in his conclusions, and has had access to unpublished notebooks of Darwin from when Darwin was a young man. It appears that:
1.The myth of the ‘kindly slow-witted naturalist stumbling across evolution’ was fostered by an autobiography Darwin wrote as a deliberately self-effacing moral homily for his children, not intending it to be published. It was a common Victorian thing to do. His notebooks tell a different story, of an ambitious young man who knew he had one of the most radical ideas in the history of thought.
2.Darwin did not get his idea from Galápagos finches — Gould even says ‘he clearly did not know that they were finches’. About the Galápagos tortoises, he says Darwin ‘missed that story also and only reconstructed it later.’ Did he get it from observing the results of animal breeding? Peter Bowler, writing in Nature (vol. 353, October 24, 1991, p. 713) says that ‘many now accept that Darwin’s analogy between artificial and natural selection was a product of hindsight’. So where did the ideas come from?
Just prior to his famous ‘insight’, Darwin spent months studying the economic theories of Adam Smith. In Smith’s extreme free-market view, the struggle of individuals competing for personal gain in an unfettered marketplace (by eliminating inefficient participants, for instance) is supposed to give an ordered, efficient economy. Although nothing is guiding it, it is as if there is an 'invisible guiding hand'. The ‘benefits come as an incidental side-effect of this selfish struggle.’
Of course, it is not hard to see where Darwin applied this idea to nature. The apparent design and order in nature is an incidental side-effect of the selfish struggle to leave more offspring.
3. Why did Darwin wait 20 years before publishing? It was not because of his modesty (another common myth which Gould debunks), so it is clear that he was afraid to reveal something.
Was it his belief in evolution itself? No. Evolution was quite a common concept in Darwin’s day. It was because of the bombshell he knew lay behind his theory, namely its rank, radical materialism. He knew as a young man that he had ‘the key to one of the great reforming ideas of history and systematically [went] out to reformulate every discipline from psychology to history.’5 To explain apparent design without a designer — that was the key to Darwin’s theory, not the idea of 'evolution' (common descent) itself.
4. It is likely that this assault on design had a lot to do with a reaction against Captain Fitzroy6 on the Beagle. The captain’s views on almost all political subjects were diametrically opposite to Darwin’s. For instance, Darwin was an ardent abolitionist, whereas Fitzroy believed that slavery was benevolent. Apparently, the good captain would wax long and eloquent on Paley’s argument from design7, which was used to justify many of his ideas. Nothing could possibly have taken deadlier aim at Paley’s argument than Darwin’s persuasive concept that design is an incidental side-effect of otherwise random change.8
5. Darwin knew that his notion, being utter planlessness, could not possibly involve any sort of purposive progress, which is the romanticized notion of evolution held by so many of its believers today (especially theists). In fact, it is likely that this is why he did not, himself, use the word ‘evolution’ until his last book in 1881, when he gave in to the by then popular term applied to his concept. The common meaning of ‘evolution’ at that time implied progress. In a letter to the paleontologist Hyatt, Darwin wrote:
‘… I cannot avoid the conclusion that no inherent tendency to progressive development exists.’
6. Darwin’s casual aside about a ‘creator’ in earlier editions of The Origin of Species seems to have been a ploy to soften the implications of his materialistic theory. Ernst Mayr’s recent book on Darwin, One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Evolutionary Thought, Harvard, 1991, also acknowledges that Darwin’s references to purpose were to appease both the public and his wife. His early, private notebooks show his materialism well established. For instance, in one of them he addresses himself as, ‘O, you materialist!’ and says, ‘Why is thought, being a secretion of brain, more wonderful than gravity as a property of matter?’ He clearly already believed that the idea of a separate realm of the spirit was nonsense, as is further shown when he warns himself not to reveal his beliefs, as follows:
‘to avoid saying how far I believe in materialism, say only that emotions, instincts, degrees of talent which are hereditary are so because brain of child resembles parent stock.’
In 1837, when Darwin was only 28 years old, he wrote in a private notebook, responding to Plato’s belief that the ideas of our imagination arise from preexistence of the soul, ‘read monkeys for preexistence’. He seems to have violently opposed Alfred Wallace’s suggestion of a ‘divine will’ behind the evolution of man, at least.9
In summary, then, Darwin was fully aware that his idea was a frontal assault on the very notion of an intelligent Designer behind the world. In fact, he might very well have formulated it precisely for that purpose. The idea of a spiritual realm apart from matter seems to have been anathema to him as a young man already. The primary inspiration for his theory of natural selection did not come from observation of nature. Perhaps not incidentally, his writings also reveal glimpses of specific antipathy to the God of the Bible, especially concerning His right to judge unbelievers in eternity.
Darwin knew, and virtually all the world’s foremost students of his idea know, that belief in his concept quite simply spells materialism with a capital ‘M’. The idea of no designer, no purpose, no guiding intelligence, no progressive plan — these are not afterthoughts to Darwin’s evolution, but form the very core of it. Accept Darwin’s ‘baby’, and this ‘bathwater’ has a nasty habit of coming along, as the drastic decline in belief among evolution-compromising churches attests.
One can only pray that more and more of the evolution-compromisers in the church begin to see the poisonous core of the fruit they not only swallow, but encourage others to accept. And that many of those outside of Christ will realize that there is no purpose in an evolutionary world. In any case, there is so much evidence stacked against evolution nowadays. True meaning to life can be found only through Jesus Christ, the non-evolutionary, miracle-working Genesis Creator, whose eternal Word is ‘true from the beginning’.
Anything Extra-Christian?
When you ask some people what they believe, they'll
say they're "agnostic." What they usually mean is
that they don't have enough evidence to decide
whether or not God really exists.
Agnostics in America today are a lot like Switzerland
during World War II -- while the battle rages all
around them, they try to maintain neutrality.
It's interesting to note the origins of the word
"agnostic." It was coined in the year 1870 by Thomas
Huxley, who was known as "Darwin's Bulldog." Huxley
was an atheist at a time when it was socially
unacceptable, so he found a more comfortable word to
describe himself: agnostic. In Huxley's sense,
agnosticism means there's no credible scientific
evidence for the existence of God. So, if God does
exist, he's irrelevant.
Huxley championed Darwin's evolutionary theory
tirelessly -- not because he felt Darwin was
infallible but because Darwin's theory helped Huxley
ignore the Creator. Privately he admitted that the
fossil record seems to suggest that sharks have
always been sharks and crocodiles always crocodiles,
but Huxley believed it was "more profitable to go
wrong than to stand still."
He hid his doubts from laymen, making bold statements
like, "The whole evidence is in favour of evolution,
and there is none against it."
To Christians who were alarmed by Darwin's theory,
Huxley was reassuring. During a lecture to the Young
Men's Christian Association, Huxley declared that the
sciences "are neither Christian, nor unchristian, but
are extra-Christian." And it's precisely this
contention that holds many Christians hostage today.
To suggest that science is somehow outside the scope
of Christianity is to suggest that Christianity is
not a total worldview. Huxley's implication is clear:
Christianity deals with the unseen and with faith,
while science deals with cold, hard facts and
reality. Don't worry if Darwin's description of
reality seems to contradict your faith -- just place
each one in its own compartment and let them be.
When Christians accepted this point of view, they
retreated. Suddenly, Christians couldn't take faith
into the laboratory or, by logical extension, into
other "secular" places like the courtroom, the
classroom, or the media.
Today's marginalization of Christianity is a direct
result of our failure to understand our faith as a
total worldview. We've lost our voice in the public
square because we forgot, as Psalm 24:1 says, "the
earth is the Lord's, and everything in it." God is
sovereign over all of reality!
Once a Christian understands this, he's prepared to
enter the debate. And students who view their faith
as a worldview can stand firm on college campuses,
even in the face of atheism.
Darwin's Bulldog caused problems, alright, but he
also clarified the debate. Because nothing is "extra-
Christian." And remembering this helps us understand
the sovereignty of God, and the all-embracing scope
of our Christian worldview.
Show Me A Self-made Man, and I’ll show You The Tragic Results Of Unskilled Labor!
The main reason is that some people are afraid of facing punishment for their actions. When we were young, we were accountable to our parents and other grownups. Now, when we become adults, we do not like the idea that we still are under an authority that holds us accountable. We still have, whether we want to admit or not, a heavenly Father. Denying this fact doesn’t make it untrue.
Human beings like to talk about “if I can’t see it or prove it’s existence by scientific method, it isn’t true” The problem is that we tend to try to explain the supernatural in natural terms. This cannot be done.
One of the “offshoots” of the denial of God is evolutionism. It takes away the idea of a supreme creator and therefore takes away the idea of being accountable. The terms “Whatever goes around, comes around” and “What ever you sow, that you will reap” are universal truths. Why is that?- Because we are all still accountable for our actions. If there were not a supreme Heavenly Father, these truths would not apply. People could go around doing anything they wanted and would never suffer the consequences for their actions. Ergo: There is a supreme creator under whom we are accountable.
1 Cor 1:27-29
“…but God chose the foolish things of the world, that he might put to shame them that are wise; and God chose the weak things of the world, that he might put to shame the things that are strong;
and the base things of the world, and the things that are despised, did God choose, yea and the things that are not, that he might bring to nought the things that are:
that no flesh should glory before God.”
Incredible Testimony
THE BIGGEST SKEPTIC IN THE WORLD:
IT COULD HAVE BEEN ME
To the best of my memory, before I came to the saving grace of Jesus Christ, I did not believe the Bible was true. I doubted whether God, Satan, heaven, or hell even existed. I believed that we were born, lived so many years, and then died. I had my own business and thought that I had succeeded by my own wits.
One evening, my wife and I heard some documentation that these were the last days before Jesus Christ would actually return. Not wanting to hear it, I almost walked out. Something kept me there, and I listened but was not convinced; however, I decided to do some research to find out if the Bible was really true. Indeed, if I could find one contradiction or anything that was not true, then I could disregard it. I believed this would not take long. This led me into much research. I learned nearly one-third of the Bible is directly or indirectly related to prophecy which includes about 10,000 prophecies. One thing needed, was to determine when the Bible was actually written. Thus, a study of biblical history, various translations, and archaeology was necessary. The Dead Sea Scrolls, which were found in Israel, contained parts of the Old Testament including prophecies of the coming of Jesus. It has been proven that these were written before Christ came. Thousands of clay tablets and archaeological sites also confirm many accounts in the Bible.
I took time off and began studying the prophecies. My wife would spend much time at the library. She obtained documentation for me from reference books which I would check against the Scriptures to see if the prophecies took place. One week went by and then a month. Every prophecy that we were able to get information on proved to be accurate. I was astonished, but still not convinced. Later, there were people who would show me what appeared to be contradictions in the Bible. These were not contradictions, but only a lack of research on the part of those that said these things. Stubborn, that's me. Even after four months of intensive study, proving prophecy after prophecy was true, I was still skeptical. Four months turned into six. I became more determined. It wasn't possible that the sixty-six books of the Bible written by many people over hundreds of years would not have some errors, I thought. Thousands of prophecies, and every one perfect? No, impossible! If I would admit that, then I would also have to admit there was a God. I was not prepared to do that—yet, I wanted to know the truth. More months passed. Finally, I had to admit after spending almost countless hours of research—I was wrong. I may have been the biggest skeptic in the world, but now I know—the Bible is true and is the perfect Word of God. Anyone willing to take the time I did and do the same research could only come to the same conclusion, if they are honest with themselves. I became afraid that I would perish. I surrendered my life to Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God as a result of His love, compassion, mercy and grace.
I know that there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we MUST be saved (EXCEPT JESUS)-ref Acts 4:12. I REPENTED of my sins and received Jesus Christ as my only hope of salvation by FAITH-ref Eph 2:8-10. It is written, EXCEPT YE BE CONVERTED, AND BECOME AS LITTLE CHILDREN, YE SHALL NOT ENTER THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN-Mt 18:3. You can also call on Jesus NOW to be YOUR Lord and Savior.
WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY ABOUT HELL?
HELL IS A REALITY
An earmark of cultic religions is their views about hell. If they do not use the fear of going to hell to bring people into bondage, then they try to discount hell altogether. One of Satan's favorite lies is to try to convince people that they suffer their hell on earth and that there is none hereafter. He also tries to get them to believe the lie that death only brings a state of sleep or rest. Another doctrine teaches that hell is only temporary and eventually after being in the fires of hell people become cleansed and purified to the degree that they will then be accepted into heaven. These terrible heresies are believed by many Christians who are ignorant of what God's Word has to say about it. Cults also teach that hell is a place where souls are simply annihilated and therefore no longer exist. Some teach reincarnation, giving people another chance to be born on this earth for as many times as it takes to become purified, progressing to higher forms each time they return. Others say hell is only a place away from God, but it is not a literal burning fiery hell. All of these are lies of Satan to cause people to minimize the reality of hell.
What does the Bible say about hell? To make a point, Jesus described this place as such a place of horror that it would be better to sever a member of our body that would lead us there, than to end up in that place of torments.
"And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched'' (Mark 9:43-48).
We don't have to cut our limbs or pluck out our eyes to be free from hell, Jesus made a way for us to escape this evil through our repentance and acceptance of what He did for us on the cross when He died for the sins of our flesh. However, we see clearly that His statement signifies the exclusion of the hope of restoration and that punishment is eternal once a person is there. He repeats the words, "where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched," three times for emphasis.
Another account of the torments of hell is found in Luke 16:19-26:
"There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence." Hell is described not only as a fiery place of torment, but also as a separation from God and His saints, a place where there is continual torment.
HELL WAS MADE FOR SATAN
This place was prepared for the devil and his fallen angels. It was never meant for man to go there. Man is going there by choosing to follow Satan and his evil ways by rejecting the free grace Jesus is offering to mankind. "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:" (Matthew 25:41).
The Greek word for hell in the New Testament, "hades" means the same as "sheol" in the Old Testament Hebrew. It is also spoken of as the grave, the pit, and the place of the dead. It is described as below the surface of the earth (Numbers 16:30, Psalm 55:15), beneath the depths of the sea, and is also spoken of as "the deep." It has gates and bars that hold its prisoners. The wicked go down into the region of hell where they are kept in torment until the day of the White Throne Judgment. Hell is a place of shame, remorse, consciousness, memory, and anguish.
PARADISE
There was also a region surrounded by "hell" known as "paradise" where the righteous dead went prior to Calvary. It was separated by a great impassable gulf from the lower regions. It was a place of peace and comfort and was the place referred to as "Abraham's Bosom." Not only was Abraham there, but all the Old Testament saints were kept there until Christ's crucifixion. Christ then descended into hell (sheol, hades) (Psalm 16:10) (Luke 23:43) and at His ascension He led "captivity captive" and delivered the prisoners of hope from paradise and led them to heaven. Ephesians 4:8-10 says, "Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)"
One note here: Jesus did not take the punishment for our sins in hell. He took our punishment for sin on the cross as a type of a sacrificial lamb. He bore our iniquities on the cross. In 2 Corinthians 5:21 the Bible says, "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." When it says "He was made to be sin," it means He was made to be a "sin offering." He bore the sins of many on the cross. He did not bear our sins in hell. He went to hell (Sheol, the abode of the dead) to take the keys of death and hell away from the devil and to set the captives free and take them from paradise to heaven. All those who had died in faith, prior to the cross were kept in paradise which was a temporary place of rest and blessing until Christ paid the price for His own to enter heaven permanently. Although the location of paradise was in Sheol (the abode of the dead), it was not a place of torment. It was a special protected place until the day the Lord would free those in that place of captivity.
The Bible speaks that Jesus went to hell for three days and three nights after His death on the cross. Matthew 12:40 records this statement, "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." He was not in hell (Sheol) to receive torment but rather to preach to those that were there awaiting their release to be taken to heaven with Him. After those three days and three nights in hell (Sheol) Jesus took all the Old Testament saints with him to heaven (including one of the thieves that was crucified next to Him. Luke 23:43: "And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.") This explains why Jesus said He would be in hell for three days and three nights and yet would that day also be in paradise. Paradise was that safe place in hell (Sheol) that all the Old Testament saints were kept until their sins were atoned for on the cross.
Jesus is now seated on the right hand of God in a position of all authority and power over all things. He is awaiting the time of His second coming to this earth to get the rest of His people and take them to heaven also. For Christians, this will be a joyous time. His second coming for the evil and wicked however, will not be a joyous event as they will be judged and then sent to hell.
1 Peter 3:18-22: "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him."
The gates of hell (sheol and hades) do not prevail against the church today as they once did against the righteous in the Old Testament (Matthew 16:18). All true believers go directly to heaven at death and do not wait in paradise as the Old Testament saints did. II Corinthians 5:6-8: "Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: (For we walk by faith, not by sight:) We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord."
LAKE OF FIRE
Christ has the keys to death and hell which will ultimately have to give up its wicked dead for judgment. "Sheol" and "Hades" (the present hell) will then come to an end and "Gehenna" (the "Lake of Fire") will take its place.
Revelation 20:1-3: "And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season."
Souls will burn forever there with no escape; this is the second death. The only escape from this fate is accepting Jesus as our Savior. He is the only one that has the keys of hell so we can be released from our prison of hell and condemnation.
"I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death" (Revelation 1:18).
"And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, From whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire"(Revelation 20:10-15).