Today Is Evolutionary Doomsday
In 1960, scientists predicted that today,
‘Friday the 13 November 2026’ would
be “Doomsday” due to overpopulation,
but today we face the opposite problem.
The Population Bomb that Never Exploded
By Dr. Sarah Buckland-Reynolds
Friday the 13th has long been popularized as being a date of ‘bad luck’. This thought was taken to an extreme in an article titled:
Doomsday: Friday, 13 November, A.D. 2026 (Heinz Von Forester, Science, 4 November 1960), where the authors made the bold statement that:
“At this date human population will approach infinity if it grows as it has grown in the last two millennia… Since the tendencies today do not point in the direction of observable efforts to reduce the mean life span… of human individuals—on the contrary, we see a steady increase in this value—it is clear that our peoplo-stat has to control the fertility… Today, this means cutting the birth rate to about half its present value or, in other words, cutting the size of an average family to just a little above two children. Tomorrow, of course, it will be more difficult, since-as we have seen-the gap between birth rate and death rate is widening every minute. Among the suggestions that have been advanced for meeting this problem—legislation, heavy taxation of families that have more than two children, cancellation of tax deductions, and so on—space travel has been pro-posed recently as an alternative…”
While acknowledging the role of technology in producing food, Von Forester stated that:
“…our great-great-grandchildren will not starve to death. They will be squeezed to death.”
Now that we have reached this milestone date, 66 years after its initial publication, we are far from the projected ‘infinity’ value, and ironically, in many areas of the globe, rather than having restricted space, larger families and immigration are being encouraged and directly incentivized. Declining populations have become our real concern – not expanding ones.
In many textbooks the claim about overpopulation is still heralded, often linked with claims of resource inadequacy, whether with claims there are too many mouths to feed, too much pressure on the environment, too little land, or too little water.
The roots of this view portraying population growth as one of the earth’s greatest threats lies antithetical to Biblical teaching and what many civilizations show. This article will examine some of the roots of this claim (intertwined with evolutionary theory) and explain the Biblical response: understanding children as a blessing, and balancing environmental stewardship with our dominion mandate.
What the Bible Says About Stewardship
It does not take long into reading the Biblical text to see the Biblical mandate: “Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth.” (Genesis 1:28).
Throughout the Pentateuch, from the calling of Abraham to the miraculous deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt, we see the repeated depiction of population growth as blessings and not curses. In fact, God’s promise to bless Abraham was that He would give Abraham descendants as numerous as the grains of sand on the seashore and as the stars in the sky! (e.g., Genesis 15:5; 22: 17-19).
This view of connecting large populations with national strength and development was so obviously prevalent in ancient times that kings often took censuses to determine their military strength (which God also ruled as not being a good practice, as it often indicated self-reliance, e.g., 2 Samuel 24). Nevertheless, the Biblical narrative is clear that a nation and family were considered blessed if they had large numbers in their generations.
This is not unique to the Bible and the Jewish people. In fact, even ancient (and even sections of modern-day Africa), as well as ancient China and the Roman Empire saw the growth of their own population as indicating strength. For example, scholars note that population growth contributed to the formation of increasingly powerful political entities in Egypt. This was even evident in the Bible, where the Pharaoh during Moses’ day was intimidated by the rapid expansion of the Israelites, and ordered the midwives to kill all the baby boys in the Nile River, as population growth meant strength.
With this belief transcending cultures throughout ancient societies, when did demographers conclude the opposite view?
Malthus, Evolution and The Myth of Arithmetic Resource Growth
Commenting on Von Forester’s failed predictions, Professor of History at Western University published an article titled: Scientists predicted ‘Friday 13 November 2026’ will be ‘doomsday.’
Should you be worried? (Alan MacEachern et al., The Conversation, 30 September 2026). [This article was republished in IBTimes UK on November 2, 2026]. In describing the 1960 predictions, MacEachern called the article: “…exemplary for blending rigorous science with the art of stagecraft to staggering effect.”
MacEachern correctly connected the underlying philosophies behind Von Forester’s 1960’s paper as stemming from demographer, Thomas Malthus – one of the most influential intellectual influences on Charles Darwin. In MacEachern’ s words, he stated:
“Underlying much of this concern was implicit or explicit acceptance of the Malthusian idea that whereas population has the potential to grow exponentially, it is kept constantly under check by its capacity to feed itself…”
To have a “scientific” basis for their claims, MacEachern commented how the 1960 authors “…used 24 estimates of the world’s population stretching across the past 2,000 years to show that human numbers have in fact continually outpaced expectations.” In creating the “staggering effect”, he also commented on how “…all this was presented in calm, scientific prose and aided by dense mathematical equations.”
Critical Thinking Beyond Equations
As was highlighted, it is important for readers to know that, even when rigorous equations are presented, understanding whether the equations are in fact derived from observations, and what are the underlying assumptions. As was pointed out by MacEachern, sometimes even faulty models may simulate dynamics correctly to an extent – but usually for a defined timeframe (as the saying goes: a broken clock reads correct twice a day).
Today, the global fertility rates have indeed wound up to half of what they were in 1960 (his initial prescription); but the result has been economic and social dangers in which governments are desperate to recover population growth.
But beyond the failure of this prediction, it is relevant to explore a deeper question: Why have human societies repeatedly embraced theories that portray people primarily as liabilities rather than assets?
From a creation science perspective, the collapse of many population-bomb predictions highlights profound weaknesses not merely in demographic forecasting, but in the philosophical assumptions underlying much modern thinking about humanity itself; philosophies that also have intricate connections with the value we place on human life from an atheistic and evolutionary standpoint.
The Shadow of Malthus vs. The Image of God
Just as in the days of Von Forester, Thomas Robert Malthus’ ideas are still prominent today as this framework deeply influenced modern evolutionary thinking. Charles Darwin acknowledged that Malthus’s ideas helped inspire his concept of the struggle for existence. Within this worldview, life is fundamentally a competition over scarce resources. Population pressure becomes an inevitable threat, and human beings become one more species competing within nature’s limited carrying capacity.
However, history has repeatedly challenged these assumptions. For example, the Industrial Revolution dramatically increased productivity. Agricultural innovations multiplied crop yields, and new technologies improved transportation, sanitation, medicine, communication, and food preservation. But while even Von Forester and colleagues acknowledged that Malthus underestimated technological innovation and human creativity, their underlying philosophies still led them to a death-centric conclusion.
This contrasts with the image from the Bible. At the outset of the creation of humankind, God calls us as being “made in His image and likeness”. With this being the case, human beings are unique because cooperation, communication, and problem-solving capacities oftentimes lead to innovation. Unlike the animal kind (which also have their own creativity), human beings are far from being merely consumers of resources, but are creators of solutions.
Despite this obvious daily observation of human ingenuity, Malthusian assumptions still run rampant in our society. But, why should we be concerned about personal philosophies and failed predictions going back 66 years?
Policies Are Built on “More People, More Problems”
The danger of Malthusian thinking is not simply that predictions can be wrong; the danger is that such thinking can (and continue to( shape policies. Just as recommended by Von Forester et al, throughout the twentieth century, fears of overpopulation fueled aggressive population-control movements. The notion that humanity was exceeding the planet’s carrying capacity became a justification for fertility reduction campaigns around the world. For example, Paul Ehrlich’s influential 1968 book The Population Bomb popularized warnings of imminent global famines and societal collapse arising from unchecked population growth. Many of these catastrophic predictions failed to occur.
See Dr Jerry Bergman’s article about Ehrlich’s book The Population Bomb, 26 April 2019.
While the predictions of overpopulation woes did not materialize, the social consequences of the measures taken to avoid rising birth rates were substantial. There are documented connections between Malthusian assumptions, eugenic movements, and population-control policies, with similar underlying logic: fewer births were viewed as necessary for social progress, economic development, or environmental protection.
Even after eugenics lost credibility following World War II, many population-control initiatives continued operating from assumptions that population growth itself was fundamentally problematic. Many public campaigns have continued until recently to promote fewer children and contraception in the Caribbean and sections of Africa. In some countries, the result was even worse, as this led to coercive sterilization programs, restrictions on family size, and policies that treated fertility reduction as a development objective.
While some have now awakened to the opposite nightmare of disappearing populations, the problems ensuing are not singular. They span social impacts of aging populations with high dependencies due to shrinking working populations, labor shortages, pension crises, and declining birth rates. Economic growth has slowed in some regions because there are too few working age people.
A Different Foundation
From a Biblical perspective, we should not be surprised that the predicted population ‘doomsday’ was not fulfilled. Whenever science is built on faulty assumptions that counteract Biblical teaching, it cannot prevail. Instead of being passive consumers burdening our environment, every child is a potential inventor, entrepreneur, teacher, engineer, farmer, scientist, physician, artist, or leader because they carry the image of God in them!
Unfortunately, being influenced by evolutionary views of human beings, much of the world has shunned and shamed the blessings of fruitful wombs and are now instead desperate to reverse the curse they chose. As the Bible clearly states: “Children are a heritage from the Lord…” (Psalm 127:3-5). No scientific conclusion that seeks to discourage nations from following one of God’s first commands (to be fruitful and multiply) can reap sustainable positive impacts. Human population growth is not to be portrayed as an ecological mistake.
Righteous Stewardship: Ethical Consumption of Resources
It is important that as we recognize that the evolutionary doomsday prediction is faulty, this does not imply that God is pleased with unlimited consumption or reckless environmental exploitation. As was even placed as part of the laws of the Israelites, Biblical stewardship remains essential (e.g., God’s Old Covenant guideline to leave land fallow every 7th year can still teach us useful lessons, Exodus 23:11; Leviticus 25:1-7). While we counter the errors of Malthus and celebrate humanity, we are still obligated to be caretakers of creation, rather than destroyers.
Let us remember that each of our worth as human beings does not depend on resource calculations, economic productivity, or demographic models. When policy discussions begin by treating human beings primarily as mouths to feed rather than image-bearers with creative potential, distortions inevitably emerge.
Today continues to mark a testimony that evolutionary assumptions do not measure up to real outcomes. Important questions continue to be left unanswered, including:
- Why have forecasts based on resource competition repeatedly underestimated human adaptability?
- Why have some of the gravest modern demographic challenges emerged not from excessive fertility, but from fertility collapse?
- If human beings are merely another animal population governed by ecological constraints, why do they consistently transform the very constraints that supposedly limit them?
Simplistic narratives that equate population growth with catastrophe need to be challenged because of the far-reaching implications they can have on the society of today and tomorrow.
So, as we go about today, let us be reminded of the fallibility of scientific interpretations and extrapolations. Let us also hold a more hopeful view of people.
As another generation of population alarms fades into history, let us place our unending trust in our wise and creative Creator, who holds specific purposes even for generations not yet born! (Ephesians 1:4) May we all endeavour to fulfil our God-given purposes intentionally, knowing that our presence on earth is a blessing and not a curse.
Dr. Sarah Buckland-Reynolds is a Christian, Jamaican, Environmental Science researcher, and journal associate editor. She holds the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Geography from the University of the West Indies (UWI), Mona with high commendation, and a postgraduate specialization in Geomatics at the Universidad del Valle, Cali, Colombia. The quality of her research activity in Environmental Science has been recognized by various awards including the 2024 Editor’s Award from the American Meteorological Society for her reviewing service in the Weather, Climate and Society Journal, the 2023 L’Oreal/UNESCO Women in Science Caribbean Award, the 2023 ICETEX International Experts Exchange Award for study in Colombia. and with her PhD research in drought management also being shortlisted in the top 10 globally for the 2023 Allianz Climate Risk Award by Munich Re Insurance, Germany. Motivated by her faith in God and zeal to positively influence society, Dr. Buckland-Reynolds is also the founder and Principal Director of Chosen to G.L.O.W. Ministries, a Jamaican charitable organization which seeks to amplify the Christian voice in the public sphere and equip more youths to know how to defend their faith.