Subscribe to this page via e-mail here - Subscribe
Article 47 - The Instability Of Evolution
During the past few decades, scientists in growing numbers, here and abroad, have turned their guns on the long accepted theory of organic evolution. Within the past five years this hard look at evolution has intensified greatly. Leading scientists in almost every field are bringing into focus vital information which clearly and indisputably shows the Darwinian theory to be just that - - a theory, and a totally unacceptable one at that.
For years proponents of evolution have insisted that only fundamentalists in religion were opposed to the theory. However, it is no longer simply a point of issue between the Bible and evolution; it has now become a matter of evolution being tested on purely scientific grounds.
Among the many scientists who have launched such an attach are: Dr. John N. Moore (Ph.D., Biology, University of Michigan), Dr. Henry Morris (Ph.D., Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute), Dr. Walter E. Lammerts (Ph.D., Genetics, University Southern California), and Dr. George Howe (Ph.D., Botany, Ohio State University). In these we see, not the opinions of novices, but the testimony of well-informed leaders in science. And their testimony cannot be dismissed as irrelevant (although proponents of evolution would like to do just that).
The number of such scientists reaches into the thousands. And in recent years large groups of them have joined together to form scientific organizations for the purpose of testing evolution in the light of the evidences. One such organization is the INSTITUTE FOR CREATION RESEARCH, centered in San Diego, California. Over 400 men, holding not less than a Ph.D. in at least one field, make up this renowned body. Its influence is being felt throughout the world of science.
The instability of evolution is not only seen through the efforts of these men, but it is also brought into focus unintentionally by the inconsistent, contradictory "evidence" of evolutionists themselves. For example, on November 9, 1972, Richard Leakey (son of the late, famed Louis B. Leakey) announced the discovery of an "upright biped" with was classified as definitely genus Homo (or man). But the astonishing thing was that he estimated the age of this find at no less than 2.6 million years!! This is some 1⁄2 million years older than the Australopithecus, which evolutionists for years have said was the ancient ancestor of man! Leakey was reported by the APO as saying that the Australopithecus "can be excluded from our line of ancestry." So, the textbooks are all wrong and the entire fabricated "family tree" of evolved man will have to be rewritten! This is nothing short of heresy in the halls of evolutionary theorists. All that has been taught over the past 15 years regarding the "family tree" of man's past will have to be discarded. Yet, the evolutionists were so sure they were right before!
Another embarrassing moment came fro the evolutionists when several years ago G. G. Simpson, a leader in evolution, rejected the standard theory of evolution that life has evolved by small, intermediate steps. This, of course, has been the backbone of evolution since it was first introduced. Every textbook on the subject has been designed to show a slow, gradual, lengthy rise of animal and plant life. However, the fossil record simply does not agree with this theory. Dr. Simpson, realizing the lack of intermediate forms in the fossil record, switched positions and rocked the evolutionary world when he declared that evolution has occurred by "sudden leaps." He realized that transitions between animal forms did not exist in the fossil record, and honestly said, "it is thus possible to claim that such transitions are not recorded because they did not exist, that the changes were not by transitions but by sudden leaps in evolution." (THE MEANING OF EVOLUTION, pp. 102-103) And this has thoroughly baffled other evolutionists. They are, thus, divided over this most fundamental aspect of evolution - - just what was the process? Small, intermediate steps or sudden leaps?
But, we have only begun to open the door to evolution's instability.
Another weak point in the theory of evolution is its inability to harmonize with the law of entropy.
Entropy is most simply defined as the randomness of a system, or its lack of order. Every system has a certain entropy which can theoretically be raised or lowered. When the entropy of a system has been raised, the randomness has been increased, or order within the system has been lost. When order is increased, entropy is said to have been decreased.
This is easily demonstrated by the following example. If a monkey were taught to operate an electric typewriter, the result would be pages filled with meaningless random groups of letters. There would be absolutely no order or pattern involved. His "typing" would be in a high state of entropy. If a human being were to take those random letters and arrange them in some kind of intelligent order, the entropy would be decreased.
To illustrate further, imagine a deck of cards numbered from one to one hundred. If this deck of cards were taken outdoors into a large field and thrown into the air, the result would be a very random system, a system in a high state of entropy. Suppose also that an identical deck of cards were taken to a different part of the field, and, instead of being thrown into the air, was placed on the ground, still stacked, with the cards in numerical order. There would be two systems, one in a state of entropy (the scattered deck), and one in a lower state of entropy (the ordered deck). If these two decks were left to themselves for a time, only to be disturbed by the wind and weather, changes would be found in the states of entropy.
The scattered cards would still be scattered, probably even more scattered than in the beginning. This would constitute an increase in the state of entropy, but only slight compared to its former state. The deck of cards which was left in an ordered state would now be found to be well scattered. It would be experienced a large increase in its state of entropy. These increases in entropy were spontaneous. No special effort or plan was needed to cause the entropy in increase. All that is required was that the cards be left to themselves.
Now it is quite obvious that a decrease in the state of entropy would be expected. Or, in other words, there would not be greater order. The wind would not swirl and blow in a manner which would stack up the deck of cards which was left scattered about. It would further tax our imaginations to visualize the cards being stacked spontaneously by the wind, all face up in numerical order. Evolutionists will, at this point argue that "given enough time and enough cards the wind will eventually cause a higher degree of order to occur."
In the light of the second law of thermodynamics (entropy) we know that the cards will not stack themselves in numerical order, no matter how much time or how many cards.
The second law of thermodynamics in its most general form says: "Every system which is left to itself will change toward a condition of greater randomness, and not toward a condition of greater order."
In spite of this law, many biologists and evolutionists blunder their way into discussion of the "spontaneous origin" of life. Many have been the attempts to devise mechanisms by which life could have arisen on its own! However, any theory attempting to explain the spontaneous origin of life will violate this second law of thermodynamics.
One of the most popular theories of how life arose spontaneously says that the atmosphere of the earth was made up of ammonia, methane, hydrogen and water vapor, and that these reacted under the right conditions to give amino acids, which in turn reacted to give simple proteins and so forth. However, notice that this postulation involves a system of gases (high entropy or scattered condition) changing spontaneously to a system of amino acids (lower entropy or collected condition) which react to form proteins (very much lower entropy or even greater order). Going from scattered gases to amino acids (lower entropy or col-acids would involve something even more incredible than the scattered deck of cards being arranged in numerical order by the wind! And the supposed change from amino acids to proteins would involve an even greater stretch of the imagination! And, too, evolutionists teach that somewhere along the line proteins somehow changed into simple forms of life, which involves another tremendous decrease of entropy. The whole thing is too preposterous to fathom!
By using the second law of thermodynamics, we logically predict that the spontaneous origin of life would not and could not occur. We would also predict that subsequent change from the simple to the more complex (which evolution demands) would not and could not occur. It all lacks harmony and entropy!
In our last article in this series, we pointed out that any theory designed to explain the spontaneous origin of life must of necessity violate the law of entropy. That is, while such theories demand that life arose due to an accidental increase in order and complexity, the law of entropy contradicts this and demands that, left to themselves, systems will have less order, less complexity and greater randomness. The concept of a spontaneous origin of life and the law of entropy (2nd law of thermodynamics) are mutually exclusive!
Dr. Henry Morris, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, deals with this very thing in two of his books, The Twilight Of Evolution and The Genesis Flood. In the former he states: "It is hard to believe that the leaders in evolutionary thought, not to mention their hosts of uncritical followers, have ever really confronted this gross contradiction between their theory of evolution (which they protest overmuch to be a "fact") and the second law of thermodynamics."...In spite of the obvious contradiction between the law of entropy and the evolutionary theory of origins evolutionists blindly, but persistently, pursue their course.
Returning again to the point of origins, evolutionists run into considerable difficulty when trying to give some plausible explanation for how life arose without any outside interference (supernatural force). This is why even leading evolutionists say very little about the matter of origins.
However, all serious evolutionists must sooner or later come to grips with the question, "How did life come to be?" Their answer - - "spontaneous generation" which simply means that somehow life accidentally popped out of non-living matter! And, to pure evolutionists there is, of course, no alternative.
One of the most recent and widely used evolutionary oriented biology textbooks (High School Biology, BSCS series, Green version) illustrates how they approach the issue.
Attempting to show how life might have come from non-life this textbook describes the popular view of the Russian scientist, Oparin. In two short paragraphs, while showing how various molecules were formed in an ancient atmosphere, we find these words, "Oparin assumed ...he assumed ...he reasoned ...Oparin assumed ...Oparin reasoned ...might have formed ...could have come from ...might have produced ...might have formed ...Oparin supposed ...might form..." And then the closing sentence begins: "Thus we can imagine..."
But the real puzzler is their attempt to reconcile the spontaneous origin theory with the law of biogenesis, which states very simply that life comes from life! Every high school student knows that Louis Pasteur demonstrated this law. Realizing this, and anticipating that students may be wondering about the obvious contradiction, the writers of this biology text try to give some answer. They say, "Pasteur showed that living things cannot come from non-living materials. Do Oparin's speculations deny Pasteur's conclusions?" And then they give the earth shaking, "scientific" answer, "Not at all." So, with a stroke of the pen they brush it all aside!
Virtually the same thing is found in a number of other books (non-textbooks) written by evolutionists. For example, one of the world's leading proponents of evolution, Julian Huxley, in his recent book, Evolution In Action, states, "The work of Pasteur and his successors has made it clear that life is not now being spontaneously generated," Then he says, "The fact that spontaneous generation does not occur now is no evidence that it did not do so at some earlier stage in the development of this planet." After some discussion similar to Oparin"s views Huxley then admits that the unlikeliness of life arising from non-life would be "one with three million noughts after it." But then he says, "No one would bet on anything so improbable happening; and yet it has happened." WOW!!
Dr. Eugene Guye has estimated that the odds against even one simple protein molecule forming by chance combinations would be 100 multiplied by itself 160 times to 1. He then says, "And the simplest organism, in order to live and reproduce itself, must be composed of at least 100 different kinds of protein molecules, which must have originated simultaneously at the same spot."
No, life did not arise spontaneously of itself!
Within the past six months, evolution and its relation to education has become the number one issue in some sections of the country, especially on the west coast.
A number of eminent scientists have recently dealt severe blows to the long accepted theory of evolution. Evidence detrimental to the Darwinian philosophy has been mounting and no longer can such weighty material be "swept under the rug."
These men have effectively pointed out that while they are not opposed to the theory being presented to students as theory, they are opposed to it being presented as fact. Some of the most widely used biology texts of the past 10 years have so interwoven the theory into the entire text that students are left with the distinct impression that evolution must indeed be true. Instead of reserving a chapter for a brief discussion of the theory (as all earlier biology texts have done) writers of these newer textbooks have used evolution as a format and foundation. In other words, evolution is the platform upon which their approach is made.
Probably the most radical of such texts is the Biological Sciences, Boulder, Colorado. Those heading this series pull no punches and state pointedly that they believe evolution to be fact and indeed the key to a study of biology. And, to make matters worse, $10 million of our tax money paid for this series!
Scientists opposing this trend have also shown that supporters of evolution, seldom if ever, present evidence unfavorable to their position. The truly scientific approach is, of course, to present all available evidence regardless of whether or not it contradicts preconceived notions. It is all too evident that through the years proponents of evolution have refused to do this! However, there are now enough conservative men in scientific circles that suppression of material contrary to the evolution theory is no longer entirely possible.
So impressed with the evidence was the California State Board of Education, that in December 1972 it decided to severely modify the presentation of organic evolution in the biology textbooks. One example is that the dogmatic statement, "It is known that life begun in the sea" will be changed to "Some scientists believe that life may have begun in the sea." This action on the part of the Board is especially important due to the fact that approximately 10 percent of all textbooks produced in the U.S. are used in California. (The problem created for publishers was whether to change only 10 percent of the texts published, or change everything to accommodate the 10 percent.)
Conservative scientists have definitely made an impression in California as well as several other states. Several California college and university campuses have been the scenes of open debate between conservative and liberal scientists over the evolution question, with the evolutionists being totally unable to defend their positions. The controversy has extended to newspapers and TV-radio talk shows.
During the 1972 convention of the National Association of Biology Teachers held in San Francisco in October, conservative scientists pressed the evolutionists like they had never been pressed before! (They have cornered them many times in print, only to be ignored. However, this time it was face-to- face and before audiences!) The evolution position could not stand the test - - which resulted in the convention leaders (who were evolutionists) limiting the conservative scientists and in some cases excluding them from discussion altogether! Such as this is unheard of in scientific circles, but it serves to illustrate just how unscientific evolutionists have become?
So hot has the controversy become that evolutionists, who normally give conservative scientists the "silent treatment," have now begun to speak up. Not only have they brought pressure to bear on the California State Board of Education, but they have become vehement in their attach on scientists who disagree with them. Rash accusations and crude implications have characterized their writings within recent weeks.
A classic example of their true attitude is found in the BSCS Newsletter, No. 49. This publication, which normally treats matters on a high level, in this issue turned its guns on all who are considered "anti-evolutionists." Among other things its writers accuse those who disagree with evolution of returning science to the 19th century and being guilty of destroying academic freedom. They even accused their counterparts of attempting to deceive the public. In truth, evolutionists are the ones who have gone back to the 19th century, when the present concept of evolution was first perpetrated by Darwin! They are the ones who are destroying academic freedom, by refusing to look at all the evidence and by attempting to keep conservative scholars silent! They are the ones who have deceived the public, with a hodgepodge of pseudo-scientific intellectualism?
In response to this unprecedented action of leading evolutionists (especially their dogmatism in the BSCS Newsletter, No. 49) conservative scientists have recently issued their reactions.
Duane T. Gish, Ph.D., chemistry, stated: "The spectacle of seeing leading spokesmen for evolution resorting to statements incapable of documentation; to half-truths and to false and slanderous statements indicates that they are unsure of their position and that they are becoming aware of the impact that creation-science is having in educational and scientific circles today. They are running scared."
Referring to the BSCS Newsletter, George F. Howe, Ph.D., biology, says: "These writers make repeated appeals to evolutionary authority. Long academic bylines are given to various evolutionists while creationists who hold M.D., Ph.D., or Ed.D. degrees are never referred to as 'Dr.' in this publication. Such misrepresentation is hardly worthy of scholarly authors and it appears that academic dignity has been discarded in an attempt to influence the public mind by fair or foul." He further states: "The more I hear from prominent evolutionists, the more evident it becomes to me how shallow they really are."
A. E. Wilder Smith, Ph.D., pharmacology, states: "The Newsletter pleads for academic freedom in the classroom. What they mean is, of course, freedom to bring their own viewpoint only and exclusively - - at taxpayers' expense. Children from kindergarten upwards are to be exposed to the exclusive teaching of evolution because the evolutionists believe that their view is the only scientific one." He says further: "Contrary to the implications brought out in the BSCS Newsletter there are ever-increasing numbers of first-class scientists today who reject, lock, stock, and barrel, the whole Darwinian concept."
Earl Hallonquist, Ph.D., chemistry, says: "It is obvious from this concerted effort by the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study group that their aim is to discredit the creation science movement. If this is a sample of their logic and their science, we have drawn such an array of slander, illogical philosophy, and weak scientific answers."
No, it is not that we oppose the evolution theory being presented in the classroom, it is rather the idea of it being presented as factual that is so disturbing. I personally have no more objection to children being exposed to evolution that I do them being exposed to the ancient Egyptian idea of rates coming from the Nile River. But, both need to be placed in their proper category - - theory, nothing more, nothing less. And at the same time, evidences detrimental to the theory of evolution should be given equal exposure. Let's let our children see there are, indeed, two sides to the coin!
In this article we strike at the very heart of the evolution philosophy.
Surprising to many students of evolution there are only a half dozen arguments presented by evolutionists in defense of their theory. Four of these are merely speculative in nature: vestigial organs, comparative anatomy, blood tests and embryonic recapitulation. A fifth is only experimental in nature: mutations. (We will deal with these in later articles.)
Last in the argument based on the geological record (fossils). This is regarded by evolutionists as the strongest line of evidence. But why? Because the geological record would contain the only historically oriented evidence and, therefore, could provide the only possible avenue of direct evidence.
But just how reliable is this argument? Does the geological record of past life really lend support to evolutionary philosophy? Evolution, of course, says that all life has evolved slowly through eons of time, step by step; that changes from one form of life to another were ever so slight with many hundreds of thousands of intermediate types appearing as each form evolved. Now if this is true, if evolution has been occurring during multiplied millions of years, then surely here, in the fossils of the geological crusts of the earth, we would expect to find a well defined record of evolution. But this is not at all the case!
As we view the fossil evidence, several things are immediately apparent: (1) The fossils show no gradual beginning of life, (2) The fossils do not contain any intermediate forms of life.
Evolutionists tell us that, according to their theory, life began with very small forms. Gradually these evolved through many stages into somewhat larger forms. However, we are told that for millions of years the first life forms remained very, very small, hardly larger than microscopic size.
Now if this is true, we would expect to find at the base of the fossil record only small forms of life. But, in truth, at the base (cambrian period) are to be found all sizes and forms of life, a fact known and accepted by all responsible paleontologists.
At the base not only are there fossils of simple, one celled animals, but also of a wide variety of much larger forms. Fossils of no fewer than 5000 different species of sea life have been found, many of which are as complex as anything to be found on the beach today - - jelly fish, corals, sea-lilies, sea cucumbers, worms, numerous crustaceans and many types of shell fish.
If evolution were true, we would not expect to find such a well defined assortment of animal life at the base of the fossil record! It is amazing (but not surprising) than evolutionists are remarkably silent about this evidence. Even Darwin saw the inconsistency between the fossils and his theory and admitted that if evolution were true, before the cambrian period was deposited the world "swarmed with living creatures." (The Origin of the Species, Collier and Sons, 1909 Classic edition, p. 359) Over 100 years have passed since Darwin said this and there are still no fossils below the cambrian!!
If the geological record shows anything, it shows a sudden appearance of life! Remarkable isn't it, how the fossils fit the Biblical account!
Again, evolutionists tell us that, according to their theory, all life has evolved through small intermediate (transitional) steps. They say that the change from one form to another involved
hundreds of thousands of small stages.
Now if this is true, then the fossil record should be filled and running over with millions of such forms - - i.e., forms only partially evolved from one type of another. But, where are these forms? The simple answer is - - There are none! The fossil record just does not contain any such creatures. Every fossil ever discovered exhibits an animal with distinct features enabling it to be easily categorized with the group to which it belongs. Try as they have, evolutionists have not found any fossils demonstrating animals which were only partially evolved.
Looking at the fossil record is much like looking at the present living world, with every form well defined and easily recognizable. As we look about us, we do not see, for example, animals only partially evolved from one form to another. The fossil record is essentially the same.
Several years ago, Austin Clark, Ph.D., of the United States National Museum, said: "No matter how far back we go in the fossil record of previous animal life upon the earth, we find no trace of any animal forms which are intermediate between the various major groups of phyla ...since we have not the slightest evidence, either among the living or the fossil animals, of any integrating types following between the major groups if it is fair assumption there never have been any such integrating types." (The New Evolution: Zoogenesis, p. 189) He states further: There is not the slightest evidence that any of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex ...appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation." (Quarterly Review of Biology, December, 1928, p. 539)
To this we add the statement of McNair Wilson, Ph.D., Oxford Medical Publications: "Increase of knowledge about biology has tended to emphasize the extreme rigidity of type, and, more and more to discount the idea of transmutation from one type to another - - the essential basis of Darwinism." (The Witness of Science, p. 11)
We close this article with a statement from the French geologist, Dr. Paul Lemoine, who for many years supported the evolutionary view: "The theory of evolution is impossible." (Evolutionists Under Fire, p. 4)
In our last article dealing with the evidence of the geological record, it was pointed out that the fossils reveal these two basic facts: (1) There is no hint of a gradual beginning of life. To the contrary, at the base of the fossil record are to be found wide varieties of life forms, evidence that life began suddenly and with a great degree of complexity. (2) There are no intermediate forms bridging various types of animals. Actually, within the geological record are to be found only fossil forms exhibiting distinct features enabling them to be classified with the groups to which they belong. Both of these facts strike at the heart of evolutionary philosophy.
However, even in view of the evidence, evolutionists persist with a discussion of the fossils, attempting to salvage some favorable material.
To those who have made a critical study of the theory, it is apparent that hard-core evolutionists make a fetish out of especially two forms of animal life, claiming there is evidence in the fossil record that they have evolved! These two forms are the horse and man.
Almost 100 percent of the biology books used in our public schools contain dramatic presentations of how both the horse and man were supposed to have evolved. (Have you looked at your child's biology book lately?)
The sad thing about this is the fact that our children are exposed to a hodgepodge of material which is not at all presented objectively. And at the same time much evidence detrimental to evolution is neglected.
What about the horse and man? Did these forms really evolve?
At several locations around the world, a few fossils (about 20 in all) have been unearthed which some have claimed to be ancestors of the modern horse. By taking various selections of these remains (usually 4 or 5) and placing them in ascending order, according to size, evolutionists have created "family trees" or "pedigrees" of so-called horse evolution.
Now there may be slight resemblances between these extinct forms and between them and the modern horse, but there is absolutely no way of showing any of them to be related. And even if it could be shown that these animals were related, this would not prove evolution for according to evolutionists themselves, they are all horses! Certainly, horses, like dogs or other animals, may have developed into wide varieties of sizes and colors. However, this is not evolution, this represents only variety within the species. What the evolutionist needs is transition between the major groups.
However, close examination shows this so-called horse evolution to be full of weaknesses.
In the first place, more than a dozen different pedigrees of horse evolution have been suggested and evolutionists themselves are not agreed on which one to use. A biology text may contain one of these "family trees" and yet fail to explain that it is only guesswork and that many reject it in favor of another.
In the second place, evolutionists fail to point out that not one of these "trees" presents a series of animals which are from the same general geographical location. For example, the most widely accepted of such pedigrees of horse evolution begins with an animal remain found in India, however, some of its supposed ancestors were unearthed in the United States! Dr. Heribert Nilsson says of the horse pedigree: "It is put together out of parts which are not homogeneous, and cannot for that reason be a continuous transitional series." (Synthetische Artbildung, p. 174)
In the third place, if the horse did evolve, it did so in violation of the evolutionary principle of progress from the simple to the more complex. For example, the eohippus, which evolutionists say was the first horse, has four functional toes on the front legs. Later forms on the horse "tree" have three toes and still later forms show only two toes. We are told that the modern horse, with only one hoof, is the final result.
Now this may sound impressive, but why would evolution work for millions of years producing a complex foot with many toes and then reverse itself and work from the complex to the simple in reducing the number of toes? But, of course, such questions are never dealt with by the evolutionist. (That which proves too much proves nothing at all!)
In the fourth place, if we accept the popular horse pedigree, we discover that the first reconstruction has 18 ribs, the next step drops to 15, the next jumps to 19, and a yet later form (equus scotti) drops back to 18. As Wentworth says: "This pictorial evolutionary series...has been subjected to such wholesale fancy reconstruction of missing parts that, as presented to the public, its evidential value amounts to little more than that of a pictorial historical novel." (Thoroughbred Racing Stock, p. 79)
Evolutionists tell us that the human race has evolved from lower forms of life. Darwin in his book, Descent of Man, pp. 220-221, stated: "The Simiadae then branched off into two great stems, the Old- world and New-world monkeys; and from the latter, at a remote period, man, the wonder and glory of the universe, proceeded."
Man, then, is supposed to have evolved from so-called "New-world monkeys." and such a conclusion is not surprising since the monkey seems to be the closest "relative" to man. Obviously, there is a vast gulf separating man from monkey. "Something," says the evolutionist, "must be found to bridge this gap." But what? At this point, there is again an appeal made to the fossil record. The evolutionist seeks to find some evidence of "prehistoric" man - - something not true monkey and not modern man, something in between.
For well over 100 years, men have probed the earth for "missing links." During this time, a number of specimens have been unearthed and displayed as proof of man's evolution. Various dates are given to these reconstructions and they are then placed on phylogenetic charts (family trees). Drawings or photographs of some of these beast-like creatures are placed in biology textbooks and we are told that they represent the ancient ancestors of man. Students seeing these reconstructions go away thinking to themselves that man has indeed evolved.
But how reliable are these reconstructions in supporting evolution?
In the first place, these reconstructions are very artificial and imaginary, in most cases being created from only a few bones or even fragments of bones. The impressive, dramatic pictures often found in textbooks are merely guesswork for there is no possible way to know how an animal actually looked from, for example, a piece of jawbone.
In the second place, while these "creatures" are presented as unquestionable missing links, the average person does not realize that anthropologists themselves do not agree as to the significance and accuracy of these findings. A textbook may present the opinion of a few men but fail to mention that there are others who do not agree with their view.
In the third place, these findings are almost always interpreted to fit the preconceived notion of evolution, which approach cannot be considered very scientific. However, such an approach is not surprising, for the evolutionist as a rule has already closed his mind to any other explanation of man's origin. They do not look at the evidence objectively. Rather, they take all finds and immediately conform them to their theory, whether they fit or not!
In the fourth place, some of the so-called missing links have turned out to be mere hoaxes. A classic example is the Piltdown Man (Eoanthropus) consisting of a few skull fragments, a piece of jaw bone and a tooth. For over 40 years, this was considered one of the most significant missing links to man's past. In 1953, however, it was discovered that the Piltdown Man was a deliberately planned hoax. The jaw fragment and tooth, for example, turned out to be those of a modern ape.
Another example is the Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus - - Sounds impressive doesn't it!). From this find an entire race of so-called one million year old pre-humans was concocted. The Illustrated London News ran a lengthy article about the Nebraska Man which included pictures of both male and female of this ape-like creature. All this was developed from, guess what? A tooth! Not several teeth - - one tooth! A few years later it was discovered that the tooth was actually that of a peccary (a pig no longer found in the United States). A one million race of pre-humans from a not very old pig tooth! Evolutionists dropped the Nebraska Man like a hot potato.
In the fifth place, none of the so-called missing links represent "ancestors" of man. All are either human or non-human but never pre-human. Evolutionists only assume these finds to be "missing links," which in turn is based on their already assumed evolutionary philosophy.
Why do so many people believe in evolution? Is it because the evidence compels them? Is it because they have made an objective study of available data? Or is it because they have been swept up in a philosophical current?
Dr. Henry Morris of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute said: "The main reason most educated people believe in evolution is simply because they have been told that most educated people believe in evolution." (Twilight of Evolution, p. 26)
Fear of being considered "out of step" with general opinion has played a great role in the widespread acceptance of evolution. Many college students, for example, have been pressured into accepting the theory although they really don't know why! But, after all, who wants to be considered "archaic" or "behind times"? It is so much easier to flow with the current.
I have questioned literally dozens of college students who professed to believe in evolution and it is amazing how little most know about the theory. When asked why they believe in evolution, the general reply goes something like this: "Don't most scientists believe evolution" or "Why everybody believes in evolution." Seldom is an answer given which indicates the individual has actually studied the issue.
Surprisingly, virtually the same answer comes from those who are considered to be in more responsible positions. I have been startled, for example, at the shallowness of many professed believers in evolution who are instructors in the sciences. One would think that they, of all people, would surely have made an objective, critical study of the theory. But this is seldom, if ever, the case.
Dr. R. T. Clark and Dr. James D. Bales have made an in-depth study into the phenomenon of evolutionary belief. In their book, Why Scientists Accept Evolution, they have probed beneath the surface and uncovered some shocking facts. They say: "So widely accepted is the doctrine of evolution that it is received by each oncoming generation for the simple reason that each generation finds that evolution is a part of the scientific world outlook in which it is reared." (p. 5) They state further: "Evolution is taken for granted today and thus it is uncritically accepted by scientists as well as by laymen. It is accepted by them today because it was already accepted by others who went before them and under whose direction they obtained their education." (p. 106)
In addition, there have been many men of science who although not believing in evolution have, under pressure, consented to outwardly profess the theory, or to at least leave the impression they do not disagree with it. Dr. Thomas Dwight gives this penetrating observation: "How very few of the leaders on the field of science dare tell the truth as to the state of their minds! How many feel themselves forced in public to do lip service to a cult that they do not believe in." (Thoughts of an Anatomist, p. 21)
Many younger men have found themselves also under pressure to accept evolution or be "kicked out of the educated circle." Dr. Henry Morris points out: "The writer has known some men personally, and has heard of others, who were refused graduate degrees...primarily on the basis of their rejection of Darwinian evolution." (The Twilight of Evolution, p. 28)
Beyond doubt, the evolutionary phenomenon has an overwhelming monopoly on education within the sciences! Those who dare depart from the norm are looked upon as "bigots," "medieval," and "archaic."
Much of the faith in evolution has come about through a rejection of the only alternative - - divine creation. A statement by Dr. L. T. Moore of the University of Cincinnati illustrates this point well. He says: "Our faith in the idea of evolution depends upon our reluctance to accept the antagonistic doctrine of special creation." (The Dogma of Evolution, p. 304) Sir Arthur Keith declared the same thing: "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable." (Witnesses Against Evolution, p. 10)
This really gets down to the grass roots of the whole problem. Men accept evolution primarily because they have already rejected the only other possible explanation of the existence of life.
And this same type philosophy is traced back over 100 years to the days of Darwin himself, as pointed out by Dr. James Bales: "If one is acquainted with the background of Darwin and other evolutionists in the nineteenth century, he will realize that they accepted evolution not because scientific evidence proved it, but because they had rejected the idea of creation by God, and had determined that all must be explained naturally." (Evolution and the New Inquisition, p. 8)
There is not one shred of evidence that life has evolved from simply substances. The entire superstructure of evolution is nothing but a philosophy, a faith, an allegiance to a theory which is beyond proof. The reason men accept it is not because the evidence points to it, but because of unwarranted pressure and a refusal to consider the only other alternative of origins.
Having already dealt with one so-called evidence of evolution (the fossil record) let us now look at the remaining arguments.
As mentioned earlier in this series, four of these are speculative in nature: Vestigial organs, comparative anatomy, blood tests, and embryonic recapitulation. And the fifth is an experimental evidence: mutations.
According to most evolutionists some present day animals have organs (or structures) which are supposed to be "left over remnants" or "vestiges" of more functional organs in so-called evolutionary predecessors.
For many years it was argued that man himself had hundreds of vestigial organs. However, now even the most ardent evolutionists cite no more than a half dozen, the most popular being the tonsils and appendix. As to the tonsils, it is now known that they have protective functions against bacterial infection in early childhood and cannot be considered useless or degenerate. The appendix, likewise, is not a degenerate but specialized organ. Many embryologists feel it plays an important role in the embryonic stage. Dr. Wm. L. Straus of Johns Hopkins said: "There is no longer any justification for regarding the vermiform appendix as a vestigial structure." (Quarterly Review of Biology, 1947, p. 149)
Of the other cases of supposed vestigial structures in the animal world, such as the oft cited Python "legs" and whale "hip bone," we confidently state: (1) They do not represent degenerate structures, but are clearly specialized and functional, (2) They are not verified as vestigial through the fossil record, (3) They are only assumed to be vestiges passed down from previous animals, (4) At best, these structures show, not an evolving but a devolving process.
Some evolutionists tell us that by comparing the body structures of animals they are able to determine a greater or lesser degree of relationship. They say that since there is a general progressive pattern in animal anatomy this points to a common descent. But this does not necessarily follow. Could it not just as logically point to a common Creator? Both, of course, are assumptions, but the fact is that the latter is just reasonable as the former. Similarity simply does not prove common descent - - it is merely an assumption based on the preconceived notion of evolution.
When following the writings of leaders in evolution, it becomes quite apparent that they are careful to choose the similarities they want while discarding those which will not fit their pattern. Dr. John W. Klotz states: "It is also true that the evolutionist selects his similarities and there are similarities which might prove the wrong relationship. These are ignored or are explained away." (Darwin, Evolution and Creation, p. 106)
To say the least, the argument from comparative anatomy is highly subjective. And, too, the fossil record reveals no gradual successive development required by this argument.
In 1904, George Nutall began to compare (test) the blood of various animals in hopes of showing how closely they were related - - on the evolutionary timetable, of course. This involved the testing of blood from various animals to determine the reaction (precipitation) which was supposed to show the degree of relationship. For example, if the blood plasma of a goat were tested with that of a cow and an elephant, theoretically, the cow should show a closer relationship with the goat than would
the elephant.
This evidence is so inconsistent and contradictory that many evolutionists have discarded it. After all, when the blood of a whale, a baboon, a tiger, and an antelope all show the same reaction when tested with pig blood, what else could they do?! Many biology textbooks no longer even consider this a significant evidence for evolution.
Stated simply, this evidence attempts to teach that the human embryo "reviews" man's past
evolutionary history.
When this argument first appeared it was very crude and imaginary, and even though it has been somewhat glamorized in recent decades, it is still very awkward.
Evolutionists have claimed that since the human embryo has a "tail" this indicates man had tailed ancestors. They have also claimed that since there are "gill-like" impressions this suggests that humans had marine ancestors. Actually, the so-called "tail" is nothing more than the developing backbone and the so-called "gill-like" impressions are only visceral furrows which support blood vessels in the forward part of the embryo.
In this argument, we find again that evolutionists have neglected the inconsistencies. For example, according to evolution, blood vessels evolved before the heart. However, in the embryo the heart develops before the vessels. Again, according to evolution, teeth evolved before the tongue. However, in embryo, the tongue develops before the teeth.
The last and final stand taken by some evolutionists is that the embryo does not "review" past ancestry, but merely reproduces some of the embryonic features of the past. (Winchester Biology and Its Relation to Man, p. 385) And I guess that's the best they can do without giving the argument up altogether.
For years men claimed that the theory of evolution through natural selection was true, but were at loss to show a workable mechanism - - an explanation for why changes occurred. Finally, the
concept of mutations came to the rescue.
Mutations are sudden, prominent changes in plants and animals caused by changes in genes. Mutations do occur. This we cannot deny. However, the question is: "Do mutations support the evolution theory?" The following points says "No."
(1) Mutations are extremely rare. The volume of mutations required for the evolving of all life cannot be reconciled with this fact. Dr. Henry Morris points out that the number of favorable mutations needed for the evolution of all life is so great that there just hasn't been enough time (even on the evolutionary timetable!) (Evolution and the Modern Christian, p. 29)
(2) Mutations are almost always defective in laboratory experiments as well as in nature. Practically all mutant forms are so mutilated they cannot produce offspring. Dr. Hermann J. Muller, winner of the Nobel Prize for his work in mutations, said: "Most mutations are bad. In fact, good ones are so rare that we can consider them all bad." (Time, November 1946, p. 38)
(3) Mutations are almost always recessive. This means that they soon vanish away. If animals with mutations are left to themselves, and if they are able to reproduce, their offspring will almost lose these mutations. Dr. Sewell Wright of the University of Chicago writes: "The one systematic effect of mutations seems to be a tendency towards degeneration." (The New Systematics, p.174)
(4) Mutations do not demonstrate new types of plants or animals. At best they are only slight distortions of the genetic code and cannot explain the changes required for the vast framework of organic evolution. Without success for over 100 years, men have tried to reproduce by experimentation changes significant enough to establish evolution.
I have received a number of questions in response to this series of articles. In next week's issue of the Courier we will begin answering these inquiries.
This week as we close our thoughts on the evolution question, attention is given to another crucial area. This time, we speak of the widely accepted geological timetable which supposedly involves many millions of years.
The first man to seriously suggest the uniformitarian concept as applied to geology (the concept that for multiplied millions of years things have been continuing at a constant, slow, uniform rate) was James Hutton. His theory of uniform geology appears in his work Theory of the Earth, published in 1795.
For several decades, Hutton's idea was not very well accepted since most scientists believed that the geological condition of the earth's outer crust was to be explained in terms of catastrophism. However, in about 1830 Charles Lyell (a lawyer turned geologist), intrigued by Hutton's theory, pursued the issue further and created the well-known geological timetable. His ideas were published in a three volume work, Principles of Geology. Lyell, by no means an authority in geology, set up a geological time scale which assumed the earth to be many millions of years old. It further assumed that the various layers of the earth's crust represented different geological periods.
He, like Hutton, had disregarded much of the evidence of other scientists who disagreed with him. Some of this evidence, however, he could not escape, and many of his assumed ancient dates had to be drastically revised. For example, his first date set for the so-called ice epoch was 1,000,000 B.C. Later he revised this figure to 35,000 B.C. Some change wouldn't you say!
Lyell's views were becoming more widely accepted than those of his forerunner, Hutton, and especially by those who leaned toward naturalistic philosophy. As Dr. Donald Patton states in his work on uniformitarianism: "Lyell's ideas were viewed as both anti-Genesis and at the same time seemingly scientific. As modern humanism became deeply entrenched in academic circles in Europe, Lyell's ideas prospered." He then points out the relation between Lyell's geological timetable and Darwin's theory of evolution. "And then Darwin appeared, with his refined theory of biological uniformitarianism, strictly parallel to his friend Lyell's idea of geological uniformitarianism." (The Biblical Flood and the Ice Epoch, p. 11)
Darwin drew heavily on Lyell's writings and since the newly advanced geological timetable allowed for millions of years it fit well with Darwin's theory. And, after all, Darwin needed extremely long periods of time to allow for the evolution of all life. Darwin's theory (not actually original with himself) was at the right place at the right time. The scientific world learning more and more toward naturalistic philosophy was ready to accept this theory.
These three doctrines - - Humanism, Uniformitarianism, and Organic Evolution went hand in hand and to some extent ran interference for each other.
The swift current of these combined philosophies swept through the "educated circles" and practically all opposition, no matter how sound and scholarly, was ignored. Patton further adds: "These theories, which practically burst upon the world scene, carried implications which made a climate of agnosticism nearly necessary, which also made atheism respectable... Secularism, skepticism, and cynical brands of atheism were transformed from their former lowly states into verile ideas, and they gained wide acceptance." (Ibid, p. 13)
In case you are confused about the "timetable" we offer this simple explanation.
According to this assumed timetable, the earth's outer crust is divided into three eras: Cenozoic, Mesozoic, and Paleozoic, with each of these being subdivided into various periods and/or epochs. On this time scale, the Cenozoic goes back to about 75,000,000 years, the Mesozoic to about 200,000,000 years, and the Paleozoic to about 500,000,000 years. Everything below the Paleozoic is labeled Pre-cambrian. The evolutionist, of course, feels that this geologic timetable provides support for his theory - - and actually, this is the crux to the whole issue.
Practically all biology books will present this time scale in dramatic chart form and there is little doubt that students are deeply impressed. To them, it appears that these geologic ages are unquestionably true.
Is the uniformitarian theory true, and does it suggest support for evolution? We think not, and for the following reasons.
1) Though somewhat revised, the geologic timetable is today essentially the same as when originated by Lyell over 140 years ago. It is still very crude and contains almost all the flaws it had at its inception. We should not be awed by this timetable, but rather see it for what it really is - - and old theory, tattered and torn through years of water.
2) The timetable is very artificial and imaginary. At no place on earth are all these supposed layers found as they are represented on the geologic scale. In fact, if these layers were found in succession at any one point the total thickness would be about 50 miles (and some have estimated an even greater depth)! However, the observable depth of strata goes no deeper than a few thousand feet even at the deepest points. Of course geological evolutionists seldom mention this fact.
3) On numerous occasions, various layers of the earth's crusts are completely out of place when compared with the so-called time scale. Layers which, on the time scale, are supposedly older are often found on top of layers which are younger. Often supposedly younger layers are found far beneath older layers. And there are many examples around the world where the layers are all mixed up. These facts alone show the absurdity of trying to label the various layers in a graded succession. I have been somewhat amused while reading from evolutionists as they try to reconcile these contradictions with their time scale! Their reasoning is next to unbelievable.
4) Another fatal blow to the time scale is the discovery of a fossilized human skull deep within a layer of coal. (This find is in the collection of the Mining Academy in Freidberg, Saxony.) Now according to evolution and he geological scale, such layers of coal were deposited millions of years before man made his appearance. Facing this evidence, the evolutionist is forced to conclude that either man has been around millions of years longer than before thought (which they cannot be without wrecking their theory) or that the timetable is incorrect and should be drastically revised. But what do they really do? They ignore it altogether, as if the evidence did not even exist. The only attempt I have found to explain this problem was a statement by one evolutionist who said the skull was a "nonconformist." A non-conformist indeed!!!
5) Within the past 15 years or so, a number of fossilized human footprints have been discovered in layers which, according to the evolutionary scale, are not supposed to be there! One of these layers (carboniferous) was supposed to be laid down 250,000,000 years ago! Even on the evolutionary scale, man has only been around about 1 million years. We find here the same problem as before! Either man was here much longer than before thought (about 250 million years sooner!) Or the geological timetable is all wet.
6) Another example of human footprints found in "ancient" layers are those located in the Paluxy River Bed near Glen Rose, Texas. Hundreds of them have been well preserved. The particular layer in which these appear is the cretaceous which, on the evolutionary time scale is about 70,000,000 years old. So, the evolutionist has the same problem again. However, this time the problem is amplified, for in the same river bed right along side the human footprints are numerous dinosaurs prints! (Some three-toed carnivorous prints and some gigantic 24"x 38" prints of a sauropod.) Evolutionists who have seriously looked at this evidence have been "set back" to say the least. We conclude that either man has been around longer than expected, or the great reptiles are not as old as men have said! I can see them now - - Flintstone and Dino walking down the Paluxy River Bed!
7) There are numerous animals which have become extinct. Fossils of many of these have been found and, according to the evolutionary time scale, their point of extinction is placed back several millions of years. Now what would you think if such an animal turned up alive?? Well, that every thing has occurred. For example, the fish, the coelacanth was supposed to have become extinct well over 50,000,000 years ago. However, within recent years at least seven specimens of this fish have been caught alive! Now the problem is, either the coelacanth remained stable (for over 50 million years) while the rest of the animal world evolved (and I know no evolutionist who believes this) or the layers where this fish was supposed to have become extinct are not really as old as we have been told. But, what has happened to this evidence? How have evolutionists dealt with it? It has been swept under the rug with the other evidences which do not conform to the evolutionary geological timetable!
8) There are several cases where fossilized trees have been found standing upright and penetrating several strata! Now how could such have ever occurred if these layers were millions of years in accumulating? How could a tree be preserved while being exposed to the elements for millions of years? And some of these trees are penetrating several separate layers of coal, which indeed adds to the problem.
Actually, catastrophism (in the form of a great deluge) explains so well how such awkward circumstances could have come about in the earth's crusts. Fortunately, a number of geologists are now beginning to see that this is true. The uniformitarian philosophy of a long series of geologic eras is cracking at its foundation!
Question #1
"I heave read a lot about scientists creating life. Have they really done this?"
Absolutely not! Occasionally news articles appear which leave the impression that life has been created in the laboratory. Such articles, however, are by men who tend to write from the dramatic and not the scientific. Probably none of them understand the real implications of what they write.
Unfortunately, some scientists who have been credited with "creating" life enjoy "playing the part" of discoverers and seldom attempt to correct these exaggerated reports.
As to the "creating" of life experimentally these facts are to be noted:
(1) To actually create life, to the extent that we are speaking of "creation," the basic ingredients must be purely inorganic (without life related substances). However, all experiments on the making of life begin with at least some organic elements (enzymes, etc.) And, therefore, whatever results are shown can in no sense be interpreted as creating life, since life substances are already present!
(2) In relation to the evolution question, even if life were to be created experimentally from inorganic elements, this would not suggest (much less prove) that life came about in this way at the beginning. At best, this would only show that simple life could be made experimentally.
(3) In addition, if by some means men could "create" life, this would verify what we have contended all along - - it takes intelligence to create life!
Not until men experiment with strictly inorganic compounds can they begin to think in terms of "creating" life. However, no men are thus experimenting and it is unlikely that any ever will.
Question #2
"In biology, we learned about how birds evolved from reptiles. How do you explain this?"
I do not explain it, because such has never occurred. You are no doubt referring to what you have heard about the Archaeopteryx, a fossil bird often found in biology books and which is almost always presented as a link between reptiles and birds. Not knowing what textbook you use or what your teacher has told you, it is difficult to determine exactly what you have learned. However, regardless of what you have read or what you have been told, give attention to the following: (1) This fossil shows an animal with fully developed wings, classifying it as a bird. (2) It shows fully developed feathers which label it as having definitely been a bird. (3) It does not exhibit any features which justify it being classified as anything but a bird. The Archaeopteryx did have teeth. However, several other extinct birds also possessed teeth, but they are not classified as "links" between reptile and bird. They are clearly birds. Possession of teeth does not qualify the Archaeopteryx as a "link." (4) All claims that this fossil represents a "link" in evolution have been hatched in the minds of evolutionists. It is nothing more than a type bird which has become extinct.
But here is more information to consider.
(1) How can it be explained that the scales of reptiles turned into feathers of birds? The fossil record shows not one particle of evidence to support such a transformation.
(2) How can it be explained how the reptile, a cold-blooded animal with four heart chambers? Such a transformation demands fantastic faith in evolution.
(3) Further, how could the bird, with a built-in thermostat to regulate blood temperature, evolve from the reptile whose blood temperature changes with the temperature of the environment?
To explain all this in terms of evolution calls for the stretching of one's imagination. It is incredible how biology textbooks (and some teachers) can so deeply impress students with a concept destitute of evidence!
Question #3
"I appreciate your comments on the evolution subject, and I think you have given convincing arguments about the fossil record. What do evolutionists say in answer to the fact that there are no intermediate fossils?"
Most of them say little, if anything. In fact, many with whom I have discussed the issue have apparently never been exposed to this problem. This is probably due to the fact that they have read only from evolutionists and never from conservative scientists. While most evolutionists merely avoid the problem of the complete lack of transitional fossils between the various groups of animals, yet there are some who have attempted to give explanations.
(1) For example, some have declared that there are no intermediate forms because the fossil record is imperfect. However, this is simply not true. There are multiplied millions of fossils throughout the earth's strata all the way to the very base of the fossil record. In fact, virtually every order of animal has been preserved in fossil form, including thousands of extinct animals. Now considering the billions of intermediate stages through which animal life must have passed on its evolutionary trip, surely we ought to find traces of them! But, also there are none! No, the fossil record is not imperfect - - except for the fact that evolution is not recorded there!
(2) That the fossil record is not imperfect is shown at the following statements by G. G. Simpson as he gives his explanation for the lack of intermediate forms. He says: "Continuous transitional sequences are not merely rare, but are virtually absent... Their absence is so nearly universal that it cannot, offhand, be imputed entirely to chance, and does require some attempt at special explanation, as has been felt by most paleontologists." (Tempo and Mode in Evolution, p. 105) But what is this special explanation? He further states: "It is thus possible to claim that such transitions are not recorded because they did not exist, that the changes were not by transition but by sudden leaps in evolution. There is much diversity of opinion as to just how much leaps are supposed to happen." (The Meaning of Evolution, pp. 102, 103) There you have it, This leading evolutionist declares that the fossil record is absent of transitions and attempts to explain this absence in terms of "sudden leaps." This is described as "explosive evolution" and obviously contradicts the fundamental evolutionary theory of small, gradual, intermediate steps.
(3) Another explanation is found in the writings of G. R. de Beer, who says: "Is it not possible that these gaps (i.e. lack of intermediate fossils), that these discontinuities in the phylogenetic series of adults, may be also to a certain extent due to 'clandestine' evolution in the young stages, followed by neoteny and the sudden revelation of these hidden qualitative novelties?" Did you get that? Chances are you didn't! But he has a good imagination doesn't he? What he means is that evolutionary changes actually took place in the embryonic stages of animals, and to that extent were "hidden" from view and thus not recorded in the fossil record. This theory, like that of Simpson, contradicts the basic concept of evolution. It is poles apart from what evolutionists have for years taught and what at present fills the biology textbooks!
This closing thought: It is obvious that these explanations witness the fact that the fossil record does not support evolution - - else such explanations would never appear.
Question #4
I have been impressed to know there are scientists who do not believe in evolution. This is the first time I have seen this pointed out in just that way. Can you give me a list of books I might read to find more information on this subject?"
Indeed, there are many scientists, their numbers running into the thousands, who reject the theory of organic evolution "lock, stock, and barrel." Many of these men have authored excellent works which can be obtained at reasonable prices at most religious bookstores such as Gospel Advocate, 20th Century Christian in Nashville, and Dehoff Publications in Murfreesboro.
Here are a few which I recommend highly and which I have in my own library.
Why Scientists Believe Evolution, James Bales & R.T. Clark
The Twilight of Evolution, Henry Morris
Evolution Retried, Norman Macbeth
Genes, Genesis, and Evolution, John Klotz
Why We Believe in Creation Not in Evolution, J. Fred Meldau
Darwin, Evolution and Creation, Combined work of six scientists, edited by Paul A.
Zimmerman
The Genesis Flood, Henry Morris & John Whitcom
Evolution and the Antiquity of Man, J. D. Thomas
Science Returns to God, James Jauncey
Evolution, Fact or Theory, Cora Reno
The Transformist Illusion, Douglas Dewar
Evolution and the Christian Faith, Bolton Davidheiser.
And, of course, there are many other books devoted to this subject, not to mention the countless smaller works and articles in scientific journals.
Question #5
"I have never heard of a preacher who knew so much about evolution. Where did you learn about this? And what do you believe is the best argument in favor of evolution?"
My information has been acquired over the past 14 years through reading, research and many discussions. I do not pretend to be an authority on evolution, but feel fortunate that I have been able to study the writings of countless conservative scientists. What I have learned, anyone can learn if they are exposed to the material.
As to the second question, I really can think of no one argument which is the "best." Actually, there are no arguments which are even "good." There are no evidences which even begin to look halfway favorable for evolution! All available information sounds a blow against evolution.
In talking with those who profess to believe in evolution, I have noticed that most tend to refer more often to the argument of Comparative Anatomy which we discussed in an earlier article. This argument, which seems to the evolutionist to be more impressive, like all arguments used to support evolution, is highly subjective and really constitutes nothing more than circumstantial evidence.
Question #6
"A long time ago I read that Charles Darwin married a sister or a close relative and that his children were born defective. Do you know anything about this?"
Darwin married a first cousin, Emma Wedgewood. His marriage to her was not accidental. He believed in the inbreeding principle but felt it was good for humans as well as animals. Darwin felt that both he and Emma were "superior" humans and that inbred children from them would be even more superior. From Darwin's letters and manuscript, Notebook on Transmutation of Species, it is learned that at their wedding breakfast they discussed animal inbreeding and mating like with like. (Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, p. 131) of their 10 children, only 3 were considered normal. Charles Jr., the youngest son, was a mental defective and lived less than two years. Three other sons were considered by Darwin himself as semi-invalids. One daughter died at birth, another in childhood, and another suffered a severe mental breakdown at age 15.
Darwin also convinced his youngest sister, Caroline, to marry a cousin.
Question #7
"I have read your articles with interest and agree with much of what you say. However, I do not agree with some of your conclusions. As far as I am concerned, I see no trouble harmonizing the Bible with evolution."
As to disagreeing with me, this is your privilege - - but would you be more specific and tell me exactly which conclusions? I honestly believe whatever conclusions I have drawn have been carefully though through. However, if there are flaws you would be a friend by pointing them out.
Whenever I hear someone say they have no trouble harmonizing the Bible with evolution, it is almost certain that he has given little, if any, consideration to the implications of such a statement. In the first place, why even attempt to reconcile the Bible with a theory which is unproven, unprovable, and rejected by literally thousands of scientists? In the second place the Genesis account of origins presents a FIAT creation (creation by decree or command) of the entire spectrum of plant and animal life, which flatly contradicts the basic philosophy of evolution. In the third place, when one attempts to reconcile the first chapter of Genesis with the evolutionary timetable, he runs into problems monumental and is forced to make drastic modifications in either evolution or the Genesis account. (Why not send me a chart showing how you have paralleled the two. And if, as you say, you have "no problem harmonizing the Bible with evolution," you no doubt have already made such a chart! I'll be waiting to see it!)
In the fourth place, if the Bible and evolution do not disagree, why do leading evolutionists reject creation by God?
The world's leading evolutionists, Julian Huxley, at the Darwinian Centennial Celebration at the University of Chicago, said: "The first point to make about Darwin's theory is that it is no longer a theory, but a fact... Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the creator of organisms from the sphere of rational discussion. Darwin pointed out that no supernatural designer was needed." He then stated that there is "no room for a supernatural agency in evolution." (Evolution After Darwin, Issues in Evolution, Vol. III, pp. 44, 45)
Question #8
"I and some other students have been talking about where God came from. Will you answer this for us?"
The answer is simple - - God did not come from anywhere! God is! He is the beginning and the ending, the alpha and omega. (Revelation 1:8; 21:6; 22:13)
You see, logic compels us to conclude that something is eternal. Something has always existed! If this is not true, then there never would have been anything, for something cannot come from nothing.
Also, logic forces us to conclude that there must have been an original cause - - something which was not itself caused. If this is not true, then nothing would ever have been.
Now what was that eternal something? What was that original cause? Was it intelligence or was it matter? And, after all, these are the only alternatives! But where is the logic in saying that matter is eternal, that matter is the original cause? Did lifeless, dead, matter produce life and intelligence? How credulous! Is it not much more reasonable and believable to say that intelligence (mind) is eternal, that supreme intelligence is the original cause! And, indeed, our universe shows signs of a Designer, a Master Planner.
God did not come from anywhere. He simply is! He is Himself eternal!
Question #9
"If I am not mistaken, you mentioned several weeks ago that some scientists say evolution is fact. I deny this. Scientists are careful to clarify evolution as theory. You ought to be more careful in presenting the facts. It is easy to mislead people."
Yes, it is easy to mislead people, and before people are mislead by your comments, let me quickly reply. Please read again the statement by Julian Huxley cited under question 7. Huxley said evolution is a "FACT." Deny it all you want, but these are the "facts" - - evolutionists who are considered high ranking pull no punches when dealing with this point. If you like, I'll send you photocopies of statements from other evolutionists as well as Huxley which say exactly the same thing.
Question No. 10
"Your comments are very good, but with my limited education, I sometimes get lost in reading about things I do not understand. Could you give me some kind of short reply to use when this question comes up? Something simple and easy to say would be good for me."
I think I understand what you are asking. First, let me say that there are a number of arguments useful when exposing evolution, all of which are equally impressive. Any one of them will do the job. (I have listed over 25 such arguments in my book The Other Side of Evolution.)
But, now, in a more general sense, there is another approach which may better suit your needs. On a number of occasions, I have used the following statement in discussions with evolutionists and have yet to receive a suitable answer. It can be expressed in this way: "I can deny the theory of evolution without denying one single fact of science." At this point the evolutionist must either show what fact of science I must deny when I deny evolution, or he must admit (at least to himself) that his theory is really unscientific.
Remember that statement it will probably go farther than anything else you could say in a brief conversation.
With this article, we bring to a close our discussion of the instability of organic evolution. Although much more could be said, throughout this series we have presented the basic information from a conservative viewpoint - - that information is seldom presented to young people in the classroom. We have also allowed for questions to be asked and have given fair and logical answers to each.
The theory of evolution is beyond the realm of demonstrable science. When placed in its proper setting, it is nothing more than a philosophy, a faith, a belief. When compared to the evidences, the theory of evolution simply will not stand the test. The concept of a fiat creation (an initial, complete creation), on the other hand, fits well with the evidences now known to science. As has been expressed by many scientists from a wide variety of fields: "The concept of creation is no more religious and no less scientific than is the theory of evolution."
With each year, the number of scientists who reject the evolutionary philosophy is growing. This in itself reveals a great deal. If the theory is stable, if the evidence points in its direction, then certainly no men of science would question it. Therefore, we confidently state that: (1) the theory is not stable; (2) the evidence does not point in its favor.
Following are some select statements from a variety of scientists which points even further to evolution's instability.
Dr. Ambrose Fleming, past president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, declared: "Evolution is baseless and quite incredible." (The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thoughts, p. 254)
Dr. H. J. Fuller of the University of Illinois: "The evidence of those who would explain life's origin on the basis of the accidental combination of suitable chemical elements is no more tangible than that of those people who place their faith in Divine Creation as the explanation of the development of life. Obviously, the latter have as much justification for their belief as do the former." (The Plant World, p. 20)
Dr. R. E. D. Clark states: "It seems reasonable to conclude, therefore, that if in past ages complex organisms ever did evolve from simpler ones, the process took place contrary to the laws of nature, and must have involved what may rightly be termed the miraculous. For this reason, the doctrine of evolution can never legitimately form a part of naturalistic philosophical or sociological thought." (Transactions of the Victoria Institute, p. 63)
Dr. John Tyndall, physicist, stated: "There ought to be a clear distinction between science in a state of hypothesis and science in a state of fact; and inasmuch as it is still in its hypothetical stage, the ban of exclusion ought to fall upon the theory of evolution. I agree with Virchow that the proofs of it are still wanting, that the failures have been lamentable, and that the doctrine has been utterly discredited." (The Bible Versus Theories of Evolution, p. 85)
Dr. G. K. Hebbert, biologist, said: "The evidence of fossils very definitely favors creation and not the evolution theory. The evolution theory bristles with anatomical and bio-chemical differences." (A Biologist's Views on Evolution, p. 5)
Dr. Kenneth W. Cooper, University of Rochester: "As is so often the case of writings of our modern evolutionists, natural selection as a cause is deduced from effect, and the resulting arguments and conclusions are, of course, unconvincing." (Science, March 25, 1955, p. 429)
Dr. Albert Fleischmann, Erlangen University: "The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are becoming more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge, nor does it suffice for our theoretical grasps of the facts." (Victoria Institute, Vol. 65, pp. 195, 195)
Dr. Paul Lemoine, French geologist who once defended the evolution position, stated: "The theory of evolution is impossible." (Evolutionists Under Fire, p. 4)
Dr. McNair Wilson, former editor of the Oxford Medical Publications: "Increase of knowledge about biology has tended to emphasize the extreme rigidity of type, and more and more to discount the idea of transmutation from one type to another - - The essential basis of Darwinism." (The Witness of Science, p. 11)
Dr. Rudolf Virchow, German pathologist: "It is all nonsense. It cannot be proved by science that man descends from the ape or any other animal. Since the announcement of the theory, all real scientific knowledge has proceeded the opposite direction." (The Bible Versus Theories of Evolution, p. 84, 85)
Dr. Austin Clark, formerly of the United States National Museum: "There is not the slightest evidence that any of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex, related, more or less closely to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation." (Review of Biology, p. 539)
Dr. Theodore Schwarze, geologist, said "The doctrine of evolution would be an insult to anyone's intelligence." (Science, p. 70)
Dr. Ferenco Kiss, dean of the Medical Faculty, University of Budapest: "All the European teachers know the theory of evolution, but they have never made it a foundation for teaching or research. We also understand why it is necessary for the evolutionists - - in order to maintain their theory - - to collect only similarities and to neglect the numerous differences." (History, p. 39)
Dr. Henry Morris, Virginia Polytechnic Institute: "Its nature is coming more plainly into focus and can be discerned as that of a vast framework of deductions built upon the foundation of a false premise." (The Twilight of Evolution, p. 35)
Dr. Duane Gish, who has recently appeared before the California State Board of Education on the issue of evolution in the public schools, stated: "It is certain that evolution theory lies outside the domain of science. In modern evolution theory, fact, fiction and philosophy are so inextricably interwoven that it is difficult, if not impossible, for the non-scientist, and even the non-specialist, to separate one from the other." (Bible-Science Newsletter, Vol. XI, No. 1, January, 1973) Gish also states: "Under our present situation, students are being brainwashed in evolution philosophy. They are given all of the evidence that can be adduced in favor of the theory with no exposure to its fallacies and weaknesses." (Part of Dr. Gish's statement before the California State Board of Education, Nov. 9, 1972)
Dr. Charles Hodge states: "A more absolutely incredible theory was never propounded for acceptance among men." (What is Darwinism?, as quoted by Werkmeister, A History of Philosophical Ideas, p. 82)
And the list could go on. It is quite evident that many within the scientific arena no longer rely on the evolutionary hypothesis. To them it is absolutely false and credulous. The pendulum has begun to swing in the direction of divine creation. And, after all, when faith in evolution is lost, there is only one alternative! Creation is logical, reasonable, believable and the evidence definitely points in that direction.
Print
The Instability of Evolution
A Series of Eleven Newspaper Articles
Jon Gary Williams
First in a series
A Series of Eleven Newspaper Articles
Jon Gary Williams
First in a series
During the past few decades, scientists in growing numbers, here and abroad, have turned their guns on the long accepted theory of organic evolution. Within the past five years this hard look at evolution has intensified greatly. Leading scientists in almost every field are bringing into focus vital information which clearly and indisputably shows the Darwinian theory to be just that - - a theory, and a totally unacceptable one at that.
For years proponents of evolution have insisted that only fundamentalists in religion were opposed to the theory. However, it is no longer simply a point of issue between the Bible and evolution; it has now become a matter of evolution being tested on purely scientific grounds.
Among the many scientists who have launched such an attach are: Dr. John N. Moore (Ph.D., Biology, University of Michigan), Dr. Henry Morris (Ph.D., Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute), Dr. Walter E. Lammerts (Ph.D., Genetics, University Southern California), and Dr. George Howe (Ph.D., Botany, Ohio State University). In these we see, not the opinions of novices, but the testimony of well-informed leaders in science. And their testimony cannot be dismissed as irrelevant (although proponents of evolution would like to do just that).
The number of such scientists reaches into the thousands. And in recent years large groups of them have joined together to form scientific organizations for the purpose of testing evolution in the light of the evidences. One such organization is the INSTITUTE FOR CREATION RESEARCH, centered in San Diego, California. Over 400 men, holding not less than a Ph.D. in at least one field, make up this renowned body. Its influence is being felt throughout the world of science.
The instability of evolution is not only seen through the efforts of these men, but it is also brought into focus unintentionally by the inconsistent, contradictory "evidence" of evolutionists themselves. For example, on November 9, 1972, Richard Leakey (son of the late, famed Louis B. Leakey) announced the discovery of an "upright biped" with was classified as definitely genus Homo (or man). But the astonishing thing was that he estimated the age of this find at no less than 2.6 million years!! This is some 1⁄2 million years older than the Australopithecus, which evolutionists for years have said was the ancient ancestor of man! Leakey was reported by the APO as saying that the Australopithecus "can be excluded from our line of ancestry." So, the textbooks are all wrong and the entire fabricated "family tree" of evolved man will have to be rewritten! This is nothing short of heresy in the halls of evolutionary theorists. All that has been taught over the past 15 years regarding the "family tree" of man's past will have to be discarded. Yet, the evolutionists were so sure they were right before!
Another embarrassing moment came fro the evolutionists when several years ago G. G. Simpson, a leader in evolution, rejected the standard theory of evolution that life has evolved by small, intermediate steps. This, of course, has been the backbone of evolution since it was first introduced. Every textbook on the subject has been designed to show a slow, gradual, lengthy rise of animal and plant life. However, the fossil record simply does not agree with this theory. Dr. Simpson, realizing the lack of intermediate forms in the fossil record, switched positions and rocked the evolutionary world when he declared that evolution has occurred by "sudden leaps." He realized that transitions between animal forms did not exist in the fossil record, and honestly said, "it is thus possible to claim that such transitions are not recorded because they did not exist, that the changes were not by transitions but by sudden leaps in evolution." (THE MEANING OF EVOLUTION, pp. 102-103) And this has thoroughly baffled other evolutionists. They are, thus, divided over this most fundamental aspect of evolution - - just what was the process? Small, intermediate steps or sudden leaps?
But, we have only begun to open the door to evolution's instability.
THE INSTABILITY OF EVOLUTION
Second in a Series
Second in a Series
Another weak point in the theory of evolution is its inability to harmonize with the law of entropy.
Entropy is most simply defined as the randomness of a system, or its lack of order. Every system has a certain entropy which can theoretically be raised or lowered. When the entropy of a system has been raised, the randomness has been increased, or order within the system has been lost. When order is increased, entropy is said to have been decreased.
This is easily demonstrated by the following example. If a monkey were taught to operate an electric typewriter, the result would be pages filled with meaningless random groups of letters. There would be absolutely no order or pattern involved. His "typing" would be in a high state of entropy. If a human being were to take those random letters and arrange them in some kind of intelligent order, the entropy would be decreased.
To illustrate further, imagine a deck of cards numbered from one to one hundred. If this deck of cards were taken outdoors into a large field and thrown into the air, the result would be a very random system, a system in a high state of entropy. Suppose also that an identical deck of cards were taken to a different part of the field, and, instead of being thrown into the air, was placed on the ground, still stacked, with the cards in numerical order. There would be two systems, one in a state of entropy (the scattered deck), and one in a lower state of entropy (the ordered deck). If these two decks were left to themselves for a time, only to be disturbed by the wind and weather, changes would be found in the states of entropy.
The scattered cards would still be scattered, probably even more scattered than in the beginning. This would constitute an increase in the state of entropy, but only slight compared to its former state. The deck of cards which was left in an ordered state would now be found to be well scattered. It would be experienced a large increase in its state of entropy. These increases in entropy were spontaneous. No special effort or plan was needed to cause the entropy in increase. All that is required was that the cards be left to themselves.
Now it is quite obvious that a decrease in the state of entropy would be expected. Or, in other words, there would not be greater order. The wind would not swirl and blow in a manner which would stack up the deck of cards which was left scattered about. It would further tax our imaginations to visualize the cards being stacked spontaneously by the wind, all face up in numerical order. Evolutionists will, at this point argue that "given enough time and enough cards the wind will eventually cause a higher degree of order to occur."
In the light of the second law of thermodynamics (entropy) we know that the cards will not stack themselves in numerical order, no matter how much time or how many cards.
The second law of thermodynamics in its most general form says: "Every system which is left to itself will change toward a condition of greater randomness, and not toward a condition of greater order."
In spite of this law, many biologists and evolutionists blunder their way into discussion of the "spontaneous origin" of life. Many have been the attempts to devise mechanisms by which life could have arisen on its own! However, any theory attempting to explain the spontaneous origin of life will violate this second law of thermodynamics.
One of the most popular theories of how life arose spontaneously says that the atmosphere of the earth was made up of ammonia, methane, hydrogen and water vapor, and that these reacted under the right conditions to give amino acids, which in turn reacted to give simple proteins and so forth. However, notice that this postulation involves a system of gases (high entropy or scattered condition) changing spontaneously to a system of amino acids (lower entropy or collected condition) which react to form proteins (very much lower entropy or even greater order). Going from scattered gases to amino acids (lower entropy or col-acids would involve something even more incredible than the scattered deck of cards being arranged in numerical order by the wind! And the supposed change from amino acids to proteins would involve an even greater stretch of the imagination! And, too, evolutionists teach that somewhere along the line proteins somehow changed into simple forms of life, which involves another tremendous decrease of entropy. The whole thing is too preposterous to fathom!
By using the second law of thermodynamics, we logically predict that the spontaneous origin of life would not and could not occur. We would also predict that subsequent change from the simple to the more complex (which evolution demands) would not and could not occur. It all lacks harmony and entropy!
THE INSTABILITY OF EVOLUTION
Third in a Series
Third in a Series
In our last article in this series, we pointed out that any theory designed to explain the spontaneous origin of life must of necessity violate the law of entropy. That is, while such theories demand that life arose due to an accidental increase in order and complexity, the law of entropy contradicts this and demands that, left to themselves, systems will have less order, less complexity and greater randomness. The concept of a spontaneous origin of life and the law of entropy (2nd law of thermodynamics) are mutually exclusive!
Dr. Henry Morris, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, deals with this very thing in two of his books, The Twilight Of Evolution and The Genesis Flood. In the former he states: "It is hard to believe that the leaders in evolutionary thought, not to mention their hosts of uncritical followers, have ever really confronted this gross contradiction between their theory of evolution (which they protest overmuch to be a "fact") and the second law of thermodynamics."...In spite of the obvious contradiction between the law of entropy and the evolutionary theory of origins evolutionists blindly, but persistently, pursue their course.
LIFE FROM NON-LIFE?
Returning again to the point of origins, evolutionists run into considerable difficulty when trying to give some plausible explanation for how life arose without any outside interference (supernatural force). This is why even leading evolutionists say very little about the matter of origins.
However, all serious evolutionists must sooner or later come to grips with the question, "How did life come to be?" Their answer - - "spontaneous generation" which simply means that somehow life accidentally popped out of non-living matter! And, to pure evolutionists there is, of course, no alternative.
One of the most recent and widely used evolutionary oriented biology textbooks (High School Biology, BSCS series, Green version) illustrates how they approach the issue.
Attempting to show how life might have come from non-life this textbook describes the popular view of the Russian scientist, Oparin. In two short paragraphs, while showing how various molecules were formed in an ancient atmosphere, we find these words, "Oparin assumed ...he assumed ...he reasoned ...Oparin assumed ...Oparin reasoned ...might have formed ...could have come from ...might have produced ...might have formed ...Oparin supposed ...might form..." And then the closing sentence begins: "Thus we can imagine..."
But the real puzzler is their attempt to reconcile the spontaneous origin theory with the law of biogenesis, which states very simply that life comes from life! Every high school student knows that Louis Pasteur demonstrated this law. Realizing this, and anticipating that students may be wondering about the obvious contradiction, the writers of this biology text try to give some answer. They say, "Pasteur showed that living things cannot come from non-living materials. Do Oparin's speculations deny Pasteur's conclusions?" And then they give the earth shaking, "scientific" answer, "Not at all." So, with a stroke of the pen they brush it all aside!
Virtually the same thing is found in a number of other books (non-textbooks) written by evolutionists. For example, one of the world's leading proponents of evolution, Julian Huxley, in his recent book, Evolution In Action, states, "The work of Pasteur and his successors has made it clear that life is not now being spontaneously generated," Then he says, "The fact that spontaneous generation does not occur now is no evidence that it did not do so at some earlier stage in the development of this planet." After some discussion similar to Oparin"s views Huxley then admits that the unlikeliness of life arising from non-life would be "one with three million noughts after it." But then he says, "No one would bet on anything so improbable happening; and yet it has happened." WOW!!
Dr. Eugene Guye has estimated that the odds against even one simple protein molecule forming by chance combinations would be 100 multiplied by itself 160 times to 1. He then says, "And the simplest organism, in order to live and reproduce itself, must be composed of at least 100 different kinds of protein molecules, which must have originated simultaneously at the same spot."
No, life did not arise spontaneously of itself!
THE INSTABILITY OF EVOLUTION
Fourth in a Series
Fourth in a Series
Within the past six months, evolution and its relation to education has become the number one issue in some sections of the country, especially on the west coast.
A number of eminent scientists have recently dealt severe blows to the long accepted theory of evolution. Evidence detrimental to the Darwinian philosophy has been mounting and no longer can such weighty material be "swept under the rug."
These men have effectively pointed out that while they are not opposed to the theory being presented to students as theory, they are opposed to it being presented as fact. Some of the most widely used biology texts of the past 10 years have so interwoven the theory into the entire text that students are left with the distinct impression that evolution must indeed be true. Instead of reserving a chapter for a brief discussion of the theory (as all earlier biology texts have done) writers of these newer textbooks have used evolution as a format and foundation. In other words, evolution is the platform upon which their approach is made.
Probably the most radical of such texts is the Biological Sciences, Boulder, Colorado. Those heading this series pull no punches and state pointedly that they believe evolution to be fact and indeed the key to a study of biology. And, to make matters worse, $10 million of our tax money paid for this series!
Scientists opposing this trend have also shown that supporters of evolution, seldom if ever, present evidence unfavorable to their position. The truly scientific approach is, of course, to present all available evidence regardless of whether or not it contradicts preconceived notions. It is all too evident that through the years proponents of evolution have refused to do this! However, there are now enough conservative men in scientific circles that suppression of material contrary to the evolution theory is no longer entirely possible.
So impressed with the evidence was the California State Board of Education, that in December 1972 it decided to severely modify the presentation of organic evolution in the biology textbooks. One example is that the dogmatic statement, "It is known that life begun in the sea" will be changed to "Some scientists believe that life may have begun in the sea." This action on the part of the Board is especially important due to the fact that approximately 10 percent of all textbooks produced in the U.S. are used in California. (The problem created for publishers was whether to change only 10 percent of the texts published, or change everything to accommodate the 10 percent.)
Conservative scientists have definitely made an impression in California as well as several other states. Several California college and university campuses have been the scenes of open debate between conservative and liberal scientists over the evolution question, with the evolutionists being totally unable to defend their positions. The controversy has extended to newspapers and TV-radio talk shows.
During the 1972 convention of the National Association of Biology Teachers held in San Francisco in October, conservative scientists pressed the evolutionists like they had never been pressed before! (They have cornered them many times in print, only to be ignored. However, this time it was face-to- face and before audiences!) The evolution position could not stand the test - - which resulted in the convention leaders (who were evolutionists) limiting the conservative scientists and in some cases excluding them from discussion altogether! Such as this is unheard of in scientific circles, but it serves to illustrate just how unscientific evolutionists have become?
EVOLUTIONISTS STRIKE BACK
So hot has the controversy become that evolutionists, who normally give conservative scientists the "silent treatment," have now begun to speak up. Not only have they brought pressure to bear on the California State Board of Education, but they have become vehement in their attach on scientists who disagree with them. Rash accusations and crude implications have characterized their writings within recent weeks.
A classic example of their true attitude is found in the BSCS Newsletter, No. 49. This publication, which normally treats matters on a high level, in this issue turned its guns on all who are considered "anti-evolutionists." Among other things its writers accuse those who disagree with evolution of returning science to the 19th century and being guilty of destroying academic freedom. They even accused their counterparts of attempting to deceive the public. In truth, evolutionists are the ones who have gone back to the 19th century, when the present concept of evolution was first perpetrated by Darwin! They are the ones who are destroying academic freedom, by refusing to look at all the evidence and by attempting to keep conservative scholars silent! They are the ones who have deceived the public, with a hodgepodge of pseudo-scientific intellectualism?
A COUNTERATTACK
In response to this unprecedented action of leading evolutionists (especially their dogmatism in the BSCS Newsletter, No. 49) conservative scientists have recently issued their reactions.
Duane T. Gish, Ph.D., chemistry, stated: "The spectacle of seeing leading spokesmen for evolution resorting to statements incapable of documentation; to half-truths and to false and slanderous statements indicates that they are unsure of their position and that they are becoming aware of the impact that creation-science is having in educational and scientific circles today. They are running scared."
Referring to the BSCS Newsletter, George F. Howe, Ph.D., biology, says: "These writers make repeated appeals to evolutionary authority. Long academic bylines are given to various evolutionists while creationists who hold M.D., Ph.D., or Ed.D. degrees are never referred to as 'Dr.' in this publication. Such misrepresentation is hardly worthy of scholarly authors and it appears that academic dignity has been discarded in an attempt to influence the public mind by fair or foul." He further states: "The more I hear from prominent evolutionists, the more evident it becomes to me how shallow they really are."
A. E. Wilder Smith, Ph.D., pharmacology, states: "The Newsletter pleads for academic freedom in the classroom. What they mean is, of course, freedom to bring their own viewpoint only and exclusively - - at taxpayers' expense. Children from kindergarten upwards are to be exposed to the exclusive teaching of evolution because the evolutionists believe that their view is the only scientific one." He says further: "Contrary to the implications brought out in the BSCS Newsletter there are ever-increasing numbers of first-class scientists today who reject, lock, stock, and barrel, the whole Darwinian concept."
Earl Hallonquist, Ph.D., chemistry, says: "It is obvious from this concerted effort by the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study group that their aim is to discredit the creation science movement. If this is a sample of their logic and their science, we have drawn such an array of slander, illogical philosophy, and weak scientific answers."
No, it is not that we oppose the evolution theory being presented in the classroom, it is rather the idea of it being presented as factual that is so disturbing. I personally have no more objection to children being exposed to evolution that I do them being exposed to the ancient Egyptian idea of rates coming from the Nile River. But, both need to be placed in their proper category - - theory, nothing more, nothing less. And at the same time, evidences detrimental to the theory of evolution should be given equal exposure. Let's let our children see there are, indeed, two sides to the coin!
THE INSTABILITY OF EVOLUTION
Fifth in a Series
Fifth in a Series
In this article we strike at the very heart of the evolution philosophy.
Surprising to many students of evolution there are only a half dozen arguments presented by evolutionists in defense of their theory. Four of these are merely speculative in nature: vestigial organs, comparative anatomy, blood tests and embryonic recapitulation. A fifth is only experimental in nature: mutations. (We will deal with these in later articles.)
Last in the argument based on the geological record (fossils). This is regarded by evolutionists as the strongest line of evidence. But why? Because the geological record would contain the only historically oriented evidence and, therefore, could provide the only possible avenue of direct evidence.
But just how reliable is this argument? Does the geological record of past life really lend support to evolutionary philosophy? Evolution, of course, says that all life has evolved slowly through eons of time, step by step; that changes from one form of life to another were ever so slight with many hundreds of thousands of intermediate types appearing as each form evolved. Now if this is true, if evolution has been occurring during multiplied millions of years, then surely here, in the fossils of the geological crusts of the earth, we would expect to find a well defined record of evolution. But this is not at all the case!
As we view the fossil evidence, several things are immediately apparent: (1) The fossils show no gradual beginning of life, (2) The fossils do not contain any intermediate forms of life.
NO GRADUAL BEGINNING
Evolutionists tell us that, according to their theory, life began with very small forms. Gradually these evolved through many stages into somewhat larger forms. However, we are told that for millions of years the first life forms remained very, very small, hardly larger than microscopic size.
Now if this is true, we would expect to find at the base of the fossil record only small forms of life. But, in truth, at the base (cambrian period) are to be found all sizes and forms of life, a fact known and accepted by all responsible paleontologists.
At the base not only are there fossils of simple, one celled animals, but also of a wide variety of much larger forms. Fossils of no fewer than 5000 different species of sea life have been found, many of which are as complex as anything to be found on the beach today - - jelly fish, corals, sea-lilies, sea cucumbers, worms, numerous crustaceans and many types of shell fish.
If evolution were true, we would not expect to find such a well defined assortment of animal life at the base of the fossil record! It is amazing (but not surprising) than evolutionists are remarkably silent about this evidence. Even Darwin saw the inconsistency between the fossils and his theory and admitted that if evolution were true, before the cambrian period was deposited the world "swarmed with living creatures." (The Origin of the Species, Collier and Sons, 1909 Classic edition, p. 359) Over 100 years have passed since Darwin said this and there are still no fossils below the cambrian!!
If the geological record shows anything, it shows a sudden appearance of life! Remarkable isn't it, how the fossils fit the Biblical account!
NO INTERMEDIATE FORMS
Again, evolutionists tell us that, according to their theory, all life has evolved through small intermediate (transitional) steps. They say that the change from one form to another involved
hundreds of thousands of small stages.
Now if this is true, then the fossil record should be filled and running over with millions of such forms - - i.e., forms only partially evolved from one type of another. But, where are these forms? The simple answer is - - There are none! The fossil record just does not contain any such creatures. Every fossil ever discovered exhibits an animal with distinct features enabling it to be easily categorized with the group to which it belongs. Try as they have, evolutionists have not found any fossils demonstrating animals which were only partially evolved.
Looking at the fossil record is much like looking at the present living world, with every form well defined and easily recognizable. As we look about us, we do not see, for example, animals only partially evolved from one form to another. The fossil record is essentially the same.
Several years ago, Austin Clark, Ph.D., of the United States National Museum, said: "No matter how far back we go in the fossil record of previous animal life upon the earth, we find no trace of any animal forms which are intermediate between the various major groups of phyla ...since we have not the slightest evidence, either among the living or the fossil animals, of any integrating types following between the major groups if it is fair assumption there never have been any such integrating types." (The New Evolution: Zoogenesis, p. 189) He states further: There is not the slightest evidence that any of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex ...appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation." (Quarterly Review of Biology, December, 1928, p. 539)
To this we add the statement of McNair Wilson, Ph.D., Oxford Medical Publications: "Increase of knowledge about biology has tended to emphasize the extreme rigidity of type, and, more and more to discount the idea of transmutation from one type to another - - the essential basis of Darwinism." (The Witness of Science, p. 11)
We close this article with a statement from the French geologist, Dr. Paul Lemoine, who for many years supported the evolutionary view: "The theory of evolution is impossible." (Evolutionists Under Fire, p. 4)
THE INSTABILITY OF EVOLUTION
Sixth in a Series
Sixth in a Series
In our last article dealing with the evidence of the geological record, it was pointed out that the fossils reveal these two basic facts: (1) There is no hint of a gradual beginning of life. To the contrary, at the base of the fossil record are to be found wide varieties of life forms, evidence that life began suddenly and with a great degree of complexity. (2) There are no intermediate forms bridging various types of animals. Actually, within the geological record are to be found only fossil forms exhibiting distinct features enabling them to be classified with the groups to which they belong. Both of these facts strike at the heart of evolutionary philosophy.
However, even in view of the evidence, evolutionists persist with a discussion of the fossils, attempting to salvage some favorable material.
To those who have made a critical study of the theory, it is apparent that hard-core evolutionists make a fetish out of especially two forms of animal life, claiming there is evidence in the fossil record that they have evolved! These two forms are the horse and man.
Almost 100 percent of the biology books used in our public schools contain dramatic presentations of how both the horse and man were supposed to have evolved. (Have you looked at your child's biology book lately?)
The sad thing about this is the fact that our children are exposed to a hodgepodge of material which is not at all presented objectively. And at the same time much evidence detrimental to evolution is neglected.
What about the horse and man? Did these forms really evolve?
HORSE EVOLUTION
At several locations around the world, a few fossils (about 20 in all) have been unearthed which some have claimed to be ancestors of the modern horse. By taking various selections of these remains (usually 4 or 5) and placing them in ascending order, according to size, evolutionists have created "family trees" or "pedigrees" of so-called horse evolution.
Now there may be slight resemblances between these extinct forms and between them and the modern horse, but there is absolutely no way of showing any of them to be related. And even if it could be shown that these animals were related, this would not prove evolution for according to evolutionists themselves, they are all horses! Certainly, horses, like dogs or other animals, may have developed into wide varieties of sizes and colors. However, this is not evolution, this represents only variety within the species. What the evolutionist needs is transition between the major groups.
However, close examination shows this so-called horse evolution to be full of weaknesses.
In the first place, more than a dozen different pedigrees of horse evolution have been suggested and evolutionists themselves are not agreed on which one to use. A biology text may contain one of these "family trees" and yet fail to explain that it is only guesswork and that many reject it in favor of another.
In the second place, evolutionists fail to point out that not one of these "trees" presents a series of animals which are from the same general geographical location. For example, the most widely accepted of such pedigrees of horse evolution begins with an animal remain found in India, however, some of its supposed ancestors were unearthed in the United States! Dr. Heribert Nilsson says of the horse pedigree: "It is put together out of parts which are not homogeneous, and cannot for that reason be a continuous transitional series." (Synthetische Artbildung, p. 174)
In the third place, if the horse did evolve, it did so in violation of the evolutionary principle of progress from the simple to the more complex. For example, the eohippus, which evolutionists say was the first horse, has four functional toes on the front legs. Later forms on the horse "tree" have three toes and still later forms show only two toes. We are told that the modern horse, with only one hoof, is the final result.
Now this may sound impressive, but why would evolution work for millions of years producing a complex foot with many toes and then reverse itself and work from the complex to the simple in reducing the number of toes? But, of course, such questions are never dealt with by the evolutionist. (That which proves too much proves nothing at all!)
In the fourth place, if we accept the popular horse pedigree, we discover that the first reconstruction has 18 ribs, the next step drops to 15, the next jumps to 19, and a yet later form (equus scotti) drops back to 18. As Wentworth says: "This pictorial evolutionary series...has been subjected to such wholesale fancy reconstruction of missing parts that, as presented to the public, its evidential value amounts to little more than that of a pictorial historical novel." (Thoroughbred Racing Stock, p. 79)
HUMAN EVOLUTION?
Evolutionists tell us that the human race has evolved from lower forms of life. Darwin in his book, Descent of Man, pp. 220-221, stated: "The Simiadae then branched off into two great stems, the Old- world and New-world monkeys; and from the latter, at a remote period, man, the wonder and glory of the universe, proceeded."
Man, then, is supposed to have evolved from so-called "New-world monkeys." and such a conclusion is not surprising since the monkey seems to be the closest "relative" to man. Obviously, there is a vast gulf separating man from monkey. "Something," says the evolutionist, "must be found to bridge this gap." But what? At this point, there is again an appeal made to the fossil record. The evolutionist seeks to find some evidence of "prehistoric" man - - something not true monkey and not modern man, something in between.
For well over 100 years, men have probed the earth for "missing links." During this time, a number of specimens have been unearthed and displayed as proof of man's evolution. Various dates are given to these reconstructions and they are then placed on phylogenetic charts (family trees). Drawings or photographs of some of these beast-like creatures are placed in biology textbooks and we are told that they represent the ancient ancestors of man. Students seeing these reconstructions go away thinking to themselves that man has indeed evolved.
But how reliable are these reconstructions in supporting evolution?
In the first place, these reconstructions are very artificial and imaginary, in most cases being created from only a few bones or even fragments of bones. The impressive, dramatic pictures often found in textbooks are merely guesswork for there is no possible way to know how an animal actually looked from, for example, a piece of jawbone.
In the second place, while these "creatures" are presented as unquestionable missing links, the average person does not realize that anthropologists themselves do not agree as to the significance and accuracy of these findings. A textbook may present the opinion of a few men but fail to mention that there are others who do not agree with their view.
In the third place, these findings are almost always interpreted to fit the preconceived notion of evolution, which approach cannot be considered very scientific. However, such an approach is not surprising, for the evolutionist as a rule has already closed his mind to any other explanation of man's origin. They do not look at the evidence objectively. Rather, they take all finds and immediately conform them to their theory, whether they fit or not!
In the fourth place, some of the so-called missing links have turned out to be mere hoaxes. A classic example is the Piltdown Man (Eoanthropus) consisting of a few skull fragments, a piece of jaw bone and a tooth. For over 40 years, this was considered one of the most significant missing links to man's past. In 1953, however, it was discovered that the Piltdown Man was a deliberately planned hoax. The jaw fragment and tooth, for example, turned out to be those of a modern ape.
Another example is the Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus - - Sounds impressive doesn't it!). From this find an entire race of so-called one million year old pre-humans was concocted. The Illustrated London News ran a lengthy article about the Nebraska Man which included pictures of both male and female of this ape-like creature. All this was developed from, guess what? A tooth! Not several teeth - - one tooth! A few years later it was discovered that the tooth was actually that of a peccary (a pig no longer found in the United States). A one million race of pre-humans from a not very old pig tooth! Evolutionists dropped the Nebraska Man like a hot potato.
In the fifth place, none of the so-called missing links represent "ancestors" of man. All are either human or non-human but never pre-human. Evolutionists only assume these finds to be "missing links," which in turn is based on their already assumed evolutionary philosophy.
THE INSTABILITY OF EVOLUTION
Seventh in a Series
Seventh in a Series
Why do so many people believe in evolution? Is it because the evidence compels them? Is it because they have made an objective study of available data? Or is it because they have been swept up in a philosophical current?
THE ANSWER
Dr. Henry Morris of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute said: "The main reason most educated people believe in evolution is simply because they have been told that most educated people believe in evolution." (Twilight of Evolution, p. 26)
Fear of being considered "out of step" with general opinion has played a great role in the widespread acceptance of evolution. Many college students, for example, have been pressured into accepting the theory although they really don't know why! But, after all, who wants to be considered "archaic" or "behind times"? It is so much easier to flow with the current.
I have questioned literally dozens of college students who professed to believe in evolution and it is amazing how little most know about the theory. When asked why they believe in evolution, the general reply goes something like this: "Don't most scientists believe evolution" or "Why everybody believes in evolution." Seldom is an answer given which indicates the individual has actually studied the issue.
Surprisingly, virtually the same answer comes from those who are considered to be in more responsible positions. I have been startled, for example, at the shallowness of many professed believers in evolution who are instructors in the sciences. One would think that they, of all people, would surely have made an objective, critical study of the theory. But this is seldom, if ever, the case.
Dr. R. T. Clark and Dr. James D. Bales have made an in-depth study into the phenomenon of evolutionary belief. In their book, Why Scientists Accept Evolution, they have probed beneath the surface and uncovered some shocking facts. They say: "So widely accepted is the doctrine of evolution that it is received by each oncoming generation for the simple reason that each generation finds that evolution is a part of the scientific world outlook in which it is reared." (p. 5) They state further: "Evolution is taken for granted today and thus it is uncritically accepted by scientists as well as by laymen. It is accepted by them today because it was already accepted by others who went before them and under whose direction they obtained their education." (p. 106)
In addition, there have been many men of science who although not believing in evolution have, under pressure, consented to outwardly profess the theory, or to at least leave the impression they do not disagree with it. Dr. Thomas Dwight gives this penetrating observation: "How very few of the leaders on the field of science dare tell the truth as to the state of their minds! How many feel themselves forced in public to do lip service to a cult that they do not believe in." (Thoughts of an Anatomist, p. 21)
Many younger men have found themselves also under pressure to accept evolution or be "kicked out of the educated circle." Dr. Henry Morris points out: "The writer has known some men personally, and has heard of others, who were refused graduate degrees...primarily on the basis of their rejection of Darwinian evolution." (The Twilight of Evolution, p. 28)
Beyond doubt, the evolutionary phenomenon has an overwhelming monopoly on education within the sciences! Those who dare depart from the norm are looked upon as "bigots," "medieval," and "archaic."
ANOTHER ANSWER
Much of the faith in evolution has come about through a rejection of the only alternative - - divine creation. A statement by Dr. L. T. Moore of the University of Cincinnati illustrates this point well. He says: "Our faith in the idea of evolution depends upon our reluctance to accept the antagonistic doctrine of special creation." (The Dogma of Evolution, p. 304) Sir Arthur Keith declared the same thing: "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable." (Witnesses Against Evolution, p. 10)
This really gets down to the grass roots of the whole problem. Men accept evolution primarily because they have already rejected the only other possible explanation of the existence of life.
And this same type philosophy is traced back over 100 years to the days of Darwin himself, as pointed out by Dr. James Bales: "If one is acquainted with the background of Darwin and other evolutionists in the nineteenth century, he will realize that they accepted evolution not because scientific evidence proved it, but because they had rejected the idea of creation by God, and had determined that all must be explained naturally." (Evolution and the New Inquisition, p. 8)
There is not one shred of evidence that life has evolved from simply substances. The entire superstructure of evolution is nothing but a philosophy, a faith, an allegiance to a theory which is beyond proof. The reason men accept it is not because the evidence points to it, but because of unwarranted pressure and a refusal to consider the only other alternative of origins.
THE INSTABILITY OF EVOLUTION
Eighth in a Series
Eighth in a Series
Having already dealt with one so-called evidence of evolution (the fossil record) let us now look at the remaining arguments.
As mentioned earlier in this series, four of these are speculative in nature: Vestigial organs, comparative anatomy, blood tests, and embryonic recapitulation. And the fifth is an experimental evidence: mutations.
VESTIGIAL ORGANS
According to most evolutionists some present day animals have organs (or structures) which are supposed to be "left over remnants" or "vestiges" of more functional organs in so-called evolutionary predecessors.
For many years it was argued that man himself had hundreds of vestigial organs. However, now even the most ardent evolutionists cite no more than a half dozen, the most popular being the tonsils and appendix. As to the tonsils, it is now known that they have protective functions against bacterial infection in early childhood and cannot be considered useless or degenerate. The appendix, likewise, is not a degenerate but specialized organ. Many embryologists feel it plays an important role in the embryonic stage. Dr. Wm. L. Straus of Johns Hopkins said: "There is no longer any justification for regarding the vermiform appendix as a vestigial structure." (Quarterly Review of Biology, 1947, p. 149)
Of the other cases of supposed vestigial structures in the animal world, such as the oft cited Python "legs" and whale "hip bone," we confidently state: (1) They do not represent degenerate structures, but are clearly specialized and functional, (2) They are not verified as vestigial through the fossil record, (3) They are only assumed to be vestiges passed down from previous animals, (4) At best, these structures show, not an evolving but a devolving process.
COMPARATIVE ANATOMY
Some evolutionists tell us that by comparing the body structures of animals they are able to determine a greater or lesser degree of relationship. They say that since there is a general progressive pattern in animal anatomy this points to a common descent. But this does not necessarily follow. Could it not just as logically point to a common Creator? Both, of course, are assumptions, but the fact is that the latter is just reasonable as the former. Similarity simply does not prove common descent - - it is merely an assumption based on the preconceived notion of evolution.
When following the writings of leaders in evolution, it becomes quite apparent that they are careful to choose the similarities they want while discarding those which will not fit their pattern. Dr. John W. Klotz states: "It is also true that the evolutionist selects his similarities and there are similarities which might prove the wrong relationship. These are ignored or are explained away." (Darwin, Evolution and Creation, p. 106)
To say the least, the argument from comparative anatomy is highly subjective. And, too, the fossil record reveals no gradual successive development required by this argument.
BLOOD TESTS
In 1904, George Nutall began to compare (test) the blood of various animals in hopes of showing how closely they were related - - on the evolutionary timetable, of course. This involved the testing of blood from various animals to determine the reaction (precipitation) which was supposed to show the degree of relationship. For example, if the blood plasma of a goat were tested with that of a cow and an elephant, theoretically, the cow should show a closer relationship with the goat than would
the elephant.
This evidence is so inconsistent and contradictory that many evolutionists have discarded it. After all, when the blood of a whale, a baboon, a tiger, and an antelope all show the same reaction when tested with pig blood, what else could they do?! Many biology textbooks no longer even consider this a significant evidence for evolution.
EMBRYONIC RECAPITULATION
Stated simply, this evidence attempts to teach that the human embryo "reviews" man's past
evolutionary history.
When this argument first appeared it was very crude and imaginary, and even though it has been somewhat glamorized in recent decades, it is still very awkward.
Evolutionists have claimed that since the human embryo has a "tail" this indicates man had tailed ancestors. They have also claimed that since there are "gill-like" impressions this suggests that humans had marine ancestors. Actually, the so-called "tail" is nothing more than the developing backbone and the so-called "gill-like" impressions are only visceral furrows which support blood vessels in the forward part of the embryo.
In this argument, we find again that evolutionists have neglected the inconsistencies. For example, according to evolution, blood vessels evolved before the heart. However, in the embryo the heart develops before the vessels. Again, according to evolution, teeth evolved before the tongue. However, in embryo, the tongue develops before the teeth.
The last and final stand taken by some evolutionists is that the embryo does not "review" past ancestry, but merely reproduces some of the embryonic features of the past. (Winchester Biology and Its Relation to Man, p. 385) And I guess that's the best they can do without giving the argument up altogether.
MUTATIONS
For years men claimed that the theory of evolution through natural selection was true, but were at loss to show a workable mechanism - - an explanation for why changes occurred. Finally, the
concept of mutations came to the rescue.
Mutations are sudden, prominent changes in plants and animals caused by changes in genes. Mutations do occur. This we cannot deny. However, the question is: "Do mutations support the evolution theory?" The following points says "No."
(1) Mutations are extremely rare. The volume of mutations required for the evolving of all life cannot be reconciled with this fact. Dr. Henry Morris points out that the number of favorable mutations needed for the evolution of all life is so great that there just hasn't been enough time (even on the evolutionary timetable!) (Evolution and the Modern Christian, p. 29)
(2) Mutations are almost always defective in laboratory experiments as well as in nature. Practically all mutant forms are so mutilated they cannot produce offspring. Dr. Hermann J. Muller, winner of the Nobel Prize for his work in mutations, said: "Most mutations are bad. In fact, good ones are so rare that we can consider them all bad." (Time, November 1946, p. 38)
(3) Mutations are almost always recessive. This means that they soon vanish away. If animals with mutations are left to themselves, and if they are able to reproduce, their offspring will almost lose these mutations. Dr. Sewell Wright of the University of Chicago writes: "The one systematic effect of mutations seems to be a tendency towards degeneration." (The New Systematics, p.174)
(4) Mutations do not demonstrate new types of plants or animals. At best they are only slight distortions of the genetic code and cannot explain the changes required for the vast framework of organic evolution. Without success for over 100 years, men have tried to reproduce by experimentation changes significant enough to establish evolution.
THE INSTABILITY OF EVOLUTION
Ninth in a Series
Ninth in a Series
I have received a number of questions in response to this series of articles. In next week's issue of the Courier we will begin answering these inquiries.
This week as we close our thoughts on the evolution question, attention is given to another crucial area. This time, we speak of the widely accepted geological timetable which supposedly involves many millions of years.
The first man to seriously suggest the uniformitarian concept as applied to geology (the concept that for multiplied millions of years things have been continuing at a constant, slow, uniform rate) was James Hutton. His theory of uniform geology appears in his work Theory of the Earth, published in 1795.
For several decades, Hutton's idea was not very well accepted since most scientists believed that the geological condition of the earth's outer crust was to be explained in terms of catastrophism. However, in about 1830 Charles Lyell (a lawyer turned geologist), intrigued by Hutton's theory, pursued the issue further and created the well-known geological timetable. His ideas were published in a three volume work, Principles of Geology. Lyell, by no means an authority in geology, set up a geological time scale which assumed the earth to be many millions of years old. It further assumed that the various layers of the earth's crust represented different geological periods.
He, like Hutton, had disregarded much of the evidence of other scientists who disagreed with him. Some of this evidence, however, he could not escape, and many of his assumed ancient dates had to be drastically revised. For example, his first date set for the so-called ice epoch was 1,000,000 B.C. Later he revised this figure to 35,000 B.C. Some change wouldn't you say!
Lyell's views were becoming more widely accepted than those of his forerunner, Hutton, and especially by those who leaned toward naturalistic philosophy. As Dr. Donald Patton states in his work on uniformitarianism: "Lyell's ideas were viewed as both anti-Genesis and at the same time seemingly scientific. As modern humanism became deeply entrenched in academic circles in Europe, Lyell's ideas prospered." He then points out the relation between Lyell's geological timetable and Darwin's theory of evolution. "And then Darwin appeared, with his refined theory of biological uniformitarianism, strictly parallel to his friend Lyell's idea of geological uniformitarianism." (The Biblical Flood and the Ice Epoch, p. 11)
Darwin drew heavily on Lyell's writings and since the newly advanced geological timetable allowed for millions of years it fit well with Darwin's theory. And, after all, Darwin needed extremely long periods of time to allow for the evolution of all life. Darwin's theory (not actually original with himself) was at the right place at the right time. The scientific world learning more and more toward naturalistic philosophy was ready to accept this theory.
These three doctrines - - Humanism, Uniformitarianism, and Organic Evolution went hand in hand and to some extent ran interference for each other.
The swift current of these combined philosophies swept through the "educated circles" and practically all opposition, no matter how sound and scholarly, was ignored. Patton further adds: "These theories, which practically burst upon the world scene, carried implications which made a climate of agnosticism nearly necessary, which also made atheism respectable... Secularism, skepticism, and cynical brands of atheism were transformed from their former lowly states into verile ideas, and they gained wide acceptance." (Ibid, p. 13)
BUT WHAT IS THIS GEOLOGICAL TIMETABLE?
In case you are confused about the "timetable" we offer this simple explanation.
According to this assumed timetable, the earth's outer crust is divided into three eras: Cenozoic, Mesozoic, and Paleozoic, with each of these being subdivided into various periods and/or epochs. On this time scale, the Cenozoic goes back to about 75,000,000 years, the Mesozoic to about 200,000,000 years, and the Paleozoic to about 500,000,000 years. Everything below the Paleozoic is labeled Pre-cambrian. The evolutionist, of course, feels that this geologic timetable provides support for his theory - - and actually, this is the crux to the whole issue.
Practically all biology books will present this time scale in dramatic chart form and there is little doubt that students are deeply impressed. To them, it appears that these geologic ages are unquestionably true.
BUT JUST HOW RELIABLE IS THIS GEOLOGIC THEORY?
Is the uniformitarian theory true, and does it suggest support for evolution? We think not, and for the following reasons.
1) Though somewhat revised, the geologic timetable is today essentially the same as when originated by Lyell over 140 years ago. It is still very crude and contains almost all the flaws it had at its inception. We should not be awed by this timetable, but rather see it for what it really is - - and old theory, tattered and torn through years of water.
2) The timetable is very artificial and imaginary. At no place on earth are all these supposed layers found as they are represented on the geologic scale. In fact, if these layers were found in succession at any one point the total thickness would be about 50 miles (and some have estimated an even greater depth)! However, the observable depth of strata goes no deeper than a few thousand feet even at the deepest points. Of course geological evolutionists seldom mention this fact.
3) On numerous occasions, various layers of the earth's crusts are completely out of place when compared with the so-called time scale. Layers which, on the time scale, are supposedly older are often found on top of layers which are younger. Often supposedly younger layers are found far beneath older layers. And there are many examples around the world where the layers are all mixed up. These facts alone show the absurdity of trying to label the various layers in a graded succession. I have been somewhat amused while reading from evolutionists as they try to reconcile these contradictions with their time scale! Their reasoning is next to unbelievable.
4) Another fatal blow to the time scale is the discovery of a fossilized human skull deep within a layer of coal. (This find is in the collection of the Mining Academy in Freidberg, Saxony.) Now according to evolution and he geological scale, such layers of coal were deposited millions of years before man made his appearance. Facing this evidence, the evolutionist is forced to conclude that either man has been around millions of years longer than before thought (which they cannot be without wrecking their theory) or that the timetable is incorrect and should be drastically revised. But what do they really do? They ignore it altogether, as if the evidence did not even exist. The only attempt I have found to explain this problem was a statement by one evolutionist who said the skull was a "nonconformist." A non-conformist indeed!!!
5) Within the past 15 years or so, a number of fossilized human footprints have been discovered in layers which, according to the evolutionary scale, are not supposed to be there! One of these layers (carboniferous) was supposed to be laid down 250,000,000 years ago! Even on the evolutionary scale, man has only been around about 1 million years. We find here the same problem as before! Either man was here much longer than before thought (about 250 million years sooner!) Or the geological timetable is all wet.
6) Another example of human footprints found in "ancient" layers are those located in the Paluxy River Bed near Glen Rose, Texas. Hundreds of them have been well preserved. The particular layer in which these appear is the cretaceous which, on the evolutionary time scale is about 70,000,000 years old. So, the evolutionist has the same problem again. However, this time the problem is amplified, for in the same river bed right along side the human footprints are numerous dinosaurs prints! (Some three-toed carnivorous prints and some gigantic 24"x 38" prints of a sauropod.) Evolutionists who have seriously looked at this evidence have been "set back" to say the least. We conclude that either man has been around longer than expected, or the great reptiles are not as old as men have said! I can see them now - - Flintstone and Dino walking down the Paluxy River Bed!
7) There are numerous animals which have become extinct. Fossils of many of these have been found and, according to the evolutionary time scale, their point of extinction is placed back several millions of years. Now what would you think if such an animal turned up alive?? Well, that every thing has occurred. For example, the fish, the coelacanth was supposed to have become extinct well over 50,000,000 years ago. However, within recent years at least seven specimens of this fish have been caught alive! Now the problem is, either the coelacanth remained stable (for over 50 million years) while the rest of the animal world evolved (and I know no evolutionist who believes this) or the layers where this fish was supposed to have become extinct are not really as old as we have been told. But, what has happened to this evidence? How have evolutionists dealt with it? It has been swept under the rug with the other evidences which do not conform to the evolutionary geological timetable!
8) There are several cases where fossilized trees have been found standing upright and penetrating several strata! Now how could such have ever occurred if these layers were millions of years in accumulating? How could a tree be preserved while being exposed to the elements for millions of years? And some of these trees are penetrating several separate layers of coal, which indeed adds to the problem.
Actually, catastrophism (in the form of a great deluge) explains so well how such awkward circumstances could have come about in the earth's crusts. Fortunately, a number of geologists are now beginning to see that this is true. The uniformitarian philosophy of a long series of geologic eras is cracking at its foundation!
QUESTIONS ABOUT EVOLUTION
Tenth in a Series
Tenth in a Series
Question #1
"I heave read a lot about scientists creating life. Have they really done this?"
Absolutely not! Occasionally news articles appear which leave the impression that life has been created in the laboratory. Such articles, however, are by men who tend to write from the dramatic and not the scientific. Probably none of them understand the real implications of what they write.
Unfortunately, some scientists who have been credited with "creating" life enjoy "playing the part" of discoverers and seldom attempt to correct these exaggerated reports.
As to the "creating" of life experimentally these facts are to be noted:
(1) To actually create life, to the extent that we are speaking of "creation," the basic ingredients must be purely inorganic (without life related substances). However, all experiments on the making of life begin with at least some organic elements (enzymes, etc.) And, therefore, whatever results are shown can in no sense be interpreted as creating life, since life substances are already present!
(2) In relation to the evolution question, even if life were to be created experimentally from inorganic elements, this would not suggest (much less prove) that life came about in this way at the beginning. At best, this would only show that simple life could be made experimentally.
(3) In addition, if by some means men could "create" life, this would verify what we have contended all along - - it takes intelligence to create life!
Not until men experiment with strictly inorganic compounds can they begin to think in terms of "creating" life. However, no men are thus experimenting and it is unlikely that any ever will.
Question #2
"In biology, we learned about how birds evolved from reptiles. How do you explain this?"
I do not explain it, because such has never occurred. You are no doubt referring to what you have heard about the Archaeopteryx, a fossil bird often found in biology books and which is almost always presented as a link between reptiles and birds. Not knowing what textbook you use or what your teacher has told you, it is difficult to determine exactly what you have learned. However, regardless of what you have read or what you have been told, give attention to the following: (1) This fossil shows an animal with fully developed wings, classifying it as a bird. (2) It shows fully developed feathers which label it as having definitely been a bird. (3) It does not exhibit any features which justify it being classified as anything but a bird. The Archaeopteryx did have teeth. However, several other extinct birds also possessed teeth, but they are not classified as "links" between reptile and bird. They are clearly birds. Possession of teeth does not qualify the Archaeopteryx as a "link." (4) All claims that this fossil represents a "link" in evolution have been hatched in the minds of evolutionists. It is nothing more than a type bird which has become extinct.
But here is more information to consider.
(1) How can it be explained that the scales of reptiles turned into feathers of birds? The fossil record shows not one particle of evidence to support such a transformation.
(2) How can it be explained how the reptile, a cold-blooded animal with four heart chambers? Such a transformation demands fantastic faith in evolution.
(3) Further, how could the bird, with a built-in thermostat to regulate blood temperature, evolve from the reptile whose blood temperature changes with the temperature of the environment?
To explain all this in terms of evolution calls for the stretching of one's imagination. It is incredible how biology textbooks (and some teachers) can so deeply impress students with a concept destitute of evidence!
Question #3
"I appreciate your comments on the evolution subject, and I think you have given convincing arguments about the fossil record. What do evolutionists say in answer to the fact that there are no intermediate fossils?"
Most of them say little, if anything. In fact, many with whom I have discussed the issue have apparently never been exposed to this problem. This is probably due to the fact that they have read only from evolutionists and never from conservative scientists. While most evolutionists merely avoid the problem of the complete lack of transitional fossils between the various groups of animals, yet there are some who have attempted to give explanations.
(1) For example, some have declared that there are no intermediate forms because the fossil record is imperfect. However, this is simply not true. There are multiplied millions of fossils throughout the earth's strata all the way to the very base of the fossil record. In fact, virtually every order of animal has been preserved in fossil form, including thousands of extinct animals. Now considering the billions of intermediate stages through which animal life must have passed on its evolutionary trip, surely we ought to find traces of them! But, also there are none! No, the fossil record is not imperfect - - except for the fact that evolution is not recorded there!
(2) That the fossil record is not imperfect is shown at the following statements by G. G. Simpson as he gives his explanation for the lack of intermediate forms. He says: "Continuous transitional sequences are not merely rare, but are virtually absent... Their absence is so nearly universal that it cannot, offhand, be imputed entirely to chance, and does require some attempt at special explanation, as has been felt by most paleontologists." (Tempo and Mode in Evolution, p. 105) But what is this special explanation? He further states: "It is thus possible to claim that such transitions are not recorded because they did not exist, that the changes were not by transition but by sudden leaps in evolution. There is much diversity of opinion as to just how much leaps are supposed to happen." (The Meaning of Evolution, pp. 102, 103) There you have it, This leading evolutionist declares that the fossil record is absent of transitions and attempts to explain this absence in terms of "sudden leaps." This is described as "explosive evolution" and obviously contradicts the fundamental evolutionary theory of small, gradual, intermediate steps.
(3) Another explanation is found in the writings of G. R. de Beer, who says: "Is it not possible that these gaps (i.e. lack of intermediate fossils), that these discontinuities in the phylogenetic series of adults, may be also to a certain extent due to 'clandestine' evolution in the young stages, followed by neoteny and the sudden revelation of these hidden qualitative novelties?" Did you get that? Chances are you didn't! But he has a good imagination doesn't he? What he means is that evolutionary changes actually took place in the embryonic stages of animals, and to that extent were "hidden" from view and thus not recorded in the fossil record. This theory, like that of Simpson, contradicts the basic concept of evolution. It is poles apart from what evolutionists have for years taught and what at present fills the biology textbooks!
This closing thought: It is obvious that these explanations witness the fact that the fossil record does not support evolution - - else such explanations would never appear.
Question #4
I have been impressed to know there are scientists who do not believe in evolution. This is the first time I have seen this pointed out in just that way. Can you give me a list of books I might read to find more information on this subject?"
Indeed, there are many scientists, their numbers running into the thousands, who reject the theory of organic evolution "lock, stock, and barrel." Many of these men have authored excellent works which can be obtained at reasonable prices at most religious bookstores such as Gospel Advocate, 20th Century Christian in Nashville, and Dehoff Publications in Murfreesboro.
Here are a few which I recommend highly and which I have in my own library.
Why Scientists Believe Evolution, James Bales & R.T. Clark
The Twilight of Evolution, Henry Morris
Evolution Retried, Norman Macbeth
Genes, Genesis, and Evolution, John Klotz
Why We Believe in Creation Not in Evolution, J. Fred Meldau
Darwin, Evolution and Creation, Combined work of six scientists, edited by Paul A.
Zimmerman
The Genesis Flood, Henry Morris & John Whitcom
Evolution and the Antiquity of Man, J. D. Thomas
Science Returns to God, James Jauncey
Evolution, Fact or Theory, Cora Reno
The Transformist Illusion, Douglas Dewar
Evolution and the Christian Faith, Bolton Davidheiser.
And, of course, there are many other books devoted to this subject, not to mention the countless smaller works and articles in scientific journals.
Question #5
"I have never heard of a preacher who knew so much about evolution. Where did you learn about this? And what do you believe is the best argument in favor of evolution?"
My information has been acquired over the past 14 years through reading, research and many discussions. I do not pretend to be an authority on evolution, but feel fortunate that I have been able to study the writings of countless conservative scientists. What I have learned, anyone can learn if they are exposed to the material.
As to the second question, I really can think of no one argument which is the "best." Actually, there are no arguments which are even "good." There are no evidences which even begin to look halfway favorable for evolution! All available information sounds a blow against evolution.
In talking with those who profess to believe in evolution, I have noticed that most tend to refer more often to the argument of Comparative Anatomy which we discussed in an earlier article. This argument, which seems to the evolutionist to be more impressive, like all arguments used to support evolution, is highly subjective and really constitutes nothing more than circumstantial evidence.
Question #6
"A long time ago I read that Charles Darwin married a sister or a close relative and that his children were born defective. Do you know anything about this?"
Darwin married a first cousin, Emma Wedgewood. His marriage to her was not accidental. He believed in the inbreeding principle but felt it was good for humans as well as animals. Darwin felt that both he and Emma were "superior" humans and that inbred children from them would be even more superior. From Darwin's letters and manuscript, Notebook on Transmutation of Species, it is learned that at their wedding breakfast they discussed animal inbreeding and mating like with like. (Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, p. 131) of their 10 children, only 3 were considered normal. Charles Jr., the youngest son, was a mental defective and lived less than two years. Three other sons were considered by Darwin himself as semi-invalids. One daughter died at birth, another in childhood, and another suffered a severe mental breakdown at age 15.
Darwin also convinced his youngest sister, Caroline, to marry a cousin.
Question #7
"I have read your articles with interest and agree with much of what you say. However, I do not agree with some of your conclusions. As far as I am concerned, I see no trouble harmonizing the Bible with evolution."
As to disagreeing with me, this is your privilege - - but would you be more specific and tell me exactly which conclusions? I honestly believe whatever conclusions I have drawn have been carefully though through. However, if there are flaws you would be a friend by pointing them out.
Whenever I hear someone say they have no trouble harmonizing the Bible with evolution, it is almost certain that he has given little, if any, consideration to the implications of such a statement. In the first place, why even attempt to reconcile the Bible with a theory which is unproven, unprovable, and rejected by literally thousands of scientists? In the second place the Genesis account of origins presents a FIAT creation (creation by decree or command) of the entire spectrum of plant and animal life, which flatly contradicts the basic philosophy of evolution. In the third place, when one attempts to reconcile the first chapter of Genesis with the evolutionary timetable, he runs into problems monumental and is forced to make drastic modifications in either evolution or the Genesis account. (Why not send me a chart showing how you have paralleled the two. And if, as you say, you have "no problem harmonizing the Bible with evolution," you no doubt have already made such a chart! I'll be waiting to see it!)
In the fourth place, if the Bible and evolution do not disagree, why do leading evolutionists reject creation by God?
The world's leading evolutionists, Julian Huxley, at the Darwinian Centennial Celebration at the University of Chicago, said: "The first point to make about Darwin's theory is that it is no longer a theory, but a fact... Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the creator of organisms from the sphere of rational discussion. Darwin pointed out that no supernatural designer was needed." He then stated that there is "no room for a supernatural agency in evolution." (Evolution After Darwin, Issues in Evolution, Vol. III, pp. 44, 45)
Question #8
"I and some other students have been talking about where God came from. Will you answer this for us?"
The answer is simple - - God did not come from anywhere! God is! He is the beginning and the ending, the alpha and omega. (Revelation 1:8; 21:6; 22:13)
You see, logic compels us to conclude that something is eternal. Something has always existed! If this is not true, then there never would have been anything, for something cannot come from nothing.
Also, logic forces us to conclude that there must have been an original cause - - something which was not itself caused. If this is not true, then nothing would ever have been.
Now what was that eternal something? What was that original cause? Was it intelligence or was it matter? And, after all, these are the only alternatives! But where is the logic in saying that matter is eternal, that matter is the original cause? Did lifeless, dead, matter produce life and intelligence? How credulous! Is it not much more reasonable and believable to say that intelligence (mind) is eternal, that supreme intelligence is the original cause! And, indeed, our universe shows signs of a Designer, a Master Planner.
God did not come from anywhere. He simply is! He is Himself eternal!
Question #9
"If I am not mistaken, you mentioned several weeks ago that some scientists say evolution is fact. I deny this. Scientists are careful to clarify evolution as theory. You ought to be more careful in presenting the facts. It is easy to mislead people."
Yes, it is easy to mislead people, and before people are mislead by your comments, let me quickly reply. Please read again the statement by Julian Huxley cited under question 7. Huxley said evolution is a "FACT." Deny it all you want, but these are the "facts" - - evolutionists who are considered high ranking pull no punches when dealing with this point. If you like, I'll send you photocopies of statements from other evolutionists as well as Huxley which say exactly the same thing.
Question No. 10
"Your comments are very good, but with my limited education, I sometimes get lost in reading about things I do not understand. Could you give me some kind of short reply to use when this question comes up? Something simple and easy to say would be good for me."
I think I understand what you are asking. First, let me say that there are a number of arguments useful when exposing evolution, all of which are equally impressive. Any one of them will do the job. (I have listed over 25 such arguments in my book The Other Side of Evolution.)
But, now, in a more general sense, there is another approach which may better suit your needs. On a number of occasions, I have used the following statement in discussions with evolutionists and have yet to receive a suitable answer. It can be expressed in this way: "I can deny the theory of evolution without denying one single fact of science." At this point the evolutionist must either show what fact of science I must deny when I deny evolution, or he must admit (at least to himself) that his theory is really unscientific.
Remember that statement it will probably go farther than anything else you could say in a brief conversation.
INSTABILITY OF EVOLUTION - - CONCLUSION
Eleventh in a Series
Eleventh in a Series
With this article, we bring to a close our discussion of the instability of organic evolution. Although much more could be said, throughout this series we have presented the basic information from a conservative viewpoint - - that information is seldom presented to young people in the classroom. We have also allowed for questions to be asked and have given fair and logical answers to each.
The theory of evolution is beyond the realm of demonstrable science. When placed in its proper setting, it is nothing more than a philosophy, a faith, a belief. When compared to the evidences, the theory of evolution simply will not stand the test. The concept of a fiat creation (an initial, complete creation), on the other hand, fits well with the evidences now known to science. As has been expressed by many scientists from a wide variety of fields: "The concept of creation is no more religious and no less scientific than is the theory of evolution."
With each year, the number of scientists who reject the evolutionary philosophy is growing. This in itself reveals a great deal. If the theory is stable, if the evidence points in its direction, then certainly no men of science would question it. Therefore, we confidently state that: (1) the theory is not stable; (2) the evidence does not point in its favor.
Following are some select statements from a variety of scientists which points even further to evolution's instability.
Dr. Ambrose Fleming, past president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, declared: "Evolution is baseless and quite incredible." (The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thoughts, p. 254)
Dr. H. J. Fuller of the University of Illinois: "The evidence of those who would explain life's origin on the basis of the accidental combination of suitable chemical elements is no more tangible than that of those people who place their faith in Divine Creation as the explanation of the development of life. Obviously, the latter have as much justification for their belief as do the former." (The Plant World, p. 20)
Dr. R. E. D. Clark states: "It seems reasonable to conclude, therefore, that if in past ages complex organisms ever did evolve from simpler ones, the process took place contrary to the laws of nature, and must have involved what may rightly be termed the miraculous. For this reason, the doctrine of evolution can never legitimately form a part of naturalistic philosophical or sociological thought." (Transactions of the Victoria Institute, p. 63)
Dr. John Tyndall, physicist, stated: "There ought to be a clear distinction between science in a state of hypothesis and science in a state of fact; and inasmuch as it is still in its hypothetical stage, the ban of exclusion ought to fall upon the theory of evolution. I agree with Virchow that the proofs of it are still wanting, that the failures have been lamentable, and that the doctrine has been utterly discredited." (The Bible Versus Theories of Evolution, p. 85)
Dr. G. K. Hebbert, biologist, said: "The evidence of fossils very definitely favors creation and not the evolution theory. The evolution theory bristles with anatomical and bio-chemical differences." (A Biologist's Views on Evolution, p. 5)
Dr. Kenneth W. Cooper, University of Rochester: "As is so often the case of writings of our modern evolutionists, natural selection as a cause is deduced from effect, and the resulting arguments and conclusions are, of course, unconvincing." (Science, March 25, 1955, p. 429)
Dr. Albert Fleischmann, Erlangen University: "The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are becoming more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge, nor does it suffice for our theoretical grasps of the facts." (Victoria Institute, Vol. 65, pp. 195, 195)
Dr. Paul Lemoine, French geologist who once defended the evolution position, stated: "The theory of evolution is impossible." (Evolutionists Under Fire, p. 4)
Dr. McNair Wilson, former editor of the Oxford Medical Publications: "Increase of knowledge about biology has tended to emphasize the extreme rigidity of type, and more and more to discount the idea of transmutation from one type to another - - The essential basis of Darwinism." (The Witness of Science, p. 11)
Dr. Rudolf Virchow, German pathologist: "It is all nonsense. It cannot be proved by science that man descends from the ape or any other animal. Since the announcement of the theory, all real scientific knowledge has proceeded the opposite direction." (The Bible Versus Theories of Evolution, p. 84, 85)
Dr. Austin Clark, formerly of the United States National Museum: "There is not the slightest evidence that any of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex, related, more or less closely to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation." (Review of Biology, p. 539)
Dr. Theodore Schwarze, geologist, said "The doctrine of evolution would be an insult to anyone's intelligence." (Science, p. 70)
Dr. Ferenco Kiss, dean of the Medical Faculty, University of Budapest: "All the European teachers know the theory of evolution, but they have never made it a foundation for teaching or research. We also understand why it is necessary for the evolutionists - - in order to maintain their theory - - to collect only similarities and to neglect the numerous differences." (History, p. 39)
Dr. Henry Morris, Virginia Polytechnic Institute: "Its nature is coming more plainly into focus and can be discerned as that of a vast framework of deductions built upon the foundation of a false premise." (The Twilight of Evolution, p. 35)
Dr. Duane Gish, who has recently appeared before the California State Board of Education on the issue of evolution in the public schools, stated: "It is certain that evolution theory lies outside the domain of science. In modern evolution theory, fact, fiction and philosophy are so inextricably interwoven that it is difficult, if not impossible, for the non-scientist, and even the non-specialist, to separate one from the other." (Bible-Science Newsletter, Vol. XI, No. 1, January, 1973) Gish also states: "Under our present situation, students are being brainwashed in evolution philosophy. They are given all of the evidence that can be adduced in favor of the theory with no exposure to its fallacies and weaknesses." (Part of Dr. Gish's statement before the California State Board of Education, Nov. 9, 1972)
Dr. Charles Hodge states: "A more absolutely incredible theory was never propounded for acceptance among men." (What is Darwinism?, as quoted by Werkmeister, A History of Philosophical Ideas, p. 82)
And the list could go on. It is quite evident that many within the scientific arena no longer rely on the evolutionary hypothesis. To them it is absolutely false and credulous. The pendulum has begun to swing in the direction of divine creation. And, after all, when faith in evolution is lost, there is only one alternative! Creation is logical, reasonable, believable and the evidence definitely points in that direction.
| Powered By |
| TheLordsWay.com |
| Click here to host your own church web site today! |
