The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
To all those who insist in following the Cult that is "evolution" here are yet more of the infinite flaws in the fairy tale. This is the side the evolutionist scientists of course don't tell you.
I DID NOT WRITE THIS, BUT JUST AS THE EVOLUTIONISTS ONLY BELIEVE DARWIN, I BELIEVE THE LORD AND ALL THOSE WHO STRESS HOW REDICULOUS EVOLUTION IS.
Doughboy writes the following from
http://www.netaxs.com/~doughboy/montana.htm
Hi there!
I am very happy to receive your mail.
I believe that this dialogue began with a question of whether evolution is legit. My argument is that I think it deceives students; going directly in opposition to testable science.
1. the laws of nature
The First Law of Thermodynamics
The first law of thermodynamics is the law of energy conservation. As you know, this is an empirical or testable law of science. This law states while energy can be converted from one form to another, it can not be created or annihilated. It has been considered the most powerful or most fundamental generalization of the universe that scientists have ever been able to make. This would mean that mass nor energy can appear from nothing. If there were that would be a free lunch. Some have suspected black holes, but I believe that one has not been observed. Today, matter does not spring out of nothing. If I were to tell someone that something appeared or reappeared, they'd say it were a lie, fairy tale, or legend.
The question seems to choke many evolutionists when one tests the theory of evolution with the first law of thermodynamics. There are all sorts of untested hypothesis of how something could come from nothing and that something that people hypothesis about is actually something. If it exists, it is something.
This reminds me of the 19th century concept of spontaneous generation. Flies can't come from rotten meat. At that time, people speculated how flies came about or how some sort of growth came about and it was believed that spoiled foods caused it. We later found out that there was a much different mechanism occurring. Science at one point was clueless, and we now know insects and other living things don't come from dead ones. In the time of Darwin, scientists believed that "simple organisms" came from inanimate objects. Just put millions of years in between and an open system, and you have life beginning on Earth.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics
As you know that the law of entropy is this. Without any intelligence acting on a system, entropy is always increasing and order is decreasing. Entropy is that free energy or energy lost.
For example, after I straighten up my room, it is a natural process that it will start becoming chaotic over time. It will not get clean or straight on its own, but I will have to do it. Entropy in the big bang/evolution theory moves from disorder (a soupy primordial slime), to order (man, plants, and animals). Supposedly, there is no intelligent being acting on the young Earth and the world then moves from disorder and chaos, to order and complexity. It is that "blind random chance" that makes it impossible for life to be created in this order. It is amino acids, to amoebas, to apes, and then to astronauts.
This is not true because the energy of the earth flows from hot to cool bodies. Evolution requires constant violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Some evolutions then try to dogmatically defend their position of getting past the second law.
One argument is that it is only speaking of energy relationships of matter, while evolution deals with complex organisms arising from simpler ones. This is false.
Contemporary information theory deals with information entropy and militates against evolution on a genetic level. While in an energy conversion system, entropy dictates that energy will decay. In an informational system, entropy dictates that information will be distorted. It is certain that there is a conceptual connection between information and second law of thermodynamics.
Some evolutionists also say that entropy can't prevent evolution because the Earth was an open system heated by the rays of the sun. This is nonsense.
the sun's raise have never produced an upswing in complexity without teleonomy (ordering principal of life).
Energy from the sun doesn't produce an orderly structure of growth and development without information and an engine.
I may be incorrect in my analogy, but it reminds me of poring gas on a heap of junk that used to be a car. If the junk doesn't know how to use the gas, there is no way it will drive down the street. If the sun beats down on a dead plant, it does not produce growth, but rather speeds up decay!
If the sun beats on a live plant, it produces a temporary increase in complexity in growth.
Evolutionists sometimes also say that entropy did not occur in the past. Well, hey, I wouldn't say that if I was an evolutionist, because that would suggest some supernatural occurrence. *wink*
This is just the first topic on the long list of flaws that the theory of evolution has.
I'm not doubting that evolution is the best theory that scientists can come up with, but biology, anthropology, psychology, chemistry, and other science students are not told of the weaknesses of the theory. (As Phillup Johnson put it, Evolution is a “half-baked theory.” And guess what? Scientists nor students have to accept it.)
Sincerely,
The Doughboy
DOUGHBOY WROTE THIS LETTER TO AN EVOLUTIONIST, AND NEVER GOT A RESPONSE. THIS IS A COMMON PATTERN, WHEN THE CREATIONIST WINS THE POINT, THE EVOLUTIONIST BACKS DOWN.
I DID NOT WRITE THIS, BUT JUST AS THE EVOLUTIONISTS ONLY BELIEVE DARWIN, I BELIEVE THE LORD AND ALL THOSE WHO STRESS HOW REDICULOUS EVOLUTION IS.
Doughboy writes the following from
http://www.netaxs.com/~doughboy/montana.htm
Hi there!
I am very happy to receive your mail.
I believe that this dialogue began with a question of whether evolution is legit. My argument is that I think it deceives students; going directly in opposition to testable science.
1. the laws of nature
The First Law of Thermodynamics
The first law of thermodynamics is the law of energy conservation. As you know, this is an empirical or testable law of science. This law states while energy can be converted from one form to another, it can not be created or annihilated. It has been considered the most powerful or most fundamental generalization of the universe that scientists have ever been able to make. This would mean that mass nor energy can appear from nothing. If there were that would be a free lunch. Some have suspected black holes, but I believe that one has not been observed. Today, matter does not spring out of nothing. If I were to tell someone that something appeared or reappeared, they'd say it were a lie, fairy tale, or legend.
The question seems to choke many evolutionists when one tests the theory of evolution with the first law of thermodynamics. There are all sorts of untested hypothesis of how something could come from nothing and that something that people hypothesis about is actually something. If it exists, it is something.
This reminds me of the 19th century concept of spontaneous generation. Flies can't come from rotten meat. At that time, people speculated how flies came about or how some sort of growth came about and it was believed that spoiled foods caused it. We later found out that there was a much different mechanism occurring. Science at one point was clueless, and we now know insects and other living things don't come from dead ones. In the time of Darwin, scientists believed that "simple organisms" came from inanimate objects. Just put millions of years in between and an open system, and you have life beginning on Earth.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics
As you know that the law of entropy is this. Without any intelligence acting on a system, entropy is always increasing and order is decreasing. Entropy is that free energy or energy lost.
For example, after I straighten up my room, it is a natural process that it will start becoming chaotic over time. It will not get clean or straight on its own, but I will have to do it. Entropy in the big bang/evolution theory moves from disorder (a soupy primordial slime), to order (man, plants, and animals). Supposedly, there is no intelligent being acting on the young Earth and the world then moves from disorder and chaos, to order and complexity. It is that "blind random chance" that makes it impossible for life to be created in this order. It is amino acids, to amoebas, to apes, and then to astronauts.
This is not true because the energy of the earth flows from hot to cool bodies. Evolution requires constant violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Some evolutions then try to dogmatically defend their position of getting past the second law.
One argument is that it is only speaking of energy relationships of matter, while evolution deals with complex organisms arising from simpler ones. This is false.
Contemporary information theory deals with information entropy and militates against evolution on a genetic level. While in an energy conversion system, entropy dictates that energy will decay. In an informational system, entropy dictates that information will be distorted. It is certain that there is a conceptual connection between information and second law of thermodynamics.
Some evolutionists also say that entropy can't prevent evolution because the Earth was an open system heated by the rays of the sun. This is nonsense.
the sun's raise have never produced an upswing in complexity without teleonomy (ordering principal of life).
Energy from the sun doesn't produce an orderly structure of growth and development without information and an engine.
I may be incorrect in my analogy, but it reminds me of poring gas on a heap of junk that used to be a car. If the junk doesn't know how to use the gas, there is no way it will drive down the street. If the sun beats down on a dead plant, it does not produce growth, but rather speeds up decay!
If the sun beats on a live plant, it produces a temporary increase in complexity in growth.
Evolutionists sometimes also say that entropy did not occur in the past. Well, hey, I wouldn't say that if I was an evolutionist, because that would suggest some supernatural occurrence. *wink*
This is just the first topic on the long list of flaws that the theory of evolution has.
I'm not doubting that evolution is the best theory that scientists can come up with, but biology, anthropology, psychology, chemistry, and other science students are not told of the weaknesses of the theory. (As Phillup Johnson put it, Evolution is a “half-baked theory.” And guess what? Scientists nor students have to accept it.)
Sincerely,
The Doughboy
DOUGHBOY WROTE THIS LETTER TO AN EVOLUTIONIST, AND NEVER GOT A RESPONSE. THIS IS A COMMON PATTERN, WHEN THE CREATIONIST WINS THE POINT, THE EVOLUTIONIST BACKS DOWN.
Page:
FF agrees with all the pricipals of evolution, but not evolution itself.
Because that would make him a ... *gasp* ... evolutionist.
See, in his world, putting people into neatly-labled boxes is the most important thing - so you can descriminate more easily.
Because that would make him a ... *gasp* ... evolutionist.
See, in his world, putting people into neatly-labled boxes is the most important thing - so you can descriminate more easily.
Hmm. I'm in 2 minds about reading that.
If you've genuinely taken the time to write it yourself, it'd be rude not to.
Then again, if it's just something else that you've quoted (without reading again?), to deflect attention from the latest dead-end in your argument and boost your word count (I noticed the triple post), there's really not much point.
After all, you seem to have agreed that random genetic occurences take place, that these changes affect physical characteristics, and that organisms with the 'best' genes have the best chance of survival and of passing those genes on to a new generation.
And that's what evolution is.
Whether you believe the first life was created by god or chance, surely you've already acknowledged that since that creation, life has been changing in this manner called evolution.
Putting aside everything else, you seem to have agreed with all this already. I just don't see how, after agreeing with those principles, anyone could claim evolution doesn't happen :^S
Anyway, is that big post a genuine one or a big hollow pikey quote?
If you've genuinely taken the time to write it yourself, it'd be rude not to.
Then again, if it's just something else that you've quoted (without reading again?), to deflect attention from the latest dead-end in your argument and boost your word count (I noticed the triple post), there's really not much point.
After all, you seem to have agreed that random genetic occurences take place, that these changes affect physical characteristics, and that organisms with the 'best' genes have the best chance of survival and of passing those genes on to a new generation.
And that's what evolution is.
Whether you believe the first life was created by god or chance, surely you've already acknowledged that since that creation, life has been changing in this manner called evolution.
Putting aside everything else, you seem to have agreed with all this already. I just don't see how, after agreeing with those principles, anyone could claim evolution doesn't happen :^S
Anyway, is that big post a genuine one or a big hollow pikey quote?
Strafio wrote:
> I only got through a quarter of it.
>
> Too long and mundane for first thing in the morning.
> The guy is right in saying that there is no solid proof for
> evolution.
Good we agree it can NEVER be solidly PROVED.
> But's lets take the example of the ship.
> It didn't evolve the same way we did, because it wasn't alive. It
> doesn't mate with other ships and then produce offspring.
Each time the ship was still MADE i.e. CREATED. People had to build it from materials. There was not a tree that magically transformed into a boat, now was there?
> The design has evolved though.
> Was the first boat ANYTHING like that? Nope.
> Did early mankind make a small wooden raft and then say "Okay.
> Let's create a big metal behemoth ship from scratch now!"?
> Nope.
.
> New idea's were tried, one at a time.
> Probably 99% of these idea's were bad.
> They sunk and were forgotten about.
> The 1% of idea's that worked stayed, were remembered and added with
> further ideas.
>
> You only have to look at how many ships there have been over the ages
> to see how much the design has evolved. Those wooden ships having
> that complex curved design and then metal ships reverting to a
> straighter design.
But each ship was created from new each time. Or if they wanted to change a ship, again it was CREATED from the ship, rather than it evolving.
> The design started simple.
> Idea's mutated it.
> The majority of these mutations were bad, and sunk.
> The few good one's stayed afloat, being the fittest, they survived.
> And then gradually more changes, more "sink and swim"
> selections.
>
>
> You call it adaption but that's what evolution is.
> The design of the ship has evolved in less than 10 to 20 thousand
> years.
> Small genetic changes, of the child from the parent results in small
> changes. And after about 10 millions years of changes, what started
> as an ape eventually became a man.
In less than a FEW thousand years boats have been created.
> 10 million years of changes is roughly 3 million "small"
> changes to the human genetic code.
> Some changes were for the worse, and chose died out.
> Some changes were for the better, and those survived to gradually
> evolve into us.
So you think it is a case of survival of the fittest. But why would the genetics change anway.
> See? :-)
I remained no less skeptical of EVOLUTION, then before I started discussing it.
> I only got through a quarter of it.
>
> Too long and mundane for first thing in the morning.
> The guy is right in saying that there is no solid proof for
> evolution.
Good we agree it can NEVER be solidly PROVED.
> But's lets take the example of the ship.
> It didn't evolve the same way we did, because it wasn't alive. It
> doesn't mate with other ships and then produce offspring.
Each time the ship was still MADE i.e. CREATED. People had to build it from materials. There was not a tree that magically transformed into a boat, now was there?
> The design has evolved though.
> Was the first boat ANYTHING like that? Nope.
> Did early mankind make a small wooden raft and then say "Okay.
> Let's create a big metal behemoth ship from scratch now!"?
> Nope.
.
> New idea's were tried, one at a time.
> Probably 99% of these idea's were bad.
> They sunk and were forgotten about.
> The 1% of idea's that worked stayed, were remembered and added with
> further ideas.
>
> You only have to look at how many ships there have been over the ages
> to see how much the design has evolved. Those wooden ships having
> that complex curved design and then metal ships reverting to a
> straighter design.
But each ship was created from new each time. Or if they wanted to change a ship, again it was CREATED from the ship, rather than it evolving.
> The design started simple.
> Idea's mutated it.
> The majority of these mutations were bad, and sunk.
> The few good one's stayed afloat, being the fittest, they survived.
> And then gradually more changes, more "sink and swim"
> selections.
>
>
> You call it adaption but that's what evolution is.
> The design of the ship has evolved in less than 10 to 20 thousand
> years.
> Small genetic changes, of the child from the parent results in small
> changes. And after about 10 millions years of changes, what started
> as an ape eventually became a man.
In less than a FEW thousand years boats have been created.
> 10 million years of changes is roughly 3 million "small"
> changes to the human genetic code.
> Some changes were for the worse, and chose died out.
> Some changes were for the better, and those survived to gradually
> evolve into us.
So you think it is a case of survival of the fittest. But why would the genetics change anway.
> See? :-)
I remained no less skeptical of EVOLUTION, then before I started discussing it.
Strafio wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> So this proves evolution of the eyeball, even though it end up
> DIFFERENT than ours? You will have to try harder, mate.
>
> It demonstrates the evolution of the eyeball.
> No one said anything about trying to make it like ours.
>
> Infact, because the selection process was based purely on how good
> they eye was, it ended up being more advanced than ours (our eyesight
> is good enough to garauntee survival so it will not evolve much more
> now).
>
>
> With evolution, a change is made at a time.
> The better changes stay the the bad changes die out.
> These changes add up over time to make something amazingly different
> to the original species.
>
> Ofcourse, because it is done by steps of changes, you can never be
> sure what you're going to end up with, and something is unlikely to
> evolve the same way twice.
>
> Having said that, some designs work so well for survival that they do
> crop up twice. Take the Dolphin and the Ichiosaur (sp?). Both are
> very similar to each other in terms of shape and limb design, but
> have various differences.
> They are completely un-related though.
> The Ichiosaur lived about 100 million years ago and became extinct
> with the Dinosaurs. It was also a reptile.
> The Dolphin evolved from mammals and won't have been around for more
> than 10 million years. Completely unrelated but ended up similar.
>
> Hence nature designs us, through the requirements it sets us to
> survive. And those of us who mutate or adapt to suit these
> requirements, follow nature's designs and become better survivers.
>
> Understand?
>
>
> Now I'll try reading that huge article that you TRIPLE POSTED you
> clumsy muppet! :-P
This story above, would it not make more sense, if the universe was not just made.
> Forest Fan wrote:
> So this proves evolution of the eyeball, even though it end up
> DIFFERENT than ours? You will have to try harder, mate.
>
> It demonstrates the evolution of the eyeball.
> No one said anything about trying to make it like ours.
>
> Infact, because the selection process was based purely on how good
> they eye was, it ended up being more advanced than ours (our eyesight
> is good enough to garauntee survival so it will not evolve much more
> now).
>
>
> With evolution, a change is made at a time.
> The better changes stay the the bad changes die out.
> These changes add up over time to make something amazingly different
> to the original species.
>
> Ofcourse, because it is done by steps of changes, you can never be
> sure what you're going to end up with, and something is unlikely to
> evolve the same way twice.
>
> Having said that, some designs work so well for survival that they do
> crop up twice. Take the Dolphin and the Ichiosaur (sp?). Both are
> very similar to each other in terms of shape and limb design, but
> have various differences.
> They are completely un-related though.
> The Ichiosaur lived about 100 million years ago and became extinct
> with the Dinosaurs. It was also a reptile.
> The Dolphin evolved from mammals and won't have been around for more
> than 10 million years. Completely unrelated but ended up similar.
>
> Hence nature designs us, through the requirements it sets us to
> survive. And those of us who mutate or adapt to suit these
> requirements, follow nature's designs and become better survivers.
>
> Understand?
>
>
> Now I'll try reading that huge article that you TRIPLE POSTED you
> clumsy muppet! :-P
This story above, would it not make more sense, if the universe was not just made.
I only got through a quarter of it.
Too long and mundane for first thing in the morning.
The guy is right in saying that there is no solid proof for evolution.
But's lets take the example of the ship.
It didn't evolve the same way we did, because it wasn't alive. It doesn't mate with other ships and then produce offspring.
The design has evolved though.
Was the first boat ANYTHING like that? Nope.
Did early mankind make a small wooden raft and then say "Okay. Let's create a big metal behemoth ship from scratch now!"? Nope.
New idea's were tried, one at a time.
Probably 99% of these idea's were bad.
They sunk and were forgotten about.
The 1% of idea's that worked stayed, were remembered and added with further ideas.
You only have to look at how many ships there have been over the ages to see how much the design has evolved. Those wooden ships having that complex curved design and then metal ships reverting to a straighter design.
The design started simple.
Idea's mutated it.
The majority of these mutations were bad, and sunk.
The few good one's stayed afloat, being the fittest, they survived.
And then gradually more changes, more "sink and swim" selections.
You call it adaption but that's what evolution is.
The design of the ship has evolved in less than 10 to 20 thousand years.
Small genetic changes, of the child from the parent results in small changes. And after about 10 millions years of changes, what started as an ape eventually became a man.
10 million years of changes is roughly 3 million "small" changes to the human genetic code.
Some changes were for the worse, and chose died out.
Some changes were for the better, and those survived to gradually evolve into us.
See? :-)
Too long and mundane for first thing in the morning.
The guy is right in saying that there is no solid proof for evolution.
But's lets take the example of the ship.
It didn't evolve the same way we did, because it wasn't alive. It doesn't mate with other ships and then produce offspring.
The design has evolved though.
Was the first boat ANYTHING like that? Nope.
Did early mankind make a small wooden raft and then say "Okay. Let's create a big metal behemoth ship from scratch now!"? Nope.
New idea's were tried, one at a time.
Probably 99% of these idea's were bad.
They sunk and were forgotten about.
The 1% of idea's that worked stayed, were remembered and added with further ideas.
You only have to look at how many ships there have been over the ages to see how much the design has evolved. Those wooden ships having that complex curved design and then metal ships reverting to a straighter design.
The design started simple.
Idea's mutated it.
The majority of these mutations were bad, and sunk.
The few good one's stayed afloat, being the fittest, they survived.
And then gradually more changes, more "sink and swim" selections.
You call it adaption but that's what evolution is.
The design of the ship has evolved in less than 10 to 20 thousand years.
Small genetic changes, of the child from the parent results in small changes. And after about 10 millions years of changes, what started as an ape eventually became a man.
10 million years of changes is roughly 3 million "small" changes to the human genetic code.
Some changes were for the worse, and chose died out.
Some changes were for the better, and those survived to gradually evolve into us.
See? :-)
Forest Fan wrote:
> So this proves evolution of the eyeball, even though it end up
> DIFFERENT than ours? You will have to try harder, mate.
It demonstrates the evolution of the eyeball.
No one said anything about trying to make it like ours.
Infact, because the selection process was based purely on how good they eye was, it ended up being more advanced than ours (our eyesight is good enough to garauntee survival so it will not evolve much more now).
With evolution, a change is made at a time.
The better changes stay the the bad changes die out.
These changes add up over time to make something amazingly different to the original species.
Ofcourse, because it is done by steps of changes, you can never be sure what you're going to end up with, and something is unlikely to evolve the same way twice.
Having said that, some designs work so well for survival that they do crop up twice. Take the Dolphin and the Ichiosaur (sp?). Both are very similar to each other in terms of shape and limb design, but have various differences.
They are completely un-related though.
The Ichiosaur lived about 100 million years ago and became extinct with the Dinosaurs. It was also a reptile.
The Dolphin evolved from mammals and won't have been around for more than 10 million years. Completely unrelated but ended up similar.
Hence nature designs us, through the requirements it sets us to survive. And those of us who mutate or adapt to suit these requirements, follow nature's designs and become better survivers.
Understand?
Now I'll try reading that huge article that you TRIPLE POSTED you clumsy muppet! :-P
> So this proves evolution of the eyeball, even though it end up
> DIFFERENT than ours? You will have to try harder, mate.
It demonstrates the evolution of the eyeball.
No one said anything about trying to make it like ours.
Infact, because the selection process was based purely on how good they eye was, it ended up being more advanced than ours (our eyesight is good enough to garauntee survival so it will not evolve much more now).
With evolution, a change is made at a time.
The better changes stay the the bad changes die out.
These changes add up over time to make something amazingly different to the original species.
Ofcourse, because it is done by steps of changes, you can never be sure what you're going to end up with, and something is unlikely to evolve the same way twice.
Having said that, some designs work so well for survival that they do crop up twice. Take the Dolphin and the Ichiosaur (sp?). Both are very similar to each other in terms of shape and limb design, but have various differences.
They are completely un-related though.
The Ichiosaur lived about 100 million years ago and became extinct with the Dinosaurs. It was also a reptile.
The Dolphin evolved from mammals and won't have been around for more than 10 million years. Completely unrelated but ended up similar.
Hence nature designs us, through the requirements it sets us to survive. And those of us who mutate or adapt to suit these requirements, follow nature's designs and become better survivers.
Understand?
Now I'll try reading that huge article that you TRIPLE POSTED you clumsy muppet! :-P
Tallan wrote:
> One of the main arguments used by creationists against evolutionists
> is the evolution of the eyeball. How did such a complex organ evolve
> from a single cell?
>
> Two scientists tried to model evolution of the eyeball using a
> computer simulation. They started with one photo-sensitive cell and
> applied a random mutation to it. They then took the original cell and
> applied a different random mutation. Repeat 50 times. They now had 50
> results that had had one mutation applied to each. The simulation
> then tested every result to see which was the best at detecting
> light. They took this 'best result' and used it as the basis for the
> next generation. Rinse and repeat.
>
> After a hell of a lot of generations (can't remember exact figure),
> taking the 'best' each time, they ended up with, you guessed it, an
> eyeball! Only this eyeball was infact slightly better than ours, the
> lens it had evolved was better (I think there were actually 2
> lenses), which goes to show that evolution is an entirely feasible
> proposition. It also demonstrates that evolution will do the best it
> needs to do for a certain job, not the best it can do period.
>
> {Oh yes, black holes have been observed, not directly as this is an
> imposibility, but indirectly using other stars and maths and stuff.}
Right, Tallan this is an article about "evolution" my brother wrote. It talks about Darwin and others. Enjoy.
Before exploring the theory of evolution on scientific grounds, let us first address the matter from a point of logic and common understanding. Let’s imagine: we stand together on the wharf as a big ocean liner draws alongside, and I say to you, “A lot of people think that ship is the result of someone’s carefully designed plans, but I know better. There was really no intelligence at work on it at all; the iron, by some mysterious process, gradually came out of the ground and fashioned itself into plates; slowly holes were formed in the edges of these plates, and rivets appeared, flattened themselves out on either side, and after a great time, by this same evolutionary process, the engines were in place, and one day some men on the seashore found her floating quietly in a sheltered cove.”
You would probably consider me a lunatic, and move further into the crowd to escape my senseless chatter. Why, you know that where there is a design there must be a designer, and, having seen other productions of the human mind just like the steamer in question, you would refuse to believe it was not planned by human intelligence and built by human skill.
Yet there are men not considered fools who tell us that the solar system evolved from its nebulous state by chance, that in some mysterious way it came – that there was really no higher intelligence at work on it; they tell us they know no God but nature, on the other hand there are many thoughtful men who believe that God is transcendent; that is, while He reveals Himself in nature, in that is laws and principles are expressions of His power and wisdom, He Himself is essentially the sum of them all. Evolutionists and atheists offer us the anomaly of design without a designer, of creation without a Creator, of effect without a cause, and to escape from this dilemma ask, “If God be considered the ‘first great cause,’ account for Him, who made God?” Now, such a question contradicts itself, for it is evident no cause could make the first cause, or the first cause would become also the second cause, which is a mathematical absurdity.
Every thoughtful person believes in a series of causes and effect in nature, each effect becoming the cause of some other effect. Now the acceptance of this fact logically compels one to admit that there must be a beginning to any series – that is, there could never have been a first effect if there had not been a First Cause. This First Cause to me is Deity, and because I cannot tell where God came from is not a satisfactory reason for denying that He exists, else I might as well deny the existence of the millionth effect which, for the sake of argument, might happen to be this world. You see, if I admit one cause as ever having existed, I am bound eventually by induction to arrive at the First Cause. We will explore the subject of the origin of life later in a more in-depth and scientific context.
“But wait a minute,” says the evolutionist, “Isn’t evolution a science and creation just a religious belief?” If this common idea were true, why would so many highly qualified scientists today accept the direct creation of a functioning world (just as it says in Genesis, the first book of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures) and reject evolution? In fact, the modern creation movement is a fast-growing minority.
In the US alone, it is conservatively estimated that there are upwards of 10,000 professional scientists who believe in biblical creation. In 1993 in South Korea, for instance, the Korea Association of Creation Research already had a membership of over 1,000 scientists, the majority with at least a Master’s or Ph.D. degree in some area of science, and including 100 full-ranking university professors. The Moscow Creation Science Fellowship was formed with 10 members a short while ago. A year later it had escalated to 120 holders of advanced science degrees.
Most university professors have one earned doctorate; we know of members of the creation movement (e.g. A.E. Wilder-Smith) who have the rare distinction of three such doctorates. Historically, most scientific disciplines were founded by great scientists (Newton, Pasteur, Faraday, to name but a few) who were all creationists.
Right: Professor A.E. Wilder-Smith, who holds three science doctorates
Real science depends on measuring or watching something happen, and checking it by doing it again. Even if, for example, reptiles did change into birds millions of years ago, as evolutionists allege, the scientific method could never prove that as a fact, because it was not observed happening. If you could somehow turn a reptile into a bird today, even that wouldn’t prove it happened millions of years ago. Equally, you can’t insist that God should repeat the miraculous creation of many groups of birds and reptiles, programmed to reproduce after their kind, just so you can watch it.
Both are ideas held on faith; each belief system (evolution or creation) offers arguments and evidences to bolster that faith. Creationists maintain that theirs is a reasonable and logical belief system, backed up by the weight of evidence observable in the present.
As we study evolution, let us first consider the morphological evidence for it. Firstly: Evidence from Classification - In his study of the various organisms in nature, the evolutionist finds some organisms to be very simple in structure and others more complicated. He finds it possible to arrange or classify these organisms in a fairly graded system from the most simple to the most complex, or, as he would put it, from the ‘lower’ to the ‘highest’. Thus he places a single-celled animal like amoeba first, and next to it or ‘above’ it the multicellular hydra, and next to it amphioxus, and then a fish, an amphibian, a reptile and a lower mammal. Next to the lower mammal he places a lower ape. Next to that a higher ape, and lastly the most complex of all – Man. When he has finished arranging these creatures in that order, from the simpler to the more complicated, he turns round to the creationist and says: “See, here is a proof for the theory of evolution, showing how the complicated evolved out of the simpler ones!”
This is a strange proof indeed! Such proofs are not wanting in any sphere of life, for simple and complicated things which lend themselves to such arrangements exist everywhere. By arranging his books on a shelf in a graded system, depending on the size or complexity of its contents, a student can also prove the ‘evolution’ of his books. The reader may well see the absurdity of such an argument, for it assumes the very thing to be proved. Nevertheless it has deceived thousands of students in the past and is still deceiving thousands more who allow themselves to be carried away by sheer weight of ‘scientific authority’, instead of thinking for themselves clearly and logically.
In his book A Critique of Evolution Theory the late well-known evolutionist T.H. Morgan of Columbia University admits that the proof from classification is in fact no real proof at all. On page 9 of the same book he says that when the fallacy of the argument is pointed out to pupils of his who believe in evolution, they are resentful. We may boldly affirm that this proof is absurd; and the fact that organisms can be arranged in a certain order does not preclude the possibility of both the simple and the complex coming into existence simultaneously. The Bible says that all animal life was created in two days (Genesis 1:20-27). With God such things are possible.
Secondly: Proof from Comparative Anatomy – When a student of anatomy studies the structure of various animals in detail such as the bones, the muscles, the arteries, the veins, etc., it becomes apparent to him that there is a certain similarity of structure underlying them all. For example the anatomy of cat, dog, monkey and man resemble each other a great deal, taking bone for bone, muscle for muscle, and nerve for nerve, even to the smallest detail. It may also be stated that the resemblance between the animals themselves varies. Thus a cat resembles a dog more than a monkey, and a monkey resembles a man more than it resembles a dog. Based on this similarity of structure animals can be arranged in a fairly graded system. Again, comparing the anatomy of the wing of a bird, the paddle of a whale and the arm of a man it is observed that they are all constructed on the same general plan taking bone for bone, muscle for muscle and nerve for nerve. The evolutionist contends that such similarity of structure can be explained only on the basis of evolution, namely, that they all had a common ancestor.
Similarity of structure is a scientific fact, for one can observe it on studying the anatomy of these animals. But the interpretation put on this similarity can reasonably be denied. For this similarity of structure can with equal reasonableness be used as an argument in favour of the doctrine of the special creation. For instance, if the various colleges of the city were compared, one is sure to find many points of similarity. Each may have an entrance, an office room, a Principal’s room, a library with books, class rooms with blackboards and seating arrangements, etc. This comparison may be extended even to minor details, to show that the resemblance between two Science Colleges is greater than the resemblance between an Arts College and a Science College. But from this similarity of structure it cannot be argued that the biggest (first grade) Science College building came out of a smaller (second grade) Science College building or that both Science and Arts College buildings evolved out of a common ancestor! For we know that they were all constructed separately. Yet they may well have been planned and constructed by one architect at one and the same time. Similarity in design in the case of colleges does not prove their evolution; neither does similarity of design prove evolution in the case of living organisms. To the believer in the Bible, similarity in plan of structure among living organisms merely establishes the fact of one great
Architect, the Creator, who had in mind one great pattern which He used while making His natural species with such modifications as were necessary for their different conditions of life. He could as well have created them all on different patterns, the dog with four legs, the cat with five, the cow with six and the elephant with nineteen! He could have put the nostrils of the monkey behind its ears and given man two heads! But as they all have to live upon the same earth, breathing the same air and drinking the same kind of water, it was but reasonable that a wise Creator should construct them all on a similar pattern, allowing modifications wherever necessary. Thus similarity of structure, as revealed in comparative anatomy, may as well point to a common Creator as to any evolutionary process.
Now let us consider the evidences for evolution from blood relationship. Firstly: Blood Precipitation Test – This test is supposed to support the theory of evolution by demonstrating ‘blood relationship’ that exists between man and the lower animals. George Nuttal of Cambridge, during his investigations which led to the discovery of vaccination, came across a by-product known as the anti-human serum. Human blood added to this liquid forms a thick white precipitate; with the blood of a bird there is no reaction, but the blood of mammals like lemurs, monkeys and chimpanzees yields varying degrees of precipitate, slightest in the case of lemurs and heaviest in that of chimpanzee. This similarity in the structure of the blood of man and ape is supposed to prove their common ancestry.
Now, it is true that some similarity exists between the blood of mammals, which may even admit of their being arranged in a graded system. But this chemical similarity cannot prove evolution. Pursuing the same logic we might conclude that the pen knife, the bread knife and the sword have evolved from a common ancestor! For there is a similarity in the chemical make-up of these articles, and they can be arranged in a graded system according to the degree of hardness of each. However, further research along the same lines has show that the tiger and the whale are close of kin as are also the parrot and the ostrich. But such inconvenient facts are ignored by the evolutionist.
Blood analysis has revealed other interesting facts as shown by B.C. Nelson. The specific gravity of human blood is 1059; of the pig and the hare 1060; of the frog 1055-56; of the snake 1055, and the monkey’s 1054.9. From this table we can see that the frog and the snake are closer to man that the monkey, while our nearest relation is the pig!
It may look somewhat strange to base our relationship with the pig on flimsy evidence such as the similarity in the specific gravity of the blood. Yet the suggestion of a piggian ancestry was the theme for a University extension lecture in India a few years ago by a learned professor of Zoology holding a Ph.D. degree of the University of London. Of course he had many other facts of similarity to the support his thesis that we have closer ties with the Pig than with the Monkey or the Ape!
But this is not all. If the blood test be a criterion of common ancestry, why not the milk test too? And chemical analysis shows that the animal which stands nearest to man, in this respect, is neither the monkey nor the pig but – the DONKEY!
Some have even found support for this ancestry in the traditional customs of some primitive peoples. For among the tribal people in Asia there is still the practice of feeding infants when they are born with donkey’s milk instead of human milk. To what ridiculous conclusions do evolutionists lead us at times!
Secondly: Proof from Geographical Distribution – The proof from blood precipitation test and the proof from geographical distribution have not been presented by evolutionists in recent years. However, they do find a place in some text books of zoology, and for that reason they are considered in this series.
The proof from geographical distribution essentially consists in setting up a ridiculous idea of special creation, not warranted by the Bible and knocking it down again by ridicule. And because such an idea of special creation is unthinkable, evolutionary interpretation for the present distribution of animals and plants presumably is correct. Charles Darwin noted the similarity between the fauna of the Galapagos Islands (500 miles off the west coast of South America) and those of the main continent, and argued that such similarity was inexplicable on the basis of special creation (i.e. the idea that each species was created separately in its particular locality). This interpretation of special creation is not implied in the Scriptures. For the Bible not only permits variation within the ‘kind’ created but also clearly indicates that all land animals migrated from a single spot after the Genesis flood. Evolutionists argue that our finding marsupial mammals only in Australia is due to the fact that the continent got separated from other parts of the world before the other mammals evolved. To this Duperett’s answer seems to be the right explanation. According to him the fauna of Australia and Tasmania is not an indigenous survival from the Mesozoic era but come there by immigration at a recent epoch (Transformations of Animal World, p. 306). This agrees with the Scriptural account. However, on the question of distribution evolutionists themselves are sharply divided, and in the current debate this is not usually presented as evidence in favour of the theory of Evolution.
“But what about the fossils,” asks the evolutionist, “don’t they show evolution?” Darwin stated, quite correctly, that if his theory was true, there should be very large numbers of ‘in-between types’ found as fossils. If the forelimb of a reptile, for instance, has turned into the wing of a bird, why don’t we find a series of fossils showing these stages – part-limb, part-wing; or part-scale, part-feather?
Darwin said that the absence of such intermediates was the ‘most obvious and serious objection’ against his theory. 120 years later, Dr. David Raup, the head of one of the great museums in America, said that the situation concerning missing links ‘hasn’t changed much’ and that ‘we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time’.
So what do we have? Evolution expects millions of in-between forms. Some evolutionists claim there are some – maybe a handful of such in-between fossil types. Other leading experts say there are none.
Below: Archaeopteryx
What is not often known is that the strange fossil creature Archaeopteryx, often used as an example of a transitional form between reptiles and birds shows none of the crucial transitional structures which would establish it beyond reasonable doubt – the feathers are fully formed, and the wings are proper wings. It has a backward facing claw and curved feet characteristic of perching birds. It was most definitely not, as some would reconstruct it, a running feathered dinosaur.
Some living creatures (e.g. the platypus) are also a mosaic of features found in different classes. This odd little fellow, who had fur like a mammal, a beak like a duck, a tail like a beaver, venom glands like a snake, lays eggs like a reptile, yet suckles its young, is a good example of such a mosaic. It is not, however, a ‘half-way house’ between any two of the creatures listed.
This general absence of in-between forms also applies to so-called ‘human evolution’. This might be surprising considering that so many alleged ‘ancestors’ are paraded. It is difficult to track all the varied and changing claims, but the past century has show that each widely trumpeted ‘ancestor’ claim is quietly discarded – but only when some new candidate(s) can be found to replace it. Today, much is made of the australopithecines/habilines – a broad group of which the famous Lucy fossil is best known.
Dr. Charles Oxnard is one of a growing number of evolutionist anatomists who, having painstakingly examined vast numbers of measurements by computerized multivariate analysis, do not believe that these creatures are human ancestors.
Left: The skeleton of the famous ‘Lucy’ – regarded as a ‘remarkably complete’ ‘hominid’ skeleton. Her (and her type’s) claim to human ancestry is under severe challenge from expert anatomists.
He states that although initially it was thought that they were human-like or at least intermediate between apes and humans, the reality is that they ‘differ more from both humans and African apes than do these two living groups from each other. The australopithecines are unique.’ He indicates that the non-ancestor status of these creatures is supported by an increasing number of investigators who are ‘independent of those representing individuals who have found the fossils.’
What about so-called Homo erectus? Well-defined Homo erectus skeletal types were most probably true humans living after the Flood (described in the Bible in Genesis), and the break-up of people (after God’s forced dispersion at Babel, also described in the Bible) into small, isolated populations gave ideal conditions for the rapid isolation and enhancement of (pre-existing, creating) genetic differences. Such racial variation would also have included bony features.
Compared to the very wide variation in other features in the human race, the skeletal differences between erectus and other human skeletons are, after all, not that extreme. Interestingly, in Europe, not only erectus, but also Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon types (which both have larger brain capacities, on average, than today’s populations) are now known to have been living at the same time as ‘modern’ types.
Tools found recently in Indonesia in association with a stegodon have caused evolutionist Dr. Allan Thorne to suggest that these alleged ‘prehuman ancestors’ had seafaring skills and technology. Quoted in The Australian of August 19, 1993, he says of them “They’re not [i.e. shouldn’t be called] Homo erectus, they’re people.”
If one uses the evolutionists’ own timescales and criteria for classification, and plots all ‘hominid’ fossil discoveries on a chart, it will readily be seen that the idea of any evolutionary sequence is a shambles.
“It’s all well and good to attack evolution,” says the evolutionist, “but where are the evidences in favour of special creation?” Firstly: Design - The Bible says, ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.’ Witness to God and His creation is not wanting in the cosmic world. Both to a casual observer and to the student of details, the universe speaks of a design. In Einstein’s words, ‘The scientist’s religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection’ (The World As I See It, page 9). For instance, the size of the universe as revealed by the 200-inch telescope reaching out to a distance of two billion light years, with its billions of stars and their planets, all moving in their own orbits with such clock-like precision, without any confusion, speaks of an all-wise and Almighty Creator who not only created them, but also keeps them going.
The amazing accuracy with which the earth revolves round the sun year after year, taking exactly 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes and 48 seconds like the flawless machine, speak of the master Engineer, and His perfect design. Who could have started the planets in motion, each in its own orbit and regularly proportioned in their distances from the Sun? Who is keeping them moving continuously? Such marvellous accuracy and precision cannot come into being through fortuitous chance operations, as evolutionists contend. None of the theories put forward by the cosmologists, be it Laplace’s ‘Nebular Hypothesis’ or Fred Hoyle’s ‘Steady State Theory’ or Gamow’s ‘Big Bang Theory’ can adequately account for such marvellous design. In Psalm 33:6, 9 it is said, “By the work of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the hosts of them by the breath of his mouth. For he spake and it was done. He commanded and it stood fast.”
The earth, designed for our habitation, is ‘weighed’ and hung upon nothing (Job 26:7). Her mass and size is adjusted to retain atmosphere and water in exactly the right proportion to maintain life. She is kept at the right distance from the sun, to be neither too cold nor too hot. She is tilted, unlike the other planets, at an angle of 23°, to give seasons of the year for sowing and reaping to the harvest. Lest the earth be washed by the waves of the sea, the moon is kept at the right distance from her. Who calculated and placed the moon? What about the atmosphere of the earth? It is weighed and kept balanced, that the lighter nitrogen may go up and the heavier oxygen may come down every time we breathe. What about the mystery of the formation of ice at 4°C? And the wonderful design and beauty of snow flakes? What of the mystery now revealed inside the atom? Who could have reversed the law of electricity within the atom, that positive charges should attract positive charges among the protons? The Bible says, “the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth his handiwork.”
The same handiwork of the Creator is also revealed among animals and plants. The marvellous way in which the eye of man is constructed is clear evidence of God’s handiwork; it would take volumes to describe the marvels of design in the bee and her hive, in the spider and his web, and thousands of such adaptation designs in nature. These could not have been developed by the accumulation of mere hit-and-miss chance variations.
Secondly: Instincts – Looking at instincts, we find that every animal is not only equipped with its own structure and form but is also provided with an instinct suitable to its own mode of life. Thus each bird builds its own peculiar nest according to the instinct given to it.
There is no evolution or even improvement of nests seen among them with the passage of time. The apes which built their crude nests of leaves have not improved their lot and taken to mud houses, although men endowed ‘with wisdom from on high’ have moved from mud huts into air-conditioned rooms. Without any training or memories of the past, every generation of birds is capable of migrating thousands of miles over unknown lands and seas to the very spot of the earth where their parents once roosted. They do so by the instinct with which they are created. Likewise, every generation of wasps knows how to sting the caterpillar at the exact spot of its nervous system just to keep it paralysed, but alive as prey for their developing young. More wonderful still is the instinct of that small silvery fish the grunion. The timely spawning of their eggs, the fertilisation by the males, and the gathering of the fry, are marvels of God’s handiwork. The pregnant female grunions lay their eggs in the sand on Californian beaches exactly 15 minutes after high tide the night after the fortnightly high tide. These eggs have to be fertilised by the males within 30 seconds. Then these fertilised eggs buried in the sand are safe till the next tide, a fortnight later. By that time the eggs develop; with the next high tide they hatch out suddenly when touched by the salt water, and the new born fry are washed back into the sea by the receding waves. The question is, who taught grunions to time the tides? And who fixed the incubation period of the eggs to synchronise with the next high tide? And who adjusted the pull of the sun and the moon to be timed with the spawning of grunions? It is a clear demonstration of the marvellous design and the handiwork of an all-wise Creator. It is He who endowed the grunions with the right instinct to discern the time and tide.
Thirdly: Law and Order – Law and order are by no means confined to the heavenly bodies. They are apparent also in the tiny atom, which is now known to be a ‘universe within a universe.’ We see one law applicable to all matter outside the atom – the law of positive repelling negative charges – and quite another law governing the protons (charges within the nucleus of an atom). Inside the atom positive charges attract each other. This is a mystery. How came out the reversal of a ‘law’ of nature? Science has no explanation for this ‘mystery of the universe’ within the atom. But the Bible says (referring to the Lord Jesus Christ): “By him were all things created that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible…and he is before all things, and by him all things consist (or hold together).” Thus the study of physics leads us to innumerable laws governing matter and energy. And chemistry teaches us that the elements in nature do not chemically combine with each other as they like, but according to the laws already determined. If two atoms of hydrogen gas combine with one atom of oxygen gas they will always and invariably produce water, a liquid. This is a fixed law of nature, which no man can alter. And there can be no law without a Lawgiver.
Fourthly: Balance in Nature – The universal independence of all life on Earth is another clear witness of a ‘Master mind’ behind the creation. All life forms a wonderful unit. There is a perfect balance maintained in nature, not only among animals but also between animals and plants, and even between the living and the non-living. Checks and counterchecks are everywhere in nature to maintain the balance, lest promiscuity should overrun the earth. For instance, flying insects which can multiply rapidly are kept in check by the bats and birds. Large fishes eat the more prolific smaller fish, and the smaller mammals are preyed upon by their larger predators. Evolutionists contend that insects evolved long before the birds, their predators, came in. If that were so, insects would have destroyed all the available vegetation and higher life could not have evolved. The Bible informs us that all life was created in six days. Only thus could the balance in nature have been maintained.
Charles Darwin’s example of the effect of cats on red clover is a good illustration of the interdependence of plants and animals. He says “if field mice are not kept in check by cats, the nests of bumble bees would be destroyed by too many mice; with no bumble bees the red clover could not be fertilised and would soon die out.” What a beautiful instance of interdependence! Further, the bumble bee’s size, weight, and mouth parts, etc. are so well adapted to effect pollination in red clover, that no other insect can do this job. Here we see that the flower and the bee are designed for each other by the great Designer.
The interdependence of the Yucca plant of the desert and the Pronuba moth is another wonderful example. Such a complicated and perfectly balanced relationship could never have “happened” by the fortuitous variations and adjustments of Evolution. It can be explained only by terms of an all-wise Designer and Creator.
Fifthly: Origin of Life – Then again, for the spontaneous generation of life evolutionists believe that mere interaction of chemical constituents of protoplasm as such is not adequate, but that certain very special and improbable conditions of atmosphere are indispensable. They assume such ideal conditions to have existed at the beginning, and hope that they can be repeated. But biochemical investigations so far conducted indicate that this task is not so simple. In an article on spontaneous generation of life published in the annual of the Creation Research Scientists’ Society (1964) Dr. Paul A. Zimmerman of Michigan, writes as follows: “Most scientists agree that the original environment must have been free of oxygen. Oxygen in the atmosphere would effectively oxidise any early organic molecules and prevent the development of life. It would also by the formation of ozone effectively shield the earth’s surface from the high-energy ultraviolet radiation required by the theories. On the other hand, ultraviolet light has a lethal effect on living organisms. If it were not filtered out by the atmosphere, no life could exist today. It thus seems a most unlikely source upon which to depend for starting life.” He concluded the article in the following words: “Modern bio-chemical research has served to reveal much of the mystery of the chemistry of life. But in the unravelling of the vast complex of cell chemistry, it has exposed still more the statistical improbability of spontaneous generation. It is an improbability so large as to be equated with impossibility.” These facts illustrate how life is dependent upon so many synchronising factors, which are essential not only for the maintenance of life but also for its origin. Only an all-knowing, all-powerful Creator would have been able to produce matter out of nothing, and condition all the factors necessary for life on this planet at one and the same time.
Thus, whether we investigate the origin of life or of matter, or the splendour of this beautiful and orderly universe - from the tiny atom to the distant galaxy of stars - in all these we see only the glory and majesty of an all-wise Creator. We may therefore agree with Dr. Einstein that “the scientist’s religious feeling takes the form of rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.”
Below: Albert Einstein
There are many questions which the evolutionist may ask about the idea of special creation as found in the Bible which appear to conflict with science; the proceeding are a few such questions and some brief summaries of answers to them.
What happened to the dinosaurs? Before the Flood, dinosaurs and man lived together on our planet. Extinction of the great marine reptiles, along with the majority of all other types of sea creatures, would have been caused by the violent upheavals of the Flood, many being buried and preserved as fossils.
Two of each kind of land-dwelling dinosaurs survived by being taken into the Ark. After the Flood, they faced a radically different and more hostile world, and became extinct, along with countless other less spectacular creatures, some time after. There is some evidence that men knew about dinosaurs for a short time (perhaps several centuries after the Flood) before they finally became extinct. The descriptions of behemoth (Job 40:15) and leviathan (Job 41:1) quite possibly refer to some of the few post-Flood giant reptiles still in existence at that time. Job is thought to have lived before the time of Moses (i.e., before 1400 BC), but the writer of the Psalms (Psalm 74:14; 104:26) and the prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 27:1) also make mention of the great beast leviathan and they are dated much later. Added to this is the obvious fact that not every square inch of this earth has been explored, and there may yet be some of these intriguing kinds of creatures alive on our planet.
What about carbon-14 dating? This whole dating method is dependent upon knowing what the C14/C12 ratio was at the time of the organism’s death. The value used is based upon the assumption that the C14 in the atmosphere was long ago built up to steady state, that is, the amount entering the atmosphere is in balance with the amount leaving (by decay). The fact is that modern measurements show that C14 is still building up rapidly, and this would mean that the whole atmosphere is much less than (approximately) 30,000 years old. This would also have the effect of making C14 ages artificially older, especially the earlier dates. There are a number of other effects which would increase this tendency.
In addition, tests performed using the carbon-14 method date currently living creatures as having died thousands of years ago. These and other anomalous results dictate concerning the accuracy of this method.
Were there really ice ages? There is good evidence for only one ice age, in the so-called Pleistocene epoch of the evolutionists’ time-scale, just before man is presumed to have left written records. Evidence cited by evolutionists for earlier ice ages is open to other interpretations. Today’s polar ice caps and alpine glaciers are the remains of the vast ice sheets that covered about a third of the globe at their greatest extent. The Ice Age must therefore have occurred soon after Noah’s Flood.
Evolutionary geology, based on the uniformitarian (slow and gradual) belief, is at a loss to explain the evidence of the catastrophic arrival of the Ice Age – for instance, the “snap freezing” of great hairy extinct elephants (or mammoths) in Alaska, Siberia, and elsewhere. However, such catastrophism is readily explainable within the Biblical framework of Noah’s Flood and its after-effects. Whether or not the impact of an asteroid or an icy comet triggered the Ice Age, the collapse of the pre-Flood water vapour canopy (the waters above) at the outset of the Flood year (the opening of the “windows of heaven”) would have produced a profound and permanent change in the Earth’s immediate post-Flood climate. Rapid cooling at the poles and warming at the equator would have induced excessive snowfalls and the build-up of vast ice sheets, until after a few centuries conditions stabilized and the ice retreated. References to ice in the book of Job are consistent with that patriarch having lived at this time.
How could all the human races come from Noah, his three sons and their wives? Modern genetics show that when a large, freely interbreeding group is suddenly broken into many smaller groups which from then on breed only among themselves (as the Biblical description of the language dispersion at Babel would imply), different racial characteristics will arise very rapidly. It can be shown that one pair of middle-brown parents could produce all known shades of colour, from very white to very black, in ONE generation. The racial characteristics which exist today have not evolved, and generally speaking, are simply different combinations of pre-existing (created) genetic (hereditary) information. The environment plays a secondary role in favouring certain combinations over others.
“OK,” the evolutionist concludes. “You have a lot of good ideas and arguments, but really, at the end of the day, what harm is the teaching of the theory of evolution doing?” Well, firstly: Evolution justifies atheism – Everyone who insists there is no God relies upon evolution to explain nature without a designer. It is the necessary foundation for many religious world and life views such as atheism, agnosticism and the associated secular humanism with its motto: ‘if nobody made us, nobody owns us, so there’s nobody to set the rules except us.’ There is no logical reason to be bound by the principles set out in the Ten Commandments, for example, if other parts of the Old Testament are rejected as ‘cultural myths.’
Secondly: Nazism and Evolution – Much has been written about one of Fascism’s more infamous sons, Adolf Hitler. His treatment of the Jews may be attributed, at least in part, to his belief in evolution. P. Hoffman, in Hitler’s Personal Security (p. 264), said: “Hitler believed in struggle as a Darwinian principle of human life that forced ever people to try to dominate all others; without struggle they would rot and perish…Even in his own defeat in April 1945, Hitler expressed his faith in the survival of the stronger and declared the Slavic peoples to have proven themselves the stronger.”
Left: Hitler, who used evolution to justify his treatment of the Jews and other racial groups
Sir Arthur Keith, the well-known evolutionist, explains how Hitler was only being consistent in what he did to the Jews – he was applying the principles of Darwinian evolution. In Evolution and Ethics (p. 28), he said: “To see evolutionary measure and tribal morality being applied vigorously to the affairs of a great modern nation, we must turn again to Germany of 1942. We see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for a national policy…The means he adopted to secure the destiny of his race and people were organized slaughter, which has drenched Europe in blood…Such conduct is highly immoral as measured by every scale of ethics, yet Germany justifies it; it is consonant with tribal or evolutionary morality. Germany has reverted to the tribal past, and is demonstration to the world, in their naked ferocity, the methods of evolution.”
Thirdly: Racism and Evolution – Stephen J. Gould in Natural History (April 1980, p. 144), said that “Recapitulation provided a convenient focus for the pervasive racism of white scientists; they looked to the activities of their own children for comparison with normal, adult behaviour in lower races.” Gould also concludes that the term “mongoloid” became synonymous with mentally defective people because it was believed the Caucasian race was more highly developed than the Mongoloid. Therefore, some thought that a mentally defective child was really a throwback to a previous stage in evolution. The leading American palaeontologist of the first half of the 20th century, Henry Fairfield Osborne, adds fuel to the fire with his belief that “The Negroid stock is even more ancient than the Caucasian and Mongolian…The standard of intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old of the species Homo sapiens” (Natural History, April 1980, p. 129).
Right: Aborigines,
the “missing link”?
Many of the early settlers of Australia considered the Australian Aborigines to be less intelligent than the “white man,” because aborigines had not evolved as far as whites on the evolutionary scale. In fact, the Hobart Museum in Tasmania (Australia) in 1984 listed this as one of the reasons why early white settlers killed as many aborigines as they could in that state. In 1924 the New York Tribune (Sunday, February 10) had a very large article telling their readers that the missing had been found in Australia. The missing link referred to happened to be aborigines from the State of Tasmania.
The incredible thing is that we live in a society that states it wants to be rid of racist attitudes. Yet we are conditioned to racist attitudes by our very education system, and the whole foundational basis for racism permeates people’s minds.
It was the evolutionary view that convinced anthropologists there were different races of humans at different levels on the evolutionary ladder. This led them to believe there were different levels of intelligence and ability. It is the Christian view that teaches there is one race (in the sense that we all came from the same two humans, and therefore there are no lower or higher evolutionary groups) and that all people are equal.
At one school, a teacher said to her students that, if ape-like creatures had evolved into people, then this should be seen to be happening today. Some of the students told her that this was happening today because some aborigines are primitive and therefore, still evolving. Regrettably, in the children’s eyes the teaching of evolution had relegated the Australian Aborigines to a subhuman level.
Fourthly: Abortion and Evolution – Many will remember being taught at school that as an embryo develops in its mother’s womb it goes through a fish stage with gill slits, etc., and other evolutionary stages until it becomes human. In other words, the idea is that as the embryo develops it passes through all the evolutionary stages reflecting its ancestry. This theory of “embryonic recapitulation” was first proposed by a man called Ernst Haeckel. Not many people realise that this whole theory was an intentional deception. I quote, “But it still remains true that, in attempting to prove his law, Haeckel resorted to a series of dishonest distortions in making his illustrations. Branding them as dishonest is not too harsh, since Haeckel mentions where he originally procured some of his drawings without mentioning the alterations he made” (Creation Research Society1969 Annual, Volume 6, Number 1, June 1969, p.28).
Eventually, Ernst Haeckel admitted this fraud, but the deplorable aspect is that this theory is still taught in many universities, schools and colleges throughout the world. Admittedly, evolutionists who have kept up with the latest writings know that this view is wrong and refrain from teaching it in their classes. However, in most of the popular school textbooks and reading materials this view is still promulgated in various forms, often very subtly.
As people accepted that the child developing in a mother’s womb was just an animal reflecting its evolutionary ancestry, there was less and less problem about destroying it. As evolutionary ideas became more accepted, the easier it became to accept abortion. In fact, some abortion clinics in America have taken women aside to explain to them that what is being aborted is just an embryo in the fish stage of evolution, and that the embryo must not be thought of as human. These women are being fed outright lies.
Let me state here that abortion certainly existed before Darwin popularized his evolutionary theory. However, his evolutionary theory has been used to give abortion its respectability, and thus the great increase in abortion that we see today.
If the world is ‘just there’, if life is the result of a fascinating fluke, and if we ourselves are nothing more than biological accidents, we are faced with an avalanche of questions:
• If information came into being by chance, how can we know that anything is true?
• How can evolution account for the universal and invariable laws of logic, on which all out thinking depends? On what basis can we study the world in any coherent way and come to sensible conclusions about it?
• If the brain is nothing more than an accident of biological evolution, why should we trust its ability to tell us so? How can chance accumulations of atoms and molecules decide that that is what they are?
• How can shrink-wrapped bags of biological elements have any rights to justice, freedom, possessions or happiness – or even to life itself? What gives us any greater value than rocks or reptiles, trees or termites?
• How did the products of a succession of genetic flukes learn to remember the past, evaluate the present and wonder about the future?
• Why should we look for purpose or meaning in life? What is the sense in genetically programmed machines talking about ‘quality of life’ and ‘values’, or concerning themselves with aims or aspirations?
• As it is impossible to jump from atoms to ethics and from molecules to morality, why do we have an inbuilt sense of right and wrong? Where did conscience come from, and why does it have such amazing power? Why do we sometimes feel guilty or ashamed?
• Why do we have a sense of obligation or responsibility to other people? Why should mere blocks of animate matter be concerned for the temporary well-being of other blobs if both are on their way to extinction?
• How can we live – or die – with dignity if our existence is meaningless? Why do we take ourselves so seriously if Richard Dawkins is right to say that we are nothing but ‘jumped-up apes’?
• If the survival of the fittest is evolution’s greatest prize, why should we not encourage the non-survival of the unfit? Why should we care for the frail, the mentally defective, the chronically sick, the senile, or the starving? Should we not give evolution a helping hand by getting rid of them – and the sooner the better?
• If humans are no more than grown-up germs, why are we the only species preoccupied with death? Why should approaching it – or delaying it – be of the slightest concern to us? If we began as a fluke, live out a farce and end as a fertilizer, what hope or help can we give to someone who is dying?
• Why is our sense of spirituality so strong that man has been called ‘a religious animal’? Is this something we should expect to happen to dust left around for millions of years?
Dr. John Moore spoke during the annual sessions of the American Association of the Advancement of Science.
He described the theory that man evolved from “amoeba and sea-slimes” as an “incredible religion,” but not “science”.
CONCLUSION
After intense research for almost a century and a half by qualified scientists in the field of biology, bringing to light many facts of science which contradict the assumptions of Darwin, the statement of Sir Arthur Keith that “Evolution is unproved and unprovable, we believe it because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable” may now be restated as follows: “Evolution is unproved and now found to be untenable. We believe in creation because it was always the only possible alternative, and is now found to be more reasonable.” In Sir James Jean’s words, “Everything points with overwhelming force to a definitive event or events of creation at some time or times not infinitely remote.” (Eos or The Wider Aspects of Cosmogeny, page 35). Whether it be the study of cosmology, physics, chemistry, biology or biochemistry, geology or palaeontology, as far as the known facts of science are concerned, we are being compelled to uphold creation rather than evolution. It is no longer ‘creation’, but ‘evolution’ of one basic kind from another basic kind that is ‘unthinkable’. It is no longer ‘Christianity’ that is the principal obstacle of human progress but ‘evolution’ that really hinders human progress. As Professor W.R. Thompson (Introduction to Darwin’s Origin of Species, edition, 1963 edition, page 20, points out: “A great deal of this work (research work stimulated by Darwinism) was directed into unprofitable channels or devoted to the pursuit of will-o-the-wisps.” The same author quotes D’Arcy Thompson’s remark “on the stultifying effect of Darwinian theory’. This apart, the social import of the concept of evolution has been disastrous and unworkable. We are therefore made to realise, that both for the progress of science and for the moral and spiritual progress of the human race, the earlier we abandon the philosophy of evolution, the better it will be for mankind.
THE REMEDY
The true remedy lies in completely abandoning the Darwinian conception of evolution and re-examining critically the facts of science with an unprejudiced mind, with a view to seeing whether they will fit into the only alternative doctrine, namely, the doctrine of ‘creation’ as recorded in the Bible. After personal investigation and examination of some of the original materials on which the theory of evolution was based, the editor has become convinced that scientific facts fit in better with the concept of creation than with evolution. Thus the doctrine of creation does not go counter to the established laws of thermodynamics. On the other hand it agrees with the principle of uncertainty and gives an adequate explanation for the origin of matter and life. It is also in harmony with the facts of palaeontology and genetics, giving ample scope for scientific research to discover the extent of variation within the basic kind created. The doctrine of creation does not lead to scientific speculation of falsification of scientific data in order to support a false theory. The concept of creation as stated in the Bible is not only in harmony with the latest facts of science but also promotes human progress in the right direction. It develops the complete man – his body, mind and also his spirit. It does not teach and lead men to the wrong ‘code of ethics’ to fight and kill each other. It takes cognizance of his spiritual hunger which evolutionists ignore.
The concept of creation leads man to his Creator, and it satisfies the inner longings of his soul. For man is not an animal to be satisfied with the material things of the world. He is essentially a spiritual being.
The reason why so many oppose the doctrine of creation is often due to prejudice or careless reading. Careful reading of the Scriptures, with an open mind, will reveal that no established scientific fact contradicts the story of creation as described in the first chapter of the Bible. On the other hand, such a study will show that the doctrine of creation, the doctrine of sin, and the catastrophe of the Noahic flood as stated in the Bible, alone can reconcile all the facts of cosmology, cosmogony, the origin of life, its reproducing only ‘after its kind’, its variation within limits, and all the facts of Palaeontology. The facts of Palaeontology, namely, the sudden and violent entombment of animals leaving millions of fossils aggregated together and others preserved in ice in the very act of feeding, can, in fact, be explained only in terms of a universal flood as described in the Bible. Geological strata with their fossils indicate not the order of evolution or even creation, but the order of burial in the waters of that deluge.
These facts of science can harmoniously be blended only in terms of creation. The doctrine of creation not only harmonises demonstrable facts of science, but also the truths of the spiritual realm, which is ignored by the protagonists of evolution. Truly “all things were made by Him and without Him was not anything made that was made”. For it is the same Creator who inspired the prophet to write the account of creation.
SOURCES
The following publications were used for this section and are available on loan from the editor:
Evolution or Creation by Professor H. Enoch
The Lie: Evolution by Ken Ham
Stones and Bones by Carl Wieland
The Answers Book by Ken Ham, Andrew Snelling & Carl Wieland
Evolution: Fact or Fiction? by John Blanchard
Have You Been…Brainwashed? by Duane T. Gish, Ph. D.
The Reason Why by R.A. Laidlaw
DARWIN’S RECANTATION
The following is an excerpt taken from Professor H. Enoch’s book “Evolution or Creation,” and is an account of Darwin’s deathbed recantation.
“The atheistic influence of evolution on the faith of man cannot be better illustrated than in the life of its own exponent, Charles Darwin, the Father of Evolution. Young Darwin, according to his own expression was ‘quite orthodox’ in his Christian faith even during the time of the famous Beagle Expedition. He had a good taste for music and poetry and a heart for the things of God, which he lost during his later years. In fact he made up his mind to become a minister of Jesus Christ and underwent theological studies at Cambridge for about three years. But as his belief in the theory of evolution increased, his faith in Christianity and God declined, until fifty years later he wrote: ‘For myself, I do not believe there ever has been any revelation.’ Though not wantonly, Darwin lost his faith as he became a confirmed evolutionist. Unfortunately this has been the experience of many a young man of godly parentage, who has made shipwreck of his faith on the theory of evolution. The Scripture has a timely warning for such in Romans 1:21, 22. We are exhorted not to become vain in our imagination lest we become spiritually blind, and this was particularly the experience of Charles Darwin, and of others, who, ‘when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing themselves to be wise they became fools.’
There is yet another important lesson to be learned from the experience of this great scientist. Lady Hope, who visited Charles Darwin during his last days on earth, has the following to say (Quoted in the Bombay Guardian, 25th March 1916) regarding his views on evolution towards the end of his life.
‘It was on a glorious Autumn afternoon when I was asked to go and sit with Charles Darwin. He was almost bedridden for some months before he died. Propped up with pillows, his features seem to be lit up with pleasure as I entered the room. He waved his hand towards the window as he pointed out the beautiful sunset seen beyond, while in the other he held an open Bible which he was always studying.’
‘What are you reading now?’ I asked.
‘Hebrews,’ he answered, ‘still Hebrews, The Royal Book, I call it…’ Then he placed his fingers on certain passages and commented upon them.
I made some allusions to the strong opinions expressed by many unbelievers on the history of the creation and then their treatment of the earlier chapters of the book of Genesis. He seemed distressed, his fingers twitched nervously and a look of agony came across his face as he said, ‘I was a young man, with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything. And to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them.’ Then he paused and after a few more sentences on the holiness of God and the grandeur of this Book, looking at the Bible which he was holding tenderly all the time, he said:
‘I have a summer house in the garden which holds about thirty people. It is over there (pointing through the open window). I want you very much to speak here. I know you read the Bible in the villages. Tomorrow afternoon I should like the servants on the place, some tenants and a few neighbours to gather there. Will you speak to them?’
‘What shall I speak about?’ I asked.
‘Christ Jesus,’ he replied in a clear emphatic voice, adding in a lower tone, ‘and His salvation. Is not that the best theme? And then I want you to sing some hymns with them. You lead on your small instrument, do you not?’
The look of brightness on his face I shall never forget, for he added, ‘If you take the meeting at 3 o’clock this window will be opened and you will know that I am joining with the singing.’
We thank God for the above confession from the Father of Evolution himself. It serves as a good warning to every youngster not to become vain in his or her imagination, and blind to spiritual things. Darwin never regretted the scientific facts he observed and recorded. But his remorse was for the godless philosophy of life for which he was responsible.
Be it Darwinism, Militarism, or Atheism, they all seem to have one common object in view, namely, to throw off the restraints of righteousness and to free man from submission and service to God. This defiance of God and His righteousness has been predicted already in the Bible in the second Psalm as follows:
‘The kings of the earth set themselves and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and against His anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the Heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall he speak to them in his wrath and vex them with his sore displeasure…’
Surely this was the experience of Hitler who worked out the Darwinian code of ethics in his nation, and will be the experience of every ‘ism’ that exalteth itself against the Lord and His Christ, ‘For the world passeth away and the lust thereof, but he that doeth the will of God abideth forever.’
‘The world by wisdom knew not God’ and so, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.’ ‘Be wise now, therefore, O ye Kings: be instructed ye judges of the earth…Blessed are all they who put their trust in Him.’ ‘For the law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. The testimony of Jehovah maketh wise the simple.’ ‘The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth his handiwork.’ It is to bring young men and women to his conception and acknowledgement of God that this book (Evolution or Creation – Professor H. Enoch) has been written. God’s word has a definite warning against the ‘isms’ of the day, be it Darwinism, Militarism or Atheism. It says, ‘Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of this world, and not after Christ.’ ‘For in Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.’ Let the exhortation given to young Timothy be our guide. ‘O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings and oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith.’ 1 Tim. 6:20.”
Like to know your thoughts on the article.
> One of the main arguments used by creationists against evolutionists
> is the evolution of the eyeball. How did such a complex organ evolve
> from a single cell?
>
> Two scientists tried to model evolution of the eyeball using a
> computer simulation. They started with one photo-sensitive cell and
> applied a random mutation to it. They then took the original cell and
> applied a different random mutation. Repeat 50 times. They now had 50
> results that had had one mutation applied to each. The simulation
> then tested every result to see which was the best at detecting
> light. They took this 'best result' and used it as the basis for the
> next generation. Rinse and repeat.
>
> After a hell of a lot of generations (can't remember exact figure),
> taking the 'best' each time, they ended up with, you guessed it, an
> eyeball! Only this eyeball was infact slightly better than ours, the
> lens it had evolved was better (I think there were actually 2
> lenses), which goes to show that evolution is an entirely feasible
> proposition. It also demonstrates that evolution will do the best it
> needs to do for a certain job, not the best it can do period.
>
> {Oh yes, black holes have been observed, not directly as this is an
> imposibility, but indirectly using other stars and maths and stuff.}
Right, Tallan this is an article about "evolution" my brother wrote. It talks about Darwin and others. Enjoy.
Before exploring the theory of evolution on scientific grounds, let us first address the matter from a point of logic and common understanding. Let’s imagine: we stand together on the wharf as a big ocean liner draws alongside, and I say to you, “A lot of people think that ship is the result of someone’s carefully designed plans, but I know better. There was really no intelligence at work on it at all; the iron, by some mysterious process, gradually came out of the ground and fashioned itself into plates; slowly holes were formed in the edges of these plates, and rivets appeared, flattened themselves out on either side, and after a great time, by this same evolutionary process, the engines were in place, and one day some men on the seashore found her floating quietly in a sheltered cove.”
You would probably consider me a lunatic, and move further into the crowd to escape my senseless chatter. Why, you know that where there is a design there must be a designer, and, having seen other productions of the human mind just like the steamer in question, you would refuse to believe it was not planned by human intelligence and built by human skill.
Yet there are men not considered fools who tell us that the solar system evolved from its nebulous state by chance, that in some mysterious way it came – that there was really no higher intelligence at work on it; they tell us they know no God but nature, on the other hand there are many thoughtful men who believe that God is transcendent; that is, while He reveals Himself in nature, in that is laws and principles are expressions of His power and wisdom, He Himself is essentially the sum of them all. Evolutionists and atheists offer us the anomaly of design without a designer, of creation without a Creator, of effect without a cause, and to escape from this dilemma ask, “If God be considered the ‘first great cause,’ account for Him, who made God?” Now, such a question contradicts itself, for it is evident no cause could make the first cause, or the first cause would become also the second cause, which is a mathematical absurdity.
Every thoughtful person believes in a series of causes and effect in nature, each effect becoming the cause of some other effect. Now the acceptance of this fact logically compels one to admit that there must be a beginning to any series – that is, there could never have been a first effect if there had not been a First Cause. This First Cause to me is Deity, and because I cannot tell where God came from is not a satisfactory reason for denying that He exists, else I might as well deny the existence of the millionth effect which, for the sake of argument, might happen to be this world. You see, if I admit one cause as ever having existed, I am bound eventually by induction to arrive at the First Cause. We will explore the subject of the origin of life later in a more in-depth and scientific context.
“But wait a minute,” says the evolutionist, “Isn’t evolution a science and creation just a religious belief?” If this common idea were true, why would so many highly qualified scientists today accept the direct creation of a functioning world (just as it says in Genesis, the first book of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures) and reject evolution? In fact, the modern creation movement is a fast-growing minority.
In the US alone, it is conservatively estimated that there are upwards of 10,000 professional scientists who believe in biblical creation. In 1993 in South Korea, for instance, the Korea Association of Creation Research already had a membership of over 1,000 scientists, the majority with at least a Master’s or Ph.D. degree in some area of science, and including 100 full-ranking university professors. The Moscow Creation Science Fellowship was formed with 10 members a short while ago. A year later it had escalated to 120 holders of advanced science degrees.
Most university professors have one earned doctorate; we know of members of the creation movement (e.g. A.E. Wilder-Smith) who have the rare distinction of three such doctorates. Historically, most scientific disciplines were founded by great scientists (Newton, Pasteur, Faraday, to name but a few) who were all creationists.
Right: Professor A.E. Wilder-Smith, who holds three science doctorates
Real science depends on measuring or watching something happen, and checking it by doing it again. Even if, for example, reptiles did change into birds millions of years ago, as evolutionists allege, the scientific method could never prove that as a fact, because it was not observed happening. If you could somehow turn a reptile into a bird today, even that wouldn’t prove it happened millions of years ago. Equally, you can’t insist that God should repeat the miraculous creation of many groups of birds and reptiles, programmed to reproduce after their kind, just so you can watch it.
Both are ideas held on faith; each belief system (evolution or creation) offers arguments and evidences to bolster that faith. Creationists maintain that theirs is a reasonable and logical belief system, backed up by the weight of evidence observable in the present.
As we study evolution, let us first consider the morphological evidence for it. Firstly: Evidence from Classification - In his study of the various organisms in nature, the evolutionist finds some organisms to be very simple in structure and others more complicated. He finds it possible to arrange or classify these organisms in a fairly graded system from the most simple to the most complex, or, as he would put it, from the ‘lower’ to the ‘highest’. Thus he places a single-celled animal like amoeba first, and next to it or ‘above’ it the multicellular hydra, and next to it amphioxus, and then a fish, an amphibian, a reptile and a lower mammal. Next to the lower mammal he places a lower ape. Next to that a higher ape, and lastly the most complex of all – Man. When he has finished arranging these creatures in that order, from the simpler to the more complicated, he turns round to the creationist and says: “See, here is a proof for the theory of evolution, showing how the complicated evolved out of the simpler ones!”
This is a strange proof indeed! Such proofs are not wanting in any sphere of life, for simple and complicated things which lend themselves to such arrangements exist everywhere. By arranging his books on a shelf in a graded system, depending on the size or complexity of its contents, a student can also prove the ‘evolution’ of his books. The reader may well see the absurdity of such an argument, for it assumes the very thing to be proved. Nevertheless it has deceived thousands of students in the past and is still deceiving thousands more who allow themselves to be carried away by sheer weight of ‘scientific authority’, instead of thinking for themselves clearly and logically.
In his book A Critique of Evolution Theory the late well-known evolutionist T.H. Morgan of Columbia University admits that the proof from classification is in fact no real proof at all. On page 9 of the same book he says that when the fallacy of the argument is pointed out to pupils of his who believe in evolution, they are resentful. We may boldly affirm that this proof is absurd; and the fact that organisms can be arranged in a certain order does not preclude the possibility of both the simple and the complex coming into existence simultaneously. The Bible says that all animal life was created in two days (Genesis 1:20-27). With God such things are possible.
Secondly: Proof from Comparative Anatomy – When a student of anatomy studies the structure of various animals in detail such as the bones, the muscles, the arteries, the veins, etc., it becomes apparent to him that there is a certain similarity of structure underlying them all. For example the anatomy of cat, dog, monkey and man resemble each other a great deal, taking bone for bone, muscle for muscle, and nerve for nerve, even to the smallest detail. It may also be stated that the resemblance between the animals themselves varies. Thus a cat resembles a dog more than a monkey, and a monkey resembles a man more than it resembles a dog. Based on this similarity of structure animals can be arranged in a fairly graded system. Again, comparing the anatomy of the wing of a bird, the paddle of a whale and the arm of a man it is observed that they are all constructed on the same general plan taking bone for bone, muscle for muscle and nerve for nerve. The evolutionist contends that such similarity of structure can be explained only on the basis of evolution, namely, that they all had a common ancestor.
Similarity of structure is a scientific fact, for one can observe it on studying the anatomy of these animals. But the interpretation put on this similarity can reasonably be denied. For this similarity of structure can with equal reasonableness be used as an argument in favour of the doctrine of the special creation. For instance, if the various colleges of the city were compared, one is sure to find many points of similarity. Each may have an entrance, an office room, a Principal’s room, a library with books, class rooms with blackboards and seating arrangements, etc. This comparison may be extended even to minor details, to show that the resemblance between two Science Colleges is greater than the resemblance between an Arts College and a Science College. But from this similarity of structure it cannot be argued that the biggest (first grade) Science College building came out of a smaller (second grade) Science College building or that both Science and Arts College buildings evolved out of a common ancestor! For we know that they were all constructed separately. Yet they may well have been planned and constructed by one architect at one and the same time. Similarity in design in the case of colleges does not prove their evolution; neither does similarity of design prove evolution in the case of living organisms. To the believer in the Bible, similarity in plan of structure among living organisms merely establishes the fact of one great
Architect, the Creator, who had in mind one great pattern which He used while making His natural species with such modifications as were necessary for their different conditions of life. He could as well have created them all on different patterns, the dog with four legs, the cat with five, the cow with six and the elephant with nineteen! He could have put the nostrils of the monkey behind its ears and given man two heads! But as they all have to live upon the same earth, breathing the same air and drinking the same kind of water, it was but reasonable that a wise Creator should construct them all on a similar pattern, allowing modifications wherever necessary. Thus similarity of structure, as revealed in comparative anatomy, may as well point to a common Creator as to any evolutionary process.
Now let us consider the evidences for evolution from blood relationship. Firstly: Blood Precipitation Test – This test is supposed to support the theory of evolution by demonstrating ‘blood relationship’ that exists between man and the lower animals. George Nuttal of Cambridge, during his investigations which led to the discovery of vaccination, came across a by-product known as the anti-human serum. Human blood added to this liquid forms a thick white precipitate; with the blood of a bird there is no reaction, but the blood of mammals like lemurs, monkeys and chimpanzees yields varying degrees of precipitate, slightest in the case of lemurs and heaviest in that of chimpanzee. This similarity in the structure of the blood of man and ape is supposed to prove their common ancestry.
Now, it is true that some similarity exists between the blood of mammals, which may even admit of their being arranged in a graded system. But this chemical similarity cannot prove evolution. Pursuing the same logic we might conclude that the pen knife, the bread knife and the sword have evolved from a common ancestor! For there is a similarity in the chemical make-up of these articles, and they can be arranged in a graded system according to the degree of hardness of each. However, further research along the same lines has show that the tiger and the whale are close of kin as are also the parrot and the ostrich. But such inconvenient facts are ignored by the evolutionist.
Blood analysis has revealed other interesting facts as shown by B.C. Nelson. The specific gravity of human blood is 1059; of the pig and the hare 1060; of the frog 1055-56; of the snake 1055, and the monkey’s 1054.9. From this table we can see that the frog and the snake are closer to man that the monkey, while our nearest relation is the pig!
It may look somewhat strange to base our relationship with the pig on flimsy evidence such as the similarity in the specific gravity of the blood. Yet the suggestion of a piggian ancestry was the theme for a University extension lecture in India a few years ago by a learned professor of Zoology holding a Ph.D. degree of the University of London. Of course he had many other facts of similarity to the support his thesis that we have closer ties with the Pig than with the Monkey or the Ape!
But this is not all. If the blood test be a criterion of common ancestry, why not the milk test too? And chemical analysis shows that the animal which stands nearest to man, in this respect, is neither the monkey nor the pig but – the DONKEY!
Some have even found support for this ancestry in the traditional customs of some primitive peoples. For among the tribal people in Asia there is still the practice of feeding infants when they are born with donkey’s milk instead of human milk. To what ridiculous conclusions do evolutionists lead us at times!
Secondly: Proof from Geographical Distribution – The proof from blood precipitation test and the proof from geographical distribution have not been presented by evolutionists in recent years. However, they do find a place in some text books of zoology, and for that reason they are considered in this series.
The proof from geographical distribution essentially consists in setting up a ridiculous idea of special creation, not warranted by the Bible and knocking it down again by ridicule. And because such an idea of special creation is unthinkable, evolutionary interpretation for the present distribution of animals and plants presumably is correct. Charles Darwin noted the similarity between the fauna of the Galapagos Islands (500 miles off the west coast of South America) and those of the main continent, and argued that such similarity was inexplicable on the basis of special creation (i.e. the idea that each species was created separately in its particular locality). This interpretation of special creation is not implied in the Scriptures. For the Bible not only permits variation within the ‘kind’ created but also clearly indicates that all land animals migrated from a single spot after the Genesis flood. Evolutionists argue that our finding marsupial mammals only in Australia is due to the fact that the continent got separated from other parts of the world before the other mammals evolved. To this Duperett’s answer seems to be the right explanation. According to him the fauna of Australia and Tasmania is not an indigenous survival from the Mesozoic era but come there by immigration at a recent epoch (Transformations of Animal World, p. 306). This agrees with the Scriptural account. However, on the question of distribution evolutionists themselves are sharply divided, and in the current debate this is not usually presented as evidence in favour of the theory of Evolution.
“But what about the fossils,” asks the evolutionist, “don’t they show evolution?” Darwin stated, quite correctly, that if his theory was true, there should be very large numbers of ‘in-between types’ found as fossils. If the forelimb of a reptile, for instance, has turned into the wing of a bird, why don’t we find a series of fossils showing these stages – part-limb, part-wing; or part-scale, part-feather?
Darwin said that the absence of such intermediates was the ‘most obvious and serious objection’ against his theory. 120 years later, Dr. David Raup, the head of one of the great museums in America, said that the situation concerning missing links ‘hasn’t changed much’ and that ‘we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time’.
So what do we have? Evolution expects millions of in-between forms. Some evolutionists claim there are some – maybe a handful of such in-between fossil types. Other leading experts say there are none.
Below: Archaeopteryx
What is not often known is that the strange fossil creature Archaeopteryx, often used as an example of a transitional form between reptiles and birds shows none of the crucial transitional structures which would establish it beyond reasonable doubt – the feathers are fully formed, and the wings are proper wings. It has a backward facing claw and curved feet characteristic of perching birds. It was most definitely not, as some would reconstruct it, a running feathered dinosaur.
Some living creatures (e.g. the platypus) are also a mosaic of features found in different classes. This odd little fellow, who had fur like a mammal, a beak like a duck, a tail like a beaver, venom glands like a snake, lays eggs like a reptile, yet suckles its young, is a good example of such a mosaic. It is not, however, a ‘half-way house’ between any two of the creatures listed.
This general absence of in-between forms also applies to so-called ‘human evolution’. This might be surprising considering that so many alleged ‘ancestors’ are paraded. It is difficult to track all the varied and changing claims, but the past century has show that each widely trumpeted ‘ancestor’ claim is quietly discarded – but only when some new candidate(s) can be found to replace it. Today, much is made of the australopithecines/habilines – a broad group of which the famous Lucy fossil is best known.
Dr. Charles Oxnard is one of a growing number of evolutionist anatomists who, having painstakingly examined vast numbers of measurements by computerized multivariate analysis, do not believe that these creatures are human ancestors.
Left: The skeleton of the famous ‘Lucy’ – regarded as a ‘remarkably complete’ ‘hominid’ skeleton. Her (and her type’s) claim to human ancestry is under severe challenge from expert anatomists.
He states that although initially it was thought that they were human-like or at least intermediate between apes and humans, the reality is that they ‘differ more from both humans and African apes than do these two living groups from each other. The australopithecines are unique.’ He indicates that the non-ancestor status of these creatures is supported by an increasing number of investigators who are ‘independent of those representing individuals who have found the fossils.’
What about so-called Homo erectus? Well-defined Homo erectus skeletal types were most probably true humans living after the Flood (described in the Bible in Genesis), and the break-up of people (after God’s forced dispersion at Babel, also described in the Bible) into small, isolated populations gave ideal conditions for the rapid isolation and enhancement of (pre-existing, creating) genetic differences. Such racial variation would also have included bony features.
Compared to the very wide variation in other features in the human race, the skeletal differences between erectus and other human skeletons are, after all, not that extreme. Interestingly, in Europe, not only erectus, but also Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon types (which both have larger brain capacities, on average, than today’s populations) are now known to have been living at the same time as ‘modern’ types.
Tools found recently in Indonesia in association with a stegodon have caused evolutionist Dr. Allan Thorne to suggest that these alleged ‘prehuman ancestors’ had seafaring skills and technology. Quoted in The Australian of August 19, 1993, he says of them “They’re not [i.e. shouldn’t be called] Homo erectus, they’re people.”
If one uses the evolutionists’ own timescales and criteria for classification, and plots all ‘hominid’ fossil discoveries on a chart, it will readily be seen that the idea of any evolutionary sequence is a shambles.
“It’s all well and good to attack evolution,” says the evolutionist, “but where are the evidences in favour of special creation?” Firstly: Design - The Bible says, ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.’ Witness to God and His creation is not wanting in the cosmic world. Both to a casual observer and to the student of details, the universe speaks of a design. In Einstein’s words, ‘The scientist’s religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection’ (The World As I See It, page 9). For instance, the size of the universe as revealed by the 200-inch telescope reaching out to a distance of two billion light years, with its billions of stars and their planets, all moving in their own orbits with such clock-like precision, without any confusion, speaks of an all-wise and Almighty Creator who not only created them, but also keeps them going.
The amazing accuracy with which the earth revolves round the sun year after year, taking exactly 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes and 48 seconds like the flawless machine, speak of the master Engineer, and His perfect design. Who could have started the planets in motion, each in its own orbit and regularly proportioned in their distances from the Sun? Who is keeping them moving continuously? Such marvellous accuracy and precision cannot come into being through fortuitous chance operations, as evolutionists contend. None of the theories put forward by the cosmologists, be it Laplace’s ‘Nebular Hypothesis’ or Fred Hoyle’s ‘Steady State Theory’ or Gamow’s ‘Big Bang Theory’ can adequately account for such marvellous design. In Psalm 33:6, 9 it is said, “By the work of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the hosts of them by the breath of his mouth. For he spake and it was done. He commanded and it stood fast.”
The earth, designed for our habitation, is ‘weighed’ and hung upon nothing (Job 26:7). Her mass and size is adjusted to retain atmosphere and water in exactly the right proportion to maintain life. She is kept at the right distance from the sun, to be neither too cold nor too hot. She is tilted, unlike the other planets, at an angle of 23°, to give seasons of the year for sowing and reaping to the harvest. Lest the earth be washed by the waves of the sea, the moon is kept at the right distance from her. Who calculated and placed the moon? What about the atmosphere of the earth? It is weighed and kept balanced, that the lighter nitrogen may go up and the heavier oxygen may come down every time we breathe. What about the mystery of the formation of ice at 4°C? And the wonderful design and beauty of snow flakes? What of the mystery now revealed inside the atom? Who could have reversed the law of electricity within the atom, that positive charges should attract positive charges among the protons? The Bible says, “the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth his handiwork.”
The same handiwork of the Creator is also revealed among animals and plants. The marvellous way in which the eye of man is constructed is clear evidence of God’s handiwork; it would take volumes to describe the marvels of design in the bee and her hive, in the spider and his web, and thousands of such adaptation designs in nature. These could not have been developed by the accumulation of mere hit-and-miss chance variations.
Secondly: Instincts – Looking at instincts, we find that every animal is not only equipped with its own structure and form but is also provided with an instinct suitable to its own mode of life. Thus each bird builds its own peculiar nest according to the instinct given to it.
There is no evolution or even improvement of nests seen among them with the passage of time. The apes which built their crude nests of leaves have not improved their lot and taken to mud houses, although men endowed ‘with wisdom from on high’ have moved from mud huts into air-conditioned rooms. Without any training or memories of the past, every generation of birds is capable of migrating thousands of miles over unknown lands and seas to the very spot of the earth where their parents once roosted. They do so by the instinct with which they are created. Likewise, every generation of wasps knows how to sting the caterpillar at the exact spot of its nervous system just to keep it paralysed, but alive as prey for their developing young. More wonderful still is the instinct of that small silvery fish the grunion. The timely spawning of their eggs, the fertilisation by the males, and the gathering of the fry, are marvels of God’s handiwork. The pregnant female grunions lay their eggs in the sand on Californian beaches exactly 15 minutes after high tide the night after the fortnightly high tide. These eggs have to be fertilised by the males within 30 seconds. Then these fertilised eggs buried in the sand are safe till the next tide, a fortnight later. By that time the eggs develop; with the next high tide they hatch out suddenly when touched by the salt water, and the new born fry are washed back into the sea by the receding waves. The question is, who taught grunions to time the tides? And who fixed the incubation period of the eggs to synchronise with the next high tide? And who adjusted the pull of the sun and the moon to be timed with the spawning of grunions? It is a clear demonstration of the marvellous design and the handiwork of an all-wise Creator. It is He who endowed the grunions with the right instinct to discern the time and tide.
Thirdly: Law and Order – Law and order are by no means confined to the heavenly bodies. They are apparent also in the tiny atom, which is now known to be a ‘universe within a universe.’ We see one law applicable to all matter outside the atom – the law of positive repelling negative charges – and quite another law governing the protons (charges within the nucleus of an atom). Inside the atom positive charges attract each other. This is a mystery. How came out the reversal of a ‘law’ of nature? Science has no explanation for this ‘mystery of the universe’ within the atom. But the Bible says (referring to the Lord Jesus Christ): “By him were all things created that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible…and he is before all things, and by him all things consist (or hold together).” Thus the study of physics leads us to innumerable laws governing matter and energy. And chemistry teaches us that the elements in nature do not chemically combine with each other as they like, but according to the laws already determined. If two atoms of hydrogen gas combine with one atom of oxygen gas they will always and invariably produce water, a liquid. This is a fixed law of nature, which no man can alter. And there can be no law without a Lawgiver.
Fourthly: Balance in Nature – The universal independence of all life on Earth is another clear witness of a ‘Master mind’ behind the creation. All life forms a wonderful unit. There is a perfect balance maintained in nature, not only among animals but also between animals and plants, and even between the living and the non-living. Checks and counterchecks are everywhere in nature to maintain the balance, lest promiscuity should overrun the earth. For instance, flying insects which can multiply rapidly are kept in check by the bats and birds. Large fishes eat the more prolific smaller fish, and the smaller mammals are preyed upon by their larger predators. Evolutionists contend that insects evolved long before the birds, their predators, came in. If that were so, insects would have destroyed all the available vegetation and higher life could not have evolved. The Bible informs us that all life was created in six days. Only thus could the balance in nature have been maintained.
Charles Darwin’s example of the effect of cats on red clover is a good illustration of the interdependence of plants and animals. He says “if field mice are not kept in check by cats, the nests of bumble bees would be destroyed by too many mice; with no bumble bees the red clover could not be fertilised and would soon die out.” What a beautiful instance of interdependence! Further, the bumble bee’s size, weight, and mouth parts, etc. are so well adapted to effect pollination in red clover, that no other insect can do this job. Here we see that the flower and the bee are designed for each other by the great Designer.
The interdependence of the Yucca plant of the desert and the Pronuba moth is another wonderful example. Such a complicated and perfectly balanced relationship could never have “happened” by the fortuitous variations and adjustments of Evolution. It can be explained only by terms of an all-wise Designer and Creator.
Fifthly: Origin of Life – Then again, for the spontaneous generation of life evolutionists believe that mere interaction of chemical constituents of protoplasm as such is not adequate, but that certain very special and improbable conditions of atmosphere are indispensable. They assume such ideal conditions to have existed at the beginning, and hope that they can be repeated. But biochemical investigations so far conducted indicate that this task is not so simple. In an article on spontaneous generation of life published in the annual of the Creation Research Scientists’ Society (1964) Dr. Paul A. Zimmerman of Michigan, writes as follows: “Most scientists agree that the original environment must have been free of oxygen. Oxygen in the atmosphere would effectively oxidise any early organic molecules and prevent the development of life. It would also by the formation of ozone effectively shield the earth’s surface from the high-energy ultraviolet radiation required by the theories. On the other hand, ultraviolet light has a lethal effect on living organisms. If it were not filtered out by the atmosphere, no life could exist today. It thus seems a most unlikely source upon which to depend for starting life.” He concluded the article in the following words: “Modern bio-chemical research has served to reveal much of the mystery of the chemistry of life. But in the unravelling of the vast complex of cell chemistry, it has exposed still more the statistical improbability of spontaneous generation. It is an improbability so large as to be equated with impossibility.” These facts illustrate how life is dependent upon so many synchronising factors, which are essential not only for the maintenance of life but also for its origin. Only an all-knowing, all-powerful Creator would have been able to produce matter out of nothing, and condition all the factors necessary for life on this planet at one and the same time.
Thus, whether we investigate the origin of life or of matter, or the splendour of this beautiful and orderly universe - from the tiny atom to the distant galaxy of stars - in all these we see only the glory and majesty of an all-wise Creator. We may therefore agree with Dr. Einstein that “the scientist’s religious feeling takes the form of rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.”
Below: Albert Einstein
There are many questions which the evolutionist may ask about the idea of special creation as found in the Bible which appear to conflict with science; the proceeding are a few such questions and some brief summaries of answers to them.
What happened to the dinosaurs? Before the Flood, dinosaurs and man lived together on our planet. Extinction of the great marine reptiles, along with the majority of all other types of sea creatures, would have been caused by the violent upheavals of the Flood, many being buried and preserved as fossils.
Two of each kind of land-dwelling dinosaurs survived by being taken into the Ark. After the Flood, they faced a radically different and more hostile world, and became extinct, along with countless other less spectacular creatures, some time after. There is some evidence that men knew about dinosaurs for a short time (perhaps several centuries after the Flood) before they finally became extinct. The descriptions of behemoth (Job 40:15) and leviathan (Job 41:1) quite possibly refer to some of the few post-Flood giant reptiles still in existence at that time. Job is thought to have lived before the time of Moses (i.e., before 1400 BC), but the writer of the Psalms (Psalm 74:14; 104:26) and the prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 27:1) also make mention of the great beast leviathan and they are dated much later. Added to this is the obvious fact that not every square inch of this earth has been explored, and there may yet be some of these intriguing kinds of creatures alive on our planet.
What about carbon-14 dating? This whole dating method is dependent upon knowing what the C14/C12 ratio was at the time of the organism’s death. The value used is based upon the assumption that the C14 in the atmosphere was long ago built up to steady state, that is, the amount entering the atmosphere is in balance with the amount leaving (by decay). The fact is that modern measurements show that C14 is still building up rapidly, and this would mean that the whole atmosphere is much less than (approximately) 30,000 years old. This would also have the effect of making C14 ages artificially older, especially the earlier dates. There are a number of other effects which would increase this tendency.
In addition, tests performed using the carbon-14 method date currently living creatures as having died thousands of years ago. These and other anomalous results dictate concerning the accuracy of this method.
Were there really ice ages? There is good evidence for only one ice age, in the so-called Pleistocene epoch of the evolutionists’ time-scale, just before man is presumed to have left written records. Evidence cited by evolutionists for earlier ice ages is open to other interpretations. Today’s polar ice caps and alpine glaciers are the remains of the vast ice sheets that covered about a third of the globe at their greatest extent. The Ice Age must therefore have occurred soon after Noah’s Flood.
Evolutionary geology, based on the uniformitarian (slow and gradual) belief, is at a loss to explain the evidence of the catastrophic arrival of the Ice Age – for instance, the “snap freezing” of great hairy extinct elephants (or mammoths) in Alaska, Siberia, and elsewhere. However, such catastrophism is readily explainable within the Biblical framework of Noah’s Flood and its after-effects. Whether or not the impact of an asteroid or an icy comet triggered the Ice Age, the collapse of the pre-Flood water vapour canopy (the waters above) at the outset of the Flood year (the opening of the “windows of heaven”) would have produced a profound and permanent change in the Earth’s immediate post-Flood climate. Rapid cooling at the poles and warming at the equator would have induced excessive snowfalls and the build-up of vast ice sheets, until after a few centuries conditions stabilized and the ice retreated. References to ice in the book of Job are consistent with that patriarch having lived at this time.
How could all the human races come from Noah, his three sons and their wives? Modern genetics show that when a large, freely interbreeding group is suddenly broken into many smaller groups which from then on breed only among themselves (as the Biblical description of the language dispersion at Babel would imply), different racial characteristics will arise very rapidly. It can be shown that one pair of middle-brown parents could produce all known shades of colour, from very white to very black, in ONE generation. The racial characteristics which exist today have not evolved, and generally speaking, are simply different combinations of pre-existing (created) genetic (hereditary) information. The environment plays a secondary role in favouring certain combinations over others.
“OK,” the evolutionist concludes. “You have a lot of good ideas and arguments, but really, at the end of the day, what harm is the teaching of the theory of evolution doing?” Well, firstly: Evolution justifies atheism – Everyone who insists there is no God relies upon evolution to explain nature without a designer. It is the necessary foundation for many religious world and life views such as atheism, agnosticism and the associated secular humanism with its motto: ‘if nobody made us, nobody owns us, so there’s nobody to set the rules except us.’ There is no logical reason to be bound by the principles set out in the Ten Commandments, for example, if other parts of the Old Testament are rejected as ‘cultural myths.’
Secondly: Nazism and Evolution – Much has been written about one of Fascism’s more infamous sons, Adolf Hitler. His treatment of the Jews may be attributed, at least in part, to his belief in evolution. P. Hoffman, in Hitler’s Personal Security (p. 264), said: “Hitler believed in struggle as a Darwinian principle of human life that forced ever people to try to dominate all others; without struggle they would rot and perish…Even in his own defeat in April 1945, Hitler expressed his faith in the survival of the stronger and declared the Slavic peoples to have proven themselves the stronger.”
Left: Hitler, who used evolution to justify his treatment of the Jews and other racial groups
Sir Arthur Keith, the well-known evolutionist, explains how Hitler was only being consistent in what he did to the Jews – he was applying the principles of Darwinian evolution. In Evolution and Ethics (p. 28), he said: “To see evolutionary measure and tribal morality being applied vigorously to the affairs of a great modern nation, we must turn again to Germany of 1942. We see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for a national policy…The means he adopted to secure the destiny of his race and people were organized slaughter, which has drenched Europe in blood…Such conduct is highly immoral as measured by every scale of ethics, yet Germany justifies it; it is consonant with tribal or evolutionary morality. Germany has reverted to the tribal past, and is demonstration to the world, in their naked ferocity, the methods of evolution.”
Thirdly: Racism and Evolution – Stephen J. Gould in Natural History (April 1980, p. 144), said that “Recapitulation provided a convenient focus for the pervasive racism of white scientists; they looked to the activities of their own children for comparison with normal, adult behaviour in lower races.” Gould also concludes that the term “mongoloid” became synonymous with mentally defective people because it was believed the Caucasian race was more highly developed than the Mongoloid. Therefore, some thought that a mentally defective child was really a throwback to a previous stage in evolution. The leading American palaeontologist of the first half of the 20th century, Henry Fairfield Osborne, adds fuel to the fire with his belief that “The Negroid stock is even more ancient than the Caucasian and Mongolian…The standard of intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old of the species Homo sapiens” (Natural History, April 1980, p. 129).
Right: Aborigines,
the “missing link”?
Many of the early settlers of Australia considered the Australian Aborigines to be less intelligent than the “white man,” because aborigines had not evolved as far as whites on the evolutionary scale. In fact, the Hobart Museum in Tasmania (Australia) in 1984 listed this as one of the reasons why early white settlers killed as many aborigines as they could in that state. In 1924 the New York Tribune (Sunday, February 10) had a very large article telling their readers that the missing had been found in Australia. The missing link referred to happened to be aborigines from the State of Tasmania.
The incredible thing is that we live in a society that states it wants to be rid of racist attitudes. Yet we are conditioned to racist attitudes by our very education system, and the whole foundational basis for racism permeates people’s minds.
It was the evolutionary view that convinced anthropologists there were different races of humans at different levels on the evolutionary ladder. This led them to believe there were different levels of intelligence and ability. It is the Christian view that teaches there is one race (in the sense that we all came from the same two humans, and therefore there are no lower or higher evolutionary groups) and that all people are equal.
At one school, a teacher said to her students that, if ape-like creatures had evolved into people, then this should be seen to be happening today. Some of the students told her that this was happening today because some aborigines are primitive and therefore, still evolving. Regrettably, in the children’s eyes the teaching of evolution had relegated the Australian Aborigines to a subhuman level.
Fourthly: Abortion and Evolution – Many will remember being taught at school that as an embryo develops in its mother’s womb it goes through a fish stage with gill slits, etc., and other evolutionary stages until it becomes human. In other words, the idea is that as the embryo develops it passes through all the evolutionary stages reflecting its ancestry. This theory of “embryonic recapitulation” was first proposed by a man called Ernst Haeckel. Not many people realise that this whole theory was an intentional deception. I quote, “But it still remains true that, in attempting to prove his law, Haeckel resorted to a series of dishonest distortions in making his illustrations. Branding them as dishonest is not too harsh, since Haeckel mentions where he originally procured some of his drawings without mentioning the alterations he made” (Creation Research Society1969 Annual, Volume 6, Number 1, June 1969, p.28).
Eventually, Ernst Haeckel admitted this fraud, but the deplorable aspect is that this theory is still taught in many universities, schools and colleges throughout the world. Admittedly, evolutionists who have kept up with the latest writings know that this view is wrong and refrain from teaching it in their classes. However, in most of the popular school textbooks and reading materials this view is still promulgated in various forms, often very subtly.
As people accepted that the child developing in a mother’s womb was just an animal reflecting its evolutionary ancestry, there was less and less problem about destroying it. As evolutionary ideas became more accepted, the easier it became to accept abortion. In fact, some abortion clinics in America have taken women aside to explain to them that what is being aborted is just an embryo in the fish stage of evolution, and that the embryo must not be thought of as human. These women are being fed outright lies.
Let me state here that abortion certainly existed before Darwin popularized his evolutionary theory. However, his evolutionary theory has been used to give abortion its respectability, and thus the great increase in abortion that we see today.
If the world is ‘just there’, if life is the result of a fascinating fluke, and if we ourselves are nothing more than biological accidents, we are faced with an avalanche of questions:
• If information came into being by chance, how can we know that anything is true?
• How can evolution account for the universal and invariable laws of logic, on which all out thinking depends? On what basis can we study the world in any coherent way and come to sensible conclusions about it?
• If the brain is nothing more than an accident of biological evolution, why should we trust its ability to tell us so? How can chance accumulations of atoms and molecules decide that that is what they are?
• How can shrink-wrapped bags of biological elements have any rights to justice, freedom, possessions or happiness – or even to life itself? What gives us any greater value than rocks or reptiles, trees or termites?
• How did the products of a succession of genetic flukes learn to remember the past, evaluate the present and wonder about the future?
• Why should we look for purpose or meaning in life? What is the sense in genetically programmed machines talking about ‘quality of life’ and ‘values’, or concerning themselves with aims or aspirations?
• As it is impossible to jump from atoms to ethics and from molecules to morality, why do we have an inbuilt sense of right and wrong? Where did conscience come from, and why does it have such amazing power? Why do we sometimes feel guilty or ashamed?
• Why do we have a sense of obligation or responsibility to other people? Why should mere blocks of animate matter be concerned for the temporary well-being of other blobs if both are on their way to extinction?
• How can we live – or die – with dignity if our existence is meaningless? Why do we take ourselves so seriously if Richard Dawkins is right to say that we are nothing but ‘jumped-up apes’?
• If the survival of the fittest is evolution’s greatest prize, why should we not encourage the non-survival of the unfit? Why should we care for the frail, the mentally defective, the chronically sick, the senile, or the starving? Should we not give evolution a helping hand by getting rid of them – and the sooner the better?
• If humans are no more than grown-up germs, why are we the only species preoccupied with death? Why should approaching it – or delaying it – be of the slightest concern to us? If we began as a fluke, live out a farce and end as a fertilizer, what hope or help can we give to someone who is dying?
• Why is our sense of spirituality so strong that man has been called ‘a religious animal’? Is this something we should expect to happen to dust left around for millions of years?
Dr. John Moore spoke during the annual sessions of the American Association of the Advancement of Science.
He described the theory that man evolved from “amoeba and sea-slimes” as an “incredible religion,” but not “science”.
CONCLUSION
After intense research for almost a century and a half by qualified scientists in the field of biology, bringing to light many facts of science which contradict the assumptions of Darwin, the statement of Sir Arthur Keith that “Evolution is unproved and unprovable, we believe it because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable” may now be restated as follows: “Evolution is unproved and now found to be untenable. We believe in creation because it was always the only possible alternative, and is now found to be more reasonable.” In Sir James Jean’s words, “Everything points with overwhelming force to a definitive event or events of creation at some time or times not infinitely remote.” (Eos or The Wider Aspects of Cosmogeny, page 35). Whether it be the study of cosmology, physics, chemistry, biology or biochemistry, geology or palaeontology, as far as the known facts of science are concerned, we are being compelled to uphold creation rather than evolution. It is no longer ‘creation’, but ‘evolution’ of one basic kind from another basic kind that is ‘unthinkable’. It is no longer ‘Christianity’ that is the principal obstacle of human progress but ‘evolution’ that really hinders human progress. As Professor W.R. Thompson (Introduction to Darwin’s Origin of Species, edition, 1963 edition, page 20, points out: “A great deal of this work (research work stimulated by Darwinism) was directed into unprofitable channels or devoted to the pursuit of will-o-the-wisps.” The same author quotes D’Arcy Thompson’s remark “on the stultifying effect of Darwinian theory’. This apart, the social import of the concept of evolution has been disastrous and unworkable. We are therefore made to realise, that both for the progress of science and for the moral and spiritual progress of the human race, the earlier we abandon the philosophy of evolution, the better it will be for mankind.
THE REMEDY
The true remedy lies in completely abandoning the Darwinian conception of evolution and re-examining critically the facts of science with an unprejudiced mind, with a view to seeing whether they will fit into the only alternative doctrine, namely, the doctrine of ‘creation’ as recorded in the Bible. After personal investigation and examination of some of the original materials on which the theory of evolution was based, the editor has become convinced that scientific facts fit in better with the concept of creation than with evolution. Thus the doctrine of creation does not go counter to the established laws of thermodynamics. On the other hand it agrees with the principle of uncertainty and gives an adequate explanation for the origin of matter and life. It is also in harmony with the facts of palaeontology and genetics, giving ample scope for scientific research to discover the extent of variation within the basic kind created. The doctrine of creation does not lead to scientific speculation of falsification of scientific data in order to support a false theory. The concept of creation as stated in the Bible is not only in harmony with the latest facts of science but also promotes human progress in the right direction. It develops the complete man – his body, mind and also his spirit. It does not teach and lead men to the wrong ‘code of ethics’ to fight and kill each other. It takes cognizance of his spiritual hunger which evolutionists ignore.
The concept of creation leads man to his Creator, and it satisfies the inner longings of his soul. For man is not an animal to be satisfied with the material things of the world. He is essentially a spiritual being.
The reason why so many oppose the doctrine of creation is often due to prejudice or careless reading. Careful reading of the Scriptures, with an open mind, will reveal that no established scientific fact contradicts the story of creation as described in the first chapter of the Bible. On the other hand, such a study will show that the doctrine of creation, the doctrine of sin, and the catastrophe of the Noahic flood as stated in the Bible, alone can reconcile all the facts of cosmology, cosmogony, the origin of life, its reproducing only ‘after its kind’, its variation within limits, and all the facts of Palaeontology. The facts of Palaeontology, namely, the sudden and violent entombment of animals leaving millions of fossils aggregated together and others preserved in ice in the very act of feeding, can, in fact, be explained only in terms of a universal flood as described in the Bible. Geological strata with their fossils indicate not the order of evolution or even creation, but the order of burial in the waters of that deluge.
These facts of science can harmoniously be blended only in terms of creation. The doctrine of creation not only harmonises demonstrable facts of science, but also the truths of the spiritual realm, which is ignored by the protagonists of evolution. Truly “all things were made by Him and without Him was not anything made that was made”. For it is the same Creator who inspired the prophet to write the account of creation.
SOURCES
The following publications were used for this section and are available on loan from the editor:
Evolution or Creation by Professor H. Enoch
The Lie: Evolution by Ken Ham
Stones and Bones by Carl Wieland
The Answers Book by Ken Ham, Andrew Snelling & Carl Wieland
Evolution: Fact or Fiction? by John Blanchard
Have You Been…Brainwashed? by Duane T. Gish, Ph. D.
The Reason Why by R.A. Laidlaw
DARWIN’S RECANTATION
The following is an excerpt taken from Professor H. Enoch’s book “Evolution or Creation,” and is an account of Darwin’s deathbed recantation.
“The atheistic influence of evolution on the faith of man cannot be better illustrated than in the life of its own exponent, Charles Darwin, the Father of Evolution. Young Darwin, according to his own expression was ‘quite orthodox’ in his Christian faith even during the time of the famous Beagle Expedition. He had a good taste for music and poetry and a heart for the things of God, which he lost during his later years. In fact he made up his mind to become a minister of Jesus Christ and underwent theological studies at Cambridge for about three years. But as his belief in the theory of evolution increased, his faith in Christianity and God declined, until fifty years later he wrote: ‘For myself, I do not believe there ever has been any revelation.’ Though not wantonly, Darwin lost his faith as he became a confirmed evolutionist. Unfortunately this has been the experience of many a young man of godly parentage, who has made shipwreck of his faith on the theory of evolution. The Scripture has a timely warning for such in Romans 1:21, 22. We are exhorted not to become vain in our imagination lest we become spiritually blind, and this was particularly the experience of Charles Darwin, and of others, who, ‘when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing themselves to be wise they became fools.’
There is yet another important lesson to be learned from the experience of this great scientist. Lady Hope, who visited Charles Darwin during his last days on earth, has the following to say (Quoted in the Bombay Guardian, 25th March 1916) regarding his views on evolution towards the end of his life.
‘It was on a glorious Autumn afternoon when I was asked to go and sit with Charles Darwin. He was almost bedridden for some months before he died. Propped up with pillows, his features seem to be lit up with pleasure as I entered the room. He waved his hand towards the window as he pointed out the beautiful sunset seen beyond, while in the other he held an open Bible which he was always studying.’
‘What are you reading now?’ I asked.
‘Hebrews,’ he answered, ‘still Hebrews, The Royal Book, I call it…’ Then he placed his fingers on certain passages and commented upon them.
I made some allusions to the strong opinions expressed by many unbelievers on the history of the creation and then their treatment of the earlier chapters of the book of Genesis. He seemed distressed, his fingers twitched nervously and a look of agony came across his face as he said, ‘I was a young man, with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything. And to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them.’ Then he paused and after a few more sentences on the holiness of God and the grandeur of this Book, looking at the Bible which he was holding tenderly all the time, he said:
‘I have a summer house in the garden which holds about thirty people. It is over there (pointing through the open window). I want you very much to speak here. I know you read the Bible in the villages. Tomorrow afternoon I should like the servants on the place, some tenants and a few neighbours to gather there. Will you speak to them?’
‘What shall I speak about?’ I asked.
‘Christ Jesus,’ he replied in a clear emphatic voice, adding in a lower tone, ‘and His salvation. Is not that the best theme? And then I want you to sing some hymns with them. You lead on your small instrument, do you not?’
The look of brightness on his face I shall never forget, for he added, ‘If you take the meeting at 3 o’clock this window will be opened and you will know that I am joining with the singing.’
We thank God for the above confession from the Father of Evolution himself. It serves as a good warning to every youngster not to become vain in his or her imagination, and blind to spiritual things. Darwin never regretted the scientific facts he observed and recorded. But his remorse was for the godless philosophy of life for which he was responsible.
Be it Darwinism, Militarism, or Atheism, they all seem to have one common object in view, namely, to throw off the restraints of righteousness and to free man from submission and service to God. This defiance of God and His righteousness has been predicted already in the Bible in the second Psalm as follows:
‘The kings of the earth set themselves and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and against His anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the Heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall he speak to them in his wrath and vex them with his sore displeasure…’
Surely this was the experience of Hitler who worked out the Darwinian code of ethics in his nation, and will be the experience of every ‘ism’ that exalteth itself against the Lord and His Christ, ‘For the world passeth away and the lust thereof, but he that doeth the will of God abideth forever.’
‘The world by wisdom knew not God’ and so, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.’ ‘Be wise now, therefore, O ye Kings: be instructed ye judges of the earth…Blessed are all they who put their trust in Him.’ ‘For the law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. The testimony of Jehovah maketh wise the simple.’ ‘The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth his handiwork.’ It is to bring young men and women to his conception and acknowledgement of God that this book (Evolution or Creation – Professor H. Enoch) has been written. God’s word has a definite warning against the ‘isms’ of the day, be it Darwinism, Militarism or Atheism. It says, ‘Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of this world, and not after Christ.’ ‘For in Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.’ Let the exhortation given to young Timothy be our guide. ‘O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings and oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith.’ 1 Tim. 6:20.”
Like to know your thoughts on the article.
Tallan wrote:
> One of the main arguments used by creationists against evolutionists
> is the evolution of the eyeball. How did such a complex organ evolve
> from a single cell?
>
> Two scientists tried to model evolution of the eyeball using a
> computer simulation. They started with one photo-sensitive cell and
> applied a random mutation to it. They then took the original cell and
> applied a different random mutation. Repeat 50 times. They now had 50
> results that had had one mutation applied to each. The simulation
> then tested every result to see which was the best at detecting
> light. They took this 'best result' and used it as the basis for the
> next generation. Rinse and repeat.
>
> After a hell of a lot of generations (can't remember exact figure),
> taking the 'best' each time, they ended up with, you guessed it, an
> eyeball! Only this eyeball was infact slightly better than ours, the
> lens it had evolved was better (I think there were actually 2
> lenses), which goes to show that evolution is an entirely feasible
> proposition. It also demonstrates that evolution will do the best it
> needs to do for a certain job, not the best it can do period.
>
> {Oh yes, black holes have been observed, not directly as this is an
> imposibility, but indirectly using other stars and maths and stuff.}
Right, Tallan this is an article about "evolution" my brother wrote. It talks about Darwin and others. Enjoy.
Before exploring the theory of evolution on scientific grounds, let us first address the matter from a point of logic and common understanding. Let’s imagine: we stand together on the wharf as a big ocean liner draws alongside, and I say to you, “A lot of people think that ship is the result of someone’s carefully designed plans, but I know better. There was really no intelligence at work on it at all; the iron, by some mysterious process, gradually came out of the ground and fashioned itself into plates; slowly holes were formed in the edges of these plates, and rivets appeared, flattened themselves out on either side, and after a great time, by this same evolutionary process, the engines were in place, and one day some men on the seashore found her floating quietly in a sheltered cove.”
You would probably consider me a lunatic, and move further into the crowd to escape my senseless chatter. Why, you know that where there is a design there must be a designer, and, having seen other productions of the human mind just like the steamer in question, you would refuse to believe it was not planned by human intelligence and built by human skill.
Yet there are men not considered fools who tell us that the solar system evolved from its nebulous state by chance, that in some mysterious way it came – that there was really no higher intelligence at work on it; they tell us they know no God but nature, on the other hand there are many thoughtful men who believe that God is transcendent; that is, while He reveals Himself in nature, in that is laws and principles are expressions of His power and wisdom, He Himself is essentially the sum of them all. Evolutionists and atheists offer us the anomaly of design without a designer, of creation without a Creator, of effect without a cause, and to escape from this dilemma ask, “If God be considered the ‘first great cause,’ account for Him, who made God?” Now, such a question contradicts itself, for it is evident no cause could make the first cause, or the first cause would become also the second cause, which is a mathematical absurdity.
Every thoughtful person believes in a series of causes and effect in nature, each effect becoming the cause of some other effect. Now the acceptance of this fact logically compels one to admit that there must be a beginning to any series – that is, there could never have been a first effect if there had not been a First Cause. This First Cause to me is Deity, and because I cannot tell where God came from is not a satisfactory reason for denying that He exists, else I might as well deny the existence of the millionth effect which, for the sake of argument, might happen to be this world. You see, if I admit one cause as ever having existed, I am bound eventually by induction to arrive at the First Cause. We will explore the subject of the origin of life later in a more in-depth and scientific context.
“But wait a minute,” says the evolutionist, “Isn’t evolution a science and creation just a religious belief?” If this common idea were true, why would so many highly qualified scientists today accept the direct creation of a functioning world (just as it says in Genesis, the first book of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures) and reject evolution? In fact, the modern creation movement is a fast-growing minority.
In the US alone, it is conservatively estimated that there are upwards of 10,000 professional scientists who believe in biblical creation. In 1993 in South Korea, for instance, the Korea Association of Creation Research already had a membership of over 1,000 scientists, the majority with at least a Master’s or Ph.D. degree in some area of science, and including 100 full-ranking university professors. The Moscow Creation Science Fellowship was formed with 10 members a short while ago. A year later it had escalated to 120 holders of advanced science degrees.
Most university professors have one earned doctorate; we know of members of the creation movement (e.g. A.E. Wilder-Smith) who have the rare distinction of three such doctorates. Historically, most scientific disciplines were founded by great scientists (Newton, Pasteur, Faraday, to name but a few) who were all creationists.
Right: Professor A.E. Wilder-Smith, who holds three science doctorates
Real science depends on measuring or watching something happen, and checking it by doing it again. Even if, for example, reptiles did change into birds millions of years ago, as evolutionists allege, the scientific method could never prove that as a fact, because it was not observed happening. If you could somehow turn a reptile into a bird today, even that wouldn’t prove it happened millions of years ago. Equally, you can’t insist that God should repeat the miraculous creation of many groups of birds and reptiles, programmed to reproduce after their kind, just so you can watch it.
Both are ideas held on faith; each belief system (evolution or creation) offers arguments and evidences to bolster that faith. Creationists maintain that theirs is a reasonable and logical belief system, backed up by the weight of evidence observable in the present.
As we study evolution, let us first consider the morphological evidence for it. Firstly: Evidence from Classification - In his study of the various organisms in nature, the evolutionist finds some organisms to be very simple in structure and others more complicated. He finds it possible to arrange or classify these organisms in a fairly graded system from the most simple to the most complex, or, as he would put it, from the ‘lower’ to the ‘highest’. Thus he places a single-celled animal like amoeba first, and next to it or ‘above’ it the multicellular hydra, and next to it amphioxus, and then a fish, an amphibian, a reptile and a lower mammal. Next to the lower mammal he places a lower ape. Next to that a higher ape, and lastly the most complex of all – Man. When he has finished arranging these creatures in that order, from the simpler to the more complicated, he turns round to the creationist and says: “See, here is a proof for the theory of evolution, showing how the complicated evolved out of the simpler ones!”
This is a strange proof indeed! Such proofs are not wanting in any sphere of life, for simple and complicated things which lend themselves to such arrangements exist everywhere. By arranging his books on a shelf in a graded system, depending on the size or complexity of its contents, a student can also prove the ‘evolution’ of his books. The reader may well see the absurdity of such an argument, for it assumes the very thing to be proved. Nevertheless it has deceived thousands of students in the past and is still deceiving thousands more who allow themselves to be carried away by sheer weight of ‘scientific authority’, instead of thinking for themselves clearly and logically.
In his book A Critique of Evolution Theory the late well-known evolutionist T.H. Morgan of Columbia University admits that the proof from classification is in fact no real proof at all. On page 9 of the same book he says that when the fallacy of the argument is pointed out to pupils of his who believe in evolution, they are resentful. We may boldly affirm that this proof is absurd; and the fact that organisms can be arranged in a certain order does not preclude the possibility of both the simple and the complex coming into existence simultaneously. The Bible says that all animal life was created in two days (Genesis 1:20-27). With God such things are possible.
Secondly: Proof from Comparative Anatomy – When a student of anatomy studies the structure of various animals in detail such as the bones, the muscles, the arteries, the veins, etc., it becomes apparent to him that there is a certain similarity of structure underlying them all. For example the anatomy of cat, dog, monkey and man resemble each other a great deal, taking bone for bone, muscle for muscle, and nerve for nerve, even to the smallest detail. It may also be stated that the resemblance between the animals themselves varies. Thus a cat resembles a dog more than a monkey, and a monkey resembles a man more than it resembles a dog. Based on this similarity of structure animals can be arranged in a fairly graded system. Again, comparing the anatomy of the wing of a bird, the paddle of a whale and the arm of a man it is observed that they are all constructed on the same general plan taking bone for bone, muscle for muscle and nerve for nerve. The evolutionist contends that such similarity of structure can be explained only on the basis of evolution, namely, that they all had a common ancestor.
Similarity of structure is a scientific fact, for one can observe it on studying the anatomy of these animals. But the interpretation put on this similarity can reasonably be denied. For this similarity of structure can with equal reasonableness be used as an argument in favour of the doctrine of the special creation. For instance, if the various colleges of the city were compared, one is sure to find many points of similarity. Each may have an entrance, an office room, a Principal’s room, a library with books, class rooms with blackboards and seating arrangements, etc. This comparison may be extended even to minor details, to show that the resemblance between two Science Colleges is greater than the resemblance between an Arts College and a Science College. But from this similarity of structure it cannot be argued that the biggest (first grade) Science College building came out of a smaller (second grade) Science College building or that both Science and Arts College buildings evolved out of a common ancestor! For we know that they were all constructed separately. Yet they may well have been planned and constructed by one architect at one and the same time. Similarity in design in the case of colleges does not prove their evolution; neither does similarity of design prove evolution in the case of living organisms. To the believer in the Bible, similarity in plan of structure among living organisms merely establishes the fact of one great
Architect, the Creator, who had in mind one great pattern which He used while making His natural species with such modifications as were necessary for their different conditions of life. He could as well have created them all on different patterns, the dog with four legs, the cat with five, the cow with six and the elephant with nineteen! He could have put the nostrils of the monkey behind its ears and given man two heads! But as they all have to live upon the same earth, breathing the same air and drinking the same kind of water, it was but reasonable that a wise Creator should construct them all on a similar pattern, allowing modifications wherever necessary. Thus similarity of structure, as revealed in comparative anatomy, may as well point to a common Creator as to any evolutionary process.
Now let us consider the evidences for evolution from blood relationship. Firstly: Blood Precipitation Test – This test is supposed to support the theory of evolution by demonstrating ‘blood relationship’ that exists between man and the lower animals. George Nuttal of Cambridge, during his investigations which led to the discovery of vaccination, came across a by-product known as the anti-human serum. Human blood added to this liquid forms a thick white precipitate; with the blood of a bird there is no reaction, but the blood of mammals like lemurs, monkeys and chimpanzees yields varying degrees of precipitate, slightest in the case of lemurs and heaviest in that of chimpanzee. This similarity in the structure of the blood of man and ape is supposed to prove their common ancestry.
Now, it is true that some similarity exists between the blood of mammals, which may even admit of their being arranged in a graded system. But this chemical similarity cannot prove evolution. Pursuing the same logic we might conclude that the pen knife, the bread knife and the sword have evolved from a common ancestor! For there is a similarity in the chemical make-up of these articles, and they can be arranged in a graded system according to the degree of hardness of each. However, further research along the same lines has show that the tiger and the whale are close of kin as are also the parrot and the ostrich. But such inconvenient facts are ignored by the evolutionist.
Blood analysis has revealed other interesting facts as shown by B.C. Nelson. The specific gravity of human blood is 1059; of the pig and the hare 1060; of the frog 1055-56; of the snake 1055, and the monkey’s 1054.9. From this table we can see that the frog and the snake are closer to man that the monkey, while our nearest relation is the pig!
It may look somewhat strange to base our relationship with the pig on flimsy evidence such as the similarity in the specific gravity of the blood. Yet the suggestion of a piggian ancestry was the theme for a University extension lecture in India a few years ago by a learned professor of Zoology holding a Ph.D. degree of the University of London. Of course he had many other facts of similarity to the support his thesis that we have closer ties with the Pig than with the Monkey or the Ape!
But this is not all. If the blood test be a criterion of common ancestry, why not the milk test too? And chemical analysis shows that the animal which stands nearest to man, in this respect, is neither the monkey nor the pig but – the DONKEY!
Some have even found support for this ancestry in the traditional customs of some primitive peoples. For among the tribal people in Asia there is still the practice of feeding infants when they are born with donkey’s milk instead of human milk. To what ridiculous conclusions do evolutionists lead us at times!
Secondly: Proof from Geographical Distribution – The proof from blood precipitation test and the proof from geographical distribution have not been presented by evolutionists in recent years. However, they do find a place in some text books of zoology, and for that reason they are considered in this series.
The proof from geographical distribution essentially consists in setting up a ridiculous idea of special creation, not warranted by the Bible and knocking it down again by ridicule. And because such an idea of special creation is unthinkable, evolutionary interpretation for the present distribution of animals and plants presumably is correct. Charles Darwin noted the similarity between the fauna of the Galapagos Islands (500 miles off the west coast of South America) and those of the main continent, and argued that such similarity was inexplicable on the basis of special creation (i.e. the idea that each species was created separately in its particular locality). This interpretation of special creation is not implied in the Scriptures. For the Bible not only permits variation within the ‘kind’ created but also clearly indicates that all land animals migrated from a single spot after the Genesis flood. Evolutionists argue that our finding marsupial mammals only in Australia is due to the fact that the continent got separated from other parts of the world before the other mammals evolved. To this Duperett’s answer seems to be the right explanation. According to him the fauna of Australia and Tasmania is not an indigenous survival from the Mesozoic era but come there by immigration at a recent epoch (Transformations of Animal World, p. 306). This agrees with the Scriptural account. However, on the question of distribution evolutionists themselves are sharply divided, and in the current debate this is not usually presented as evidence in favour of the theory of Evolution.
“But what about the fossils,” asks the evolutionist, “don’t they show evolution?” Darwin stated, quite correctly, that if his theory was true, there should be very large numbers of ‘in-between types’ found as fossils. If the forelimb of a reptile, for instance, has turned into the wing of a bird, why don’t we find a series of fossils showing these stages – part-limb, part-wing; or part-scale, part-feather?
Darwin said that the absence of such intermediates was the ‘most obvious and serious objection’ against his theory. 120 years later, Dr. David Raup, the head of one of the great museums in America, said that the situation concerning missing links ‘hasn’t changed much’ and that ‘we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time’.
So what do we have? Evolution expects millions of in-between forms. Some evolutionists claim there are some – maybe a handful of such in-between fossil types. Other leading experts say there are none.
Below: Archaeopteryx
What is not often known is that the strange fossil creature Archaeopteryx, often used as an example of a transitional form between reptiles and birds shows none of the crucial transitional structures which would establish it beyond reasonable doubt – the feathers are fully formed, and the wings are proper wings. It has a backward facing claw and curved feet characteristic of perching birds. It was most definitely not, as some would reconstruct it, a running feathered dinosaur.
Some living creatures (e.g. the platypus) are also a mosaic of features found in different classes. This odd little fellow, who had fur like a mammal, a beak like a duck, a tail like a beaver, venom glands like a snake, lays eggs like a reptile, yet suckles its young, is a good example of such a mosaic. It is not, however, a ‘half-way house’ between any two of the creatures listed.
This general absence of in-between forms also applies to so-called ‘human evolution’. This might be surprising considering that so many alleged ‘ancestors’ are paraded. It is difficult to track all the varied and changing claims, but the past century has show that each widely trumpeted ‘ancestor’ claim is quietly discarded – but only when some new candidate(s) can be found to replace it. Today, much is made of the australopithecines/habilines – a broad group of which the famous Lucy fossil is best known.
Dr. Charles Oxnard is one of a growing number of evolutionist anatomists who, having painstakingly examined vast numbers of measurements by computerized multivariate analysis, do not believe that these creatures are human ancestors.
Left: The skeleton of the famous ‘Lucy’ – regarded as a ‘remarkably complete’ ‘hominid’ skeleton. Her (and her type’s) claim to human ancestry is under severe challenge from expert anatomists.
He states that although initially it was thought that they were human-like or at least intermediate between apes and humans, the reality is that they ‘differ more from both humans and African apes than do these two living groups from each other. The australopithecines are unique.’ He indicates that the non-ancestor status of these creatures is supported by an increasing number of investigators who are ‘independent of those representing individuals who have found the fossils.’
What about so-called Homo erectus? Well-defined Homo erectus skeletal types were most probably true humans living after the Flood (described in the Bible in Genesis), and the break-up of people (after God’s forced dispersion at Babel, also described in the Bible) into small, isolated populations gave ideal conditions for the rapid isolation and enhancement of (pre-existing, creating) genetic differences. Such racial variation would also have included bony features.
Compared to the very wide variation in other features in the human race, the skeletal differences between erectus and other human skeletons are, after all, not that extreme. Interestingly, in Europe, not only erectus, but also Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon types (which both have larger brain capacities, on average, than today’s populations) are now known to have been living at the same time as ‘modern’ types.
Tools found recently in Indonesia in association with a stegodon have caused evolutionist Dr. Allan Thorne to suggest that these alleged ‘prehuman ancestors’ had seafaring skills and technology. Quoted in The Australian of August 19, 1993, he says of them “They’re not [i.e. shouldn’t be called] Homo erectus, they’re people.”
If one uses the evolutionists’ own timescales and criteria for classification, and plots all ‘hominid’ fossil discoveries on a chart, it will readily be seen that the idea of any evolutionary sequence is a shambles.
“It’s all well and good to attack evolution,” says the evolutionist, “but where are the evidences in favour of special creation?” Firstly: Design - The Bible says, ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.’ Witness to God and His creation is not wanting in the cosmic world. Both to a casual observer and to the student of details, the universe speaks of a design. In Einstein’s words, ‘The scientist’s religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection’ (The World As I See It, page 9). For instance, the size of the universe as revealed by the 200-inch telescope reaching out to a distance of two billion light years, with its billions of stars and their planets, all moving in their own orbits with such clock-like precision, without any confusion, speaks of an all-wise and Almighty Creator who not only created them, but also keeps them going.
The amazing accuracy with which the earth revolves round the sun year after year, taking exactly 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes and 48 seconds like the flawless machine, speak of the master Engineer, and His perfect design. Who could have started the planets in motion, each in its own orbit and regularly proportioned in their distances from the Sun? Who is keeping them moving continuously? Such marvellous accuracy and precision cannot come into being through fortuitous chance operations, as evolutionists contend. None of the theories put forward by the cosmologists, be it Laplace’s ‘Nebular Hypothesis’ or Fred Hoyle’s ‘Steady State Theory’ or Gamow’s ‘Big Bang Theory’ can adequately account for such marvellous design. In Psalm 33:6, 9 it is said, “By the work of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the hosts of them by the breath of his mouth. For he spake and it was done. He commanded and it stood fast.”
The earth, designed for our habitation, is ‘weighed’ and hung upon nothing (Job 26:7). Her mass and size is adjusted to retain atmosphere and water in exactly the right proportion to maintain life. She is kept at the right distance from the sun, to be neither too cold nor too hot. She is tilted, unlike the other planets, at an angle of 23°, to give seasons of the year for sowing and reaping to the harvest. Lest the earth be washed by the waves of the sea, the moon is kept at the right distance from her. Who calculated and placed the moon? What about the atmosphere of the earth? It is weighed and kept balanced, that the lighter nitrogen may go up and the heavier oxygen may come down every time we breathe. What about the mystery of the formation of ice at 4°C? And the wonderful design and beauty of snow flakes? What of the mystery now revealed inside the atom? Who could have reversed the law of electricity within the atom, that positive charges should attract positive charges among the protons? The Bible says, “the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth his handiwork.”
The same handiwork of the Creator is also revealed among animals and plants. The marvellous way in which the eye of man is constructed is clear evidence of God’s handiwork; it would take volumes to describe the marvels of design in the bee and her hive, in the spider and his web, and thousands of such adaptation designs in nature. These could not have been developed by the accumulation of mere hit-and-miss chance variations.
Secondly: Instincts – Looking at instincts, we find that every animal is not only equipped with its own structure and form but is also provided with an instinct suitable to its own mode of life. Thus each bird builds its own peculiar nest according to the instinct given to it.
There is no evolution or even improvement of nests seen among them with the passage of time. The apes which built their crude nests of leaves have not improved their lot and taken to mud houses, although men endowed ‘with wisdom from on high’ have moved from mud huts into air-conditioned rooms. Without any training or memories of the past, every generation of birds is capable of migrating thousands of miles over unknown lands and seas to the very spot of the earth where their parents once roosted. They do so by the instinct with which they are created. Likewise, every generation of wasps knows how to sting the caterpillar at the exact spot of its nervous system just to keep it paralysed, but alive as prey for their developing young. More wonderful still is the instinct of that small silvery fish the grunion. The timely spawning of their eggs, the fertilisation by the males, and the gathering of the fry, are marvels of God’s handiwork. The pregnant female grunions lay their eggs in the sand on Californian beaches exactly 15 minutes after high tide the night after the fortnightly high tide. These eggs have to be fertilised by the males within 30 seconds. Then these fertilised eggs buried in the sand are safe till the next tide, a fortnight later. By that time the eggs develop; with the next high tide they hatch out suddenly when touched by the salt water, and the new born fry are washed back into the sea by the receding waves. The question is, who taught grunions to time the tides? And who fixed the incubation period of the eggs to synchronise with the next high tide? And who adjusted the pull of the sun and the moon to be timed with the spawning of grunions? It is a clear demonstration of the marvellous design and the handiwork of an all-wise Creator. It is He who endowed the grunions with the right instinct to discern the time and tide.
Thirdly: Law and Order – Law and order are by no means confined to the heavenly bodies. They are apparent also in the tiny atom, which is now known to be a ‘universe within a universe.’ We see one law applicable to all matter outside the atom – the law of positive repelling negative charges – and quite another law governing the protons (charges within the nucleus of an atom). Inside the atom positive charges attract each other. This is a mystery. How came out the reversal of a ‘law’ of nature? Science has no explanation for this ‘mystery of the universe’ within the atom. But the Bible says (referring to the Lord Jesus Christ): “By him were all things created that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible…and he is before all things, and by him all things consist (or hold together).” Thus the study of physics leads us to innumerable laws governing matter and energy. And chemistry teaches us that the elements in nature do not chemically combine with each other as they like, but according to the laws already determined. If two atoms of hydrogen gas combine with one atom of oxygen gas they will always and invariably produce water, a liquid. This is a fixed law of nature, which no man can alter. And there can be no law without a Lawgiver.
Fourthly: Balance in Nature – The universal independence of all life on Earth is another clear witness of a ‘Master mind’ behind the creation. All life forms a wonderful unit. There is a perfect balance maintained in nature, not only among animals but also between animals and plants, and even between the living and the non-living. Checks and counterchecks are everywhere in nature to maintain the balance, lest promiscuity should overrun the earth. For instance, flying insects which can multiply rapidly are kept in check by the bats and birds. Large fishes eat the more prolific smaller fish, and the smaller mammals are preyed upon by their larger predators. Evolutionists contend that insects evolved long before the birds, their predators, came in. If that were so, insects would have destroyed all the available vegetation and higher life could not have evolved. The Bible informs us that all life was created in six days. Only thus could the balance in nature have been maintained.
Charles Darwin’s example of the effect of cats on red clover is a good illustration of the interdependence of plants and animals. He says “if field mice are not kept in check by cats, the nests of bumble bees would be destroyed by too many mice; with no bumble bees the red clover could not be fertilised and would soon die out.” What a beautiful instance of interdependence! Further, the bumble bee’s size, weight, and mouth parts, etc. are so well adapted to effect pollination in red clover, that no other insect can do this job. Here we see that the flower and the bee are designed for each other by the great Designer.
The interdependence of the Yucca plant of the desert and the Pronuba moth is another wonderful example. Such a complicated and perfectly balanced relationship could never have “happened” by the fortuitous variations and adjustments of Evolution. It can be explained only by terms of an all-wise Designer and Creator.
Fifthly: Origin of Life – Then again, for the spontaneous generation of life evolutionists believe that mere interaction of chemical constituents of protoplasm as such is not adequate, but that certain very special and improbable conditions of atmosphere are indispensable. They assume such ideal conditions to have existed at the beginning, and hope that they can be repeated. But biochemical investigations so far conducted indicate that this task is not so simple. In an article on spontaneous generation of life published in the annual of the Creation Research Scientists’ Society (1964) Dr. Paul A. Zimmerman of Michigan, writes as follows: “Most scientists agree that the original environment must have been free of oxygen. Oxygen in the atmosphere would effectively oxidise any early organic molecules and prevent the development of life. It would also by the formation of ozone effectively shield the earth’s surface from the high-energy ultraviolet radiation required by the theories. On the other hand, ultraviolet light has a lethal effect on living organisms. If it were not filtered out by the atmosphere, no life could exist today. It thus seems a most unlikely source upon which to depend for starting life.” He concluded the article in the following words: “Modern bio-chemical research has served to reveal much of the mystery of the chemistry of life. But in the unravelling of the vast complex of cell chemistry, it has exposed still more the statistical improbability of spontaneous generation. It is an improbability so large as to be equated with impossibility.” These facts illustrate how life is dependent upon so many synchronising factors, which are essential not only for the maintenance of life but also for its origin. Only an all-knowing, all-powerful Creator would have been able to produce matter out of nothing, and condition all the factors necessary for life on this planet at one and the same time.
Thus, whether we investigate the origin of life or of matter, or the splendour of this beautiful and orderly universe - from the tiny atom to the distant galaxy of stars - in all these we see only the glory and majesty of an all-wise Creator. We may therefore agree with Dr. Einstein that “the scientist’s religious feeling takes the form of rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.”
Below: Albert Einstein
There are many questions which the evolutionist may ask about the idea of special creation as found in the Bible which appear to conflict with science; the proceeding are a few such questions and some brief summaries of answers to them.
What happened to the dinosaurs? Before the Flood, dinosaurs and man lived together on our planet. Extinction of the great marine reptiles, along with the majority of all other types of sea creatures, would have been caused by the violent upheavals of the Flood, many being buried and preserved as fossils.
Two of each kind of land-dwelling dinosaurs survived by being taken into the Ark. After the Flood, they faced a radically different and more hostile world, and became extinct, along with countless other less spectacular creatures, some time after. There is some evidence that men knew about dinosaurs for a short time (perhaps several centuries after the Flood) before they finally became extinct. The descriptions of behemoth (Job 40:15) and leviathan (Job 41:1) quite possibly refer to some of the few post-Flood giant reptiles still in existence at that time. Job is thought to have lived before the time of Moses (i.e., before 1400 BC), but the writer of the Psalms (Psalm 74:14; 104:26) and the prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 27:1) also make mention of the great beast leviathan and they are dated much later. Added to this is the obvious fact that not every square inch of this earth has been explored, and there may yet be some of these intriguing kinds of creatures alive on our planet.
What about carbon-14 dating? This whole dating method is dependent upon knowing what the C14/C12 ratio was at the time of the organism’s death. The value used is based upon the assumption that the C14 in the atmosphere was long ago built up to steady state, that is, the amount entering the atmosphere is in balance with the amount leaving (by decay). The fact is that modern measurements show that C14 is still building up rapidly, and this would mean that the whole atmosphere is much less than (approximately) 30,000 years old. This would also have the effect of making C14 ages artificially older, especially the earlier dates. There are a number of other effects which would increase this tendency.
In addition, tests performed using the carbon-14 method date currently living creatures as having died thousands of years ago. These and other anomalous results dictate concerning the accuracy of this method.
Were there really ice ages? There is good evidence for only one ice age, in the so-called Pleistocene epoch of the evolutionists’ time-scale, just before man is presumed to have left written records. Evidence cited by evolutionists for earlier ice ages is open to other interpretations. Today’s polar ice caps and alpine glaciers are the remains of the vast ice sheets that covered about a third of the globe at their greatest extent. The Ice Age must therefore have occurred soon after Noah’s Flood.
Evolutionary geology, based on the uniformitarian (slow and gradual) belief, is at a loss to explain the evidence of the catastrophic arrival of the Ice Age – for instance, the “snap freezing” of great hairy extinct elephants (or mammoths) in Alaska, Siberia, and elsewhere. However, such catastrophism is readily explainable within the Biblical framework of Noah’s Flood and its after-effects. Whether or not the impact of an asteroid or an icy comet triggered the Ice Age, the collapse of the pre-Flood water vapour canopy (the waters above) at the outset of the Flood year (the opening of the “windows of heaven”) would have produced a profound and permanent change in the Earth’s immediate post-Flood climate. Rapid cooling at the poles and warming at the equator would have induced excessive snowfalls and the build-up of vast ice sheets, until after a few centuries conditions stabilized and the ice retreated. References to ice in the book of Job are consistent with that patriarch having lived at this time.
How could all the human races come from Noah, his three sons and their wives? Modern genetics show that when a large, freely interbreeding group is suddenly broken into many smaller groups which from then on breed only among themselves (as the Biblical description of the language dispersion at Babel would imply), different racial characteristics will arise very rapidly. It can be shown that one pair of middle-brown parents could produce all known shades of colour, from very white to very black, in ONE generation. The racial characteristics which exist today have not evolved, and generally speaking, are simply different combinations of pre-existing (created) genetic (hereditary) information. The environment plays a secondary role in favouring certain combinations over others.
“OK,” the evolutionist concludes. “You have a lot of good ideas and arguments, but really, at the end of the day, what harm is the teaching of the theory of evolution doing?” Well, firstly: Evolution justifies atheism – Everyone who insists there is no God relies upon evolution to explain nature without a designer. It is the necessary foundation for many religious world and life views such as atheism, agnosticism and the associated secular humanism with its motto: ‘if nobody made us, nobody owns us, so there’s nobody to set the rules except us.’ There is no logical reason to be bound by the principles set out in the Ten Commandments, for example, if other parts of the Old Testament are rejected as ‘cultural myths.’
Secondly: Nazism and Evolution – Much has been written about one of Fascism’s more infamous sons, Adolf Hitler. His treatment of the Jews may be attributed, at least in part, to his belief in evolution. P. Hoffman, in Hitler’s Personal Security (p. 264), said: “Hitler believed in struggle as a Darwinian principle of human life that forced ever people to try to dominate all others; without struggle they would rot and perish…Even in his own defeat in April 1945, Hitler expressed his faith in the survival of the stronger and declared the Slavic peoples to have proven themselves the stronger.”
Left: Hitler, who used evolution to justify his treatment of the Jews and other racial groups
Sir Arthur Keith, the well-known evolutionist, explains how Hitler was only being consistent in what he did to the Jews – he was applying the principles of Darwinian evolution. In Evolution and Ethics (p. 28), he said: “To see evolutionary measure and tribal morality being applied vigorously to the affairs of a great modern nation, we must turn again to Germany of 1942. We see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for a national policy…The means he adopted to secure the destiny of his race and people were organized slaughter, which has drenched Europe in blood…Such conduct is highly immoral as measured by every scale of ethics, yet Germany justifies it; it is consonant with tribal or evolutionary morality. Germany has reverted to the tribal past, and is demonstration to the world, in their naked ferocity, the methods of evolution.”
Thirdly: Racism and Evolution – Stephen J. Gould in Natural History (April 1980, p. 144), said that “Recapitulation provided a convenient focus for the pervasive racism of white scientists; they looked to the activities of their own children for comparison with normal, adult behaviour in lower races.” Gould also concludes that the term “mongoloid” became synonymous with mentally defective people because it was believed the Caucasian race was more highly developed than the Mongoloid. Therefore, some thought that a mentally defective child was really a throwback to a previous stage in evolution. The leading American palaeontologist of the first half of the 20th century, Henry Fairfield Osborne, adds fuel to the fire with his belief that “The Negroid stock is even more ancient than the Caucasian and Mongolian…The standard of intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old of the species Homo sapiens” (Natural History, April 1980, p. 129).
Right: Aborigines,
the “missing link”?
Many of the early settlers of Australia considered the Australian Aborigines to be less intelligent than the “white man,” because aborigines had not evolved as far as whites on the evolutionary scale. In fact, the Hobart Museum in Tasmania (Australia) in 1984 listed this as one of the reasons why early white settlers killed as many aborigines as they could in that state. In 1924 the New York Tribune (Sunday, February 10) had a very large article telling their readers that the missing had been found in Australia. The missing link referred to happened to be aborigines from the State of Tasmania.
The incredible thing is that we live in a society that states it wants to be rid of racist attitudes. Yet we are conditioned to racist attitudes by our very education system, and the whole foundational basis for racism permeates people’s minds.
It was the evolutionary view that convinced anthropologists there were different races of humans at different levels on the evolutionary ladder. This led them to believe there were different levels of intelligence and ability. It is the Christian view that teaches there is one race (in the sense that we all came from the same two humans, and therefore there are no lower or higher evolutionary groups) and that all people are equal.
At one school, a teacher said to her students that, if ape-like creatures had evolved into people, then this should be seen to be happening today. Some of the students told her that this was happening today because some aborigines are primitive and therefore, still evolving. Regrettably, in the children’s eyes the teaching of evolution had relegated the Australian Aborigines to a subhuman level.
Fourthly: Abortion and Evolution – Many will remember being taught at school that as an embryo develops in its mother’s womb it goes through a fish stage with gill slits, etc., and other evolutionary stages until it becomes human. In other words, the idea is that as the embryo develops it passes through all the evolutionary stages reflecting its ancestry. This theory of “embryonic recapitulation” was first proposed by a man called Ernst Haeckel. Not many people realise that this whole theory was an intentional deception. I quote, “But it still remains true that, in attempting to prove his law, Haeckel resorted to a series of dishonest distortions in making his illustrations. Branding them as dishonest is not too harsh, since Haeckel mentions where he originally procured some of his drawings without mentioning the alterations he made” (Creation Research Society1969 Annual, Volume 6, Number 1, June 1969, p.28).
Eventually, Ernst Haeckel admitted this fraud, but the deplorable aspect is that this theory is still taught in many universities, schools and colleges throughout the world. Admittedly, evolutionists who have kept up with the latest writings know that this view is wrong and refrain from teaching it in their classes. However, in most of the popular school textbooks and reading materials this view is still promulgated in various forms, often very subtly.
As people accepted that the child developing in a mother’s womb was just an animal reflecting its evolutionary ancestry, there was less and less problem about destroying it. As evolutionary ideas became more accepted, the easier it became to accept abortion. In fact, some abortion clinics in America have taken women aside to explain to them that what is being aborted is just an embryo in the fish stage of evolution, and that the embryo must not be thought of as human. These women are being fed outright lies.
Let me state here that abortion certainly existed before Darwin popularized his evolutionary theory. However, his evolutionary theory has been used to give abortion its respectability, and thus the great increase in abortion that we see today.
If the world is ‘just there’, if life is the result of a fascinating fluke, and if we ourselves are nothing more than biological accidents, we are faced with an avalanche of questions:
• If information came into being by chance, how can we know that anything is true?
• How can evolution account for the universal and invariable laws of logic, on which all out thinking depends? On what basis can we study the world in any coherent way and come to sensible conclusions about it?
• If the brain is nothing more than an accident of biological evolution, why should we trust its ability to tell us so? How can chance accumulations of atoms and molecules decide that that is what they are?
• How can shrink-wrapped bags of biological elements have any rights to justice, freedom, possessions or happiness – or even to life itself? What gives us any greater value than rocks or reptiles, trees or termites?
• How did the products of a succession of genetic flukes learn to remember the past, evaluate the present and wonder about the future?
• Why should we look for purpose or meaning in life? What is the sense in genetically programmed machines talking about ‘quality of life’ and ‘values’, or concerning themselves with aims or aspirations?
• As it is impossible to jump from atoms to ethics and from molecules to morality, why do we have an inbuilt sense of right and wrong? Where did conscience come from, and why does it have such amazing power? Why do we sometimes feel guilty or ashamed?
• Why do we have a sense of obligation or responsibility to other people? Why should mere blocks of animate matter be concerned for the temporary well-being of other blobs if both are on their way to extinction?
• How can we live – or die – with dignity if our existence is meaningless? Why do we take ourselves so seriously if Richard Dawkins is right to say that we are nothing but ‘jumped-up apes’?
• If the survival of the fittest is evolution’s greatest prize, why should we not encourage the non-survival of the unfit? Why should we care for the frail, the mentally defective, the chronically sick, the senile, or the starving? Should we not give evolution a helping hand by getting rid of them – and the sooner the better?
• If humans are no more than grown-up germs, why are we the only species preoccupied with death? Why should approaching it – or delaying it – be of the slightest concern to us? If we began as a fluke, live out a farce and end as a fertilizer, what hope or help can we give to someone who is dying?
• Why is our sense of spirituality so strong that man has been called ‘a religious animal’? Is this something we should expect to happen to dust left around for millions of years?
Dr. John Moore spoke during the annual sessions of the American Association of the Advancement of Science.
He described the theory that man evolved from “amoeba and sea-slimes” as an “incredible religion,” but not “science”.
CONCLUSION
After intense research for almost a century and a half by qualified scientists in the field of biology, bringing to light many facts of science which contradict the assumptions of Darwin, the statement of Sir Arthur Keith that “Evolution is unproved and unprovable, we believe it because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable” may now be restated as follows: “Evolution is unproved and now found to be untenable. We believe in creation because it was always the only possible alternative, and is now found to be more reasonable.” In Sir James Jean’s words, “Everything points with overwhelming force to a definitive event or events of creation at some time or times not infinitely remote.” (Eos or The Wider Aspects of Cosmogeny, page 35). Whether it be the study of cosmology, physics, chemistry, biology or biochemistry, geology or palaeontology, as far as the known facts of science are concerned, we are being compelled to uphold creation rather than evolution. It is no longer ‘creation’, but ‘evolution’ of one basic kind from another basic kind that is ‘unthinkable’. It is no longer ‘Christianity’ that is the principal obstacle of human progress but ‘evolution’ that really hinders human progress. As Professor W.R. Thompson (Introduction to Darwin’s Origin of Species, edition, 1963 edition, page 20, points out: “A great deal of this work (research work stimulated by Darwinism) was directed into unprofitable channels or devoted to the pursuit of will-o-the-wisps.” The same author quotes D’Arcy Thompson’s remark “on the stultifying effect of Darwinian theory’. This apart, the social import of the concept of evolution has been disastrous and unworkable. We are therefore made to realise, that both for the progress of science and for the moral and spiritual progress of the human race, the earlier we abandon the philosophy of evolution, the better it will be for mankind.
THE REMEDY
The true remedy lies in completely abandoning the Darwinian conception of evolution and re-examining critically the facts of science with an unprejudiced mind, with a view to seeing whether they will fit into the only alternative doctrine, namely, the doctrine of ‘creation’ as recorded in the Bible. After personal investigation and examination of some of the original materials on which the theory of evolution was based, the editor has become convinced that scientific facts fit in better with the concept of creation than with evolution. Thus the doctrine of creation does not go counter to the established laws of thermodynamics. On the other hand it agrees with the principle of uncertainty and gives an adequate explanation for the origin of matter and life. It is also in harmony with the facts of palaeontology and genetics, giving ample scope for scientific research to discover the extent of variation within the basic kind created. The doctrine of creation does not lead to scientific speculation of falsification of scientific data in order to support a false theory. The concept of creation as stated in the Bible is not only in harmony with the latest facts of science but also promotes human progress in the right direction. It develops the complete man – his body, mind and also his spirit. It does not teach and lead men to the wrong ‘code of ethics’ to fight and kill each other. It takes cognizance of his spiritual hunger which evolutionists ignore.
The concept of creation leads man to his Creator, and it satisfies the inner longings of his soul. For man is not an animal to be satisfied with the material things of the world. He is essentially a spiritual being.
The reason why so many oppose the doctrine of creation is often due to prejudice or careless reading. Careful reading of the Scriptures, with an open mind, will reveal that no established scientific fact contradicts the story of creation as described in the first chapter of the Bible. On the other hand, such a study will show that the doctrine of creation, the doctrine of sin, and the catastrophe of the Noahic flood as stated in the Bible, alone can reconcile all the facts of cosmology, cosmogony, the origin of life, its reproducing only ‘after its kind’, its variation within limits, and all the facts of Palaeontology. The facts of Palaeontology, namely, the sudden and violent entombment of animals leaving millions of fossils aggregated together and others preserved in ice in the very act of feeding, can, in fact, be explained only in terms of a universal flood as described in the Bible. Geological strata with their fossils indicate not the order of evolution or even creation, but the order of burial in the waters of that deluge.
These facts of science can harmoniously be blended only in terms of creation. The doctrine of creation not only harmonises demonstrable facts of science, but also the truths of the spiritual realm, which is ignored by the protagonists of evolution. Truly “all things were made by Him and without Him was not anything made that was made”. For it is the same Creator who inspired the prophet to write the account of creation.
SOURCES
The following publications were used for this section and are available on loan from the editor:
Evolution or Creation by Professor H. Enoch
The Lie: Evolution by Ken Ham
Stones and Bones by Carl Wieland
The Answers Book by Ken Ham, Andrew Snelling & Carl Wieland
Evolution: Fact or Fiction? by John Blanchard
Have You Been…Brainwashed? by Duane T. Gish, Ph. D.
The Reason Why by R.A. Laidlaw
DARWIN’S RECANTATION
The following is an excerpt taken from Professor H. Enoch’s book “Evolution or Creation,” and is an account of Darwin’s deathbed recantation.
“The atheistic influence of evolution on the faith of man cannot be better illustrated than in the life of its own exponent, Charles Darwin, the Father of Evolution. Young Darwin, according to his own expression was ‘quite orthodox’ in his Christian faith even during the time of the famous Beagle Expedition. He had a good taste for music and poetry and a heart for the things of God, which he lost during his later years. In fact he made up his mind to become a minister of Jesus Christ and underwent theological studies at Cambridge for about three years. But as his belief in the theory of evolution increased, his faith in Christianity and God declined, until fifty years later he wrote: ‘For myself, I do not believe there ever has been any revelation.’ Though not wantonly, Darwin lost his faith as he became a confirmed evolutionist. Unfortunately this has been the experience of many a young man of godly parentage, who has made shipwreck of his faith on the theory of evolution. The Scripture has a timely warning for such in Romans 1:21, 22. We are exhorted not to become vain in our imagination lest we become spiritually blind, and this was particularly the experience of Charles Darwin, and of others, who, ‘when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing themselves to be wise they became fools.’
There is yet another important lesson to be learned from the experience of this great scientist. Lady Hope, who visited Charles Darwin during his last days on earth, has the following to say (Quoted in the Bombay Guardian, 25th March 1916) regarding his views on evolution towards the end of his life.
‘It was on a glorious Autumn afternoon when I was asked to go and sit with Charles Darwin. He was almost bedridden for some months before he died. Propped up with pillows, his features seem to be lit up with pleasure as I entered the room. He waved his hand towards the window as he pointed out the beautiful sunset seen beyond, while in the other he held an open Bible which he was always studying.’
‘What are you reading now?’ I asked.
‘Hebrews,’ he answered, ‘still Hebrews, The Royal Book, I call it…’ Then he placed his fingers on certain passages and commented upon them.
I made some allusions to the strong opinions expressed by many unbelievers on the history of the creation and then their treatment of the earlier chapters of the book of Genesis. He seemed distressed, his fingers twitched nervously and a look of agony came across his face as he said, ‘I was a young man, with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything. And to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them.’ Then he paused and after a few more sentences on the holiness of God and the grandeur of this Book, looking at the Bible which he was holding tenderly all the time, he said:
‘I have a summer house in the garden which holds about thirty people. It is over there (pointing through the open window). I want you very much to speak here. I know you read the Bible in the villages. Tomorrow afternoon I should like the servants on the place, some tenants and a few neighbours to gather there. Will you speak to them?’
‘What shall I speak about?’ I asked.
‘Christ Jesus,’ he replied in a clear emphatic voice, adding in a lower tone, ‘and His salvation. Is not that the best theme? And then I want you to sing some hymns with them. You lead on your small instrument, do you not?’
The look of brightness on his face I shall never forget, for he added, ‘If you take the meeting at 3 o’clock this window will be opened and you will know that I am joining with the singing.’
We thank God for the above confession from the Father of Evolution himself. It serves as a good warning to every youngster not to become vain in his or her imagination, and blind to spiritual things. Darwin never regretted the scientific facts he observed and recorded. But his remorse was for the godless philosophy of life for which he was responsible.
Be it Darwinism, Militarism, or Atheism, they all seem to have one common object in view, namely, to throw off the restraints of righteousness and to free man from submission and service to God. This defiance of God and His righteousness has been predicted already in the Bible in the second Psalm as follows:
‘The kings of the earth set themselves and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and against His anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the Heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall he speak to them in his wrath and vex them with his sore displeasure…’
Surely this was the experience of Hitler who worked out the Darwinian code of ethics in his nation, and will be the experience of every ‘ism’ that exalteth itself against the Lord and His Christ, ‘For the world passeth away and the lust thereof, but he that doeth the will of God abideth forever.’
‘The world by wisdom knew not God’ and so, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.’ ‘Be wise now, therefore, O ye Kings: be instructed ye judges of the earth…Blessed are all they who put their trust in Him.’ ‘For the law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. The testimony of Jehovah maketh wise the simple.’ ‘The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth his handiwork.’ It is to bring young men and women to his conception and acknowledgement of God that this book (Evolution or Creation – Professor H. Enoch) has been written. God’s word has a definite warning against the ‘isms’ of the day, be it Darwinism, Militarism or Atheism. It says, ‘Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of this world, and not after Christ.’ ‘For in Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.’ Let the exhortation given to young Timothy be our guide. ‘O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings and oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith.’ 1 Tim. 6:20.”
Like to know your thoughts on the article.
> One of the main arguments used by creationists against evolutionists
> is the evolution of the eyeball. How did such a complex organ evolve
> from a single cell?
>
> Two scientists tried to model evolution of the eyeball using a
> computer simulation. They started with one photo-sensitive cell and
> applied a random mutation to it. They then took the original cell and
> applied a different random mutation. Repeat 50 times. They now had 50
> results that had had one mutation applied to each. The simulation
> then tested every result to see which was the best at detecting
> light. They took this 'best result' and used it as the basis for the
> next generation. Rinse and repeat.
>
> After a hell of a lot of generations (can't remember exact figure),
> taking the 'best' each time, they ended up with, you guessed it, an
> eyeball! Only this eyeball was infact slightly better than ours, the
> lens it had evolved was better (I think there were actually 2
> lenses), which goes to show that evolution is an entirely feasible
> proposition. It also demonstrates that evolution will do the best it
> needs to do for a certain job, not the best it can do period.
>
> {Oh yes, black holes have been observed, not directly as this is an
> imposibility, but indirectly using other stars and maths and stuff.}
Right, Tallan this is an article about "evolution" my brother wrote. It talks about Darwin and others. Enjoy.
Before exploring the theory of evolution on scientific grounds, let us first address the matter from a point of logic and common understanding. Let’s imagine: we stand together on the wharf as a big ocean liner draws alongside, and I say to you, “A lot of people think that ship is the result of someone’s carefully designed plans, but I know better. There was really no intelligence at work on it at all; the iron, by some mysterious process, gradually came out of the ground and fashioned itself into plates; slowly holes were formed in the edges of these plates, and rivets appeared, flattened themselves out on either side, and after a great time, by this same evolutionary process, the engines were in place, and one day some men on the seashore found her floating quietly in a sheltered cove.”
You would probably consider me a lunatic, and move further into the crowd to escape my senseless chatter. Why, you know that where there is a design there must be a designer, and, having seen other productions of the human mind just like the steamer in question, you would refuse to believe it was not planned by human intelligence and built by human skill.
Yet there are men not considered fools who tell us that the solar system evolved from its nebulous state by chance, that in some mysterious way it came – that there was really no higher intelligence at work on it; they tell us they know no God but nature, on the other hand there are many thoughtful men who believe that God is transcendent; that is, while He reveals Himself in nature, in that is laws and principles are expressions of His power and wisdom, He Himself is essentially the sum of them all. Evolutionists and atheists offer us the anomaly of design without a designer, of creation without a Creator, of effect without a cause, and to escape from this dilemma ask, “If God be considered the ‘first great cause,’ account for Him, who made God?” Now, such a question contradicts itself, for it is evident no cause could make the first cause, or the first cause would become also the second cause, which is a mathematical absurdity.
Every thoughtful person believes in a series of causes and effect in nature, each effect becoming the cause of some other effect. Now the acceptance of this fact logically compels one to admit that there must be a beginning to any series – that is, there could never have been a first effect if there had not been a First Cause. This First Cause to me is Deity, and because I cannot tell where God came from is not a satisfactory reason for denying that He exists, else I might as well deny the existence of the millionth effect which, for the sake of argument, might happen to be this world. You see, if I admit one cause as ever having existed, I am bound eventually by induction to arrive at the First Cause. We will explore the subject of the origin of life later in a more in-depth and scientific context.
“But wait a minute,” says the evolutionist, “Isn’t evolution a science and creation just a religious belief?” If this common idea were true, why would so many highly qualified scientists today accept the direct creation of a functioning world (just as it says in Genesis, the first book of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures) and reject evolution? In fact, the modern creation movement is a fast-growing minority.
In the US alone, it is conservatively estimated that there are upwards of 10,000 professional scientists who believe in biblical creation. In 1993 in South Korea, for instance, the Korea Association of Creation Research already had a membership of over 1,000 scientists, the majority with at least a Master’s or Ph.D. degree in some area of science, and including 100 full-ranking university professors. The Moscow Creation Science Fellowship was formed with 10 members a short while ago. A year later it had escalated to 120 holders of advanced science degrees.
Most university professors have one earned doctorate; we know of members of the creation movement (e.g. A.E. Wilder-Smith) who have the rare distinction of three such doctorates. Historically, most scientific disciplines were founded by great scientists (Newton, Pasteur, Faraday, to name but a few) who were all creationists.
Right: Professor A.E. Wilder-Smith, who holds three science doctorates
Real science depends on measuring or watching something happen, and checking it by doing it again. Even if, for example, reptiles did change into birds millions of years ago, as evolutionists allege, the scientific method could never prove that as a fact, because it was not observed happening. If you could somehow turn a reptile into a bird today, even that wouldn’t prove it happened millions of years ago. Equally, you can’t insist that God should repeat the miraculous creation of many groups of birds and reptiles, programmed to reproduce after their kind, just so you can watch it.
Both are ideas held on faith; each belief system (evolution or creation) offers arguments and evidences to bolster that faith. Creationists maintain that theirs is a reasonable and logical belief system, backed up by the weight of evidence observable in the present.
As we study evolution, let us first consider the morphological evidence for it. Firstly: Evidence from Classification - In his study of the various organisms in nature, the evolutionist finds some organisms to be very simple in structure and others more complicated. He finds it possible to arrange or classify these organisms in a fairly graded system from the most simple to the most complex, or, as he would put it, from the ‘lower’ to the ‘highest’. Thus he places a single-celled animal like amoeba first, and next to it or ‘above’ it the multicellular hydra, and next to it amphioxus, and then a fish, an amphibian, a reptile and a lower mammal. Next to the lower mammal he places a lower ape. Next to that a higher ape, and lastly the most complex of all – Man. When he has finished arranging these creatures in that order, from the simpler to the more complicated, he turns round to the creationist and says: “See, here is a proof for the theory of evolution, showing how the complicated evolved out of the simpler ones!”
This is a strange proof indeed! Such proofs are not wanting in any sphere of life, for simple and complicated things which lend themselves to such arrangements exist everywhere. By arranging his books on a shelf in a graded system, depending on the size or complexity of its contents, a student can also prove the ‘evolution’ of his books. The reader may well see the absurdity of such an argument, for it assumes the very thing to be proved. Nevertheless it has deceived thousands of students in the past and is still deceiving thousands more who allow themselves to be carried away by sheer weight of ‘scientific authority’, instead of thinking for themselves clearly and logically.
In his book A Critique of Evolution Theory the late well-known evolutionist T.H. Morgan of Columbia University admits that the proof from classification is in fact no real proof at all. On page 9 of the same book he says that when the fallacy of the argument is pointed out to pupils of his who believe in evolution, they are resentful. We may boldly affirm that this proof is absurd; and the fact that organisms can be arranged in a certain order does not preclude the possibility of both the simple and the complex coming into existence simultaneously. The Bible says that all animal life was created in two days (Genesis 1:20-27). With God such things are possible.
Secondly: Proof from Comparative Anatomy – When a student of anatomy studies the structure of various animals in detail such as the bones, the muscles, the arteries, the veins, etc., it becomes apparent to him that there is a certain similarity of structure underlying them all. For example the anatomy of cat, dog, monkey and man resemble each other a great deal, taking bone for bone, muscle for muscle, and nerve for nerve, even to the smallest detail. It may also be stated that the resemblance between the animals themselves varies. Thus a cat resembles a dog more than a monkey, and a monkey resembles a man more than it resembles a dog. Based on this similarity of structure animals can be arranged in a fairly graded system. Again, comparing the anatomy of the wing of a bird, the paddle of a whale and the arm of a man it is observed that they are all constructed on the same general plan taking bone for bone, muscle for muscle and nerve for nerve. The evolutionist contends that such similarity of structure can be explained only on the basis of evolution, namely, that they all had a common ancestor.
Similarity of structure is a scientific fact, for one can observe it on studying the anatomy of these animals. But the interpretation put on this similarity can reasonably be denied. For this similarity of structure can with equal reasonableness be used as an argument in favour of the doctrine of the special creation. For instance, if the various colleges of the city were compared, one is sure to find many points of similarity. Each may have an entrance, an office room, a Principal’s room, a library with books, class rooms with blackboards and seating arrangements, etc. This comparison may be extended even to minor details, to show that the resemblance between two Science Colleges is greater than the resemblance between an Arts College and a Science College. But from this similarity of structure it cannot be argued that the biggest (first grade) Science College building came out of a smaller (second grade) Science College building or that both Science and Arts College buildings evolved out of a common ancestor! For we know that they were all constructed separately. Yet they may well have been planned and constructed by one architect at one and the same time. Similarity in design in the case of colleges does not prove their evolution; neither does similarity of design prove evolution in the case of living organisms. To the believer in the Bible, similarity in plan of structure among living organisms merely establishes the fact of one great
Architect, the Creator, who had in mind one great pattern which He used while making His natural species with such modifications as were necessary for their different conditions of life. He could as well have created them all on different patterns, the dog with four legs, the cat with five, the cow with six and the elephant with nineteen! He could have put the nostrils of the monkey behind its ears and given man two heads! But as they all have to live upon the same earth, breathing the same air and drinking the same kind of water, it was but reasonable that a wise Creator should construct them all on a similar pattern, allowing modifications wherever necessary. Thus similarity of structure, as revealed in comparative anatomy, may as well point to a common Creator as to any evolutionary process.
Now let us consider the evidences for evolution from blood relationship. Firstly: Blood Precipitation Test – This test is supposed to support the theory of evolution by demonstrating ‘blood relationship’ that exists between man and the lower animals. George Nuttal of Cambridge, during his investigations which led to the discovery of vaccination, came across a by-product known as the anti-human serum. Human blood added to this liquid forms a thick white precipitate; with the blood of a bird there is no reaction, but the blood of mammals like lemurs, monkeys and chimpanzees yields varying degrees of precipitate, slightest in the case of lemurs and heaviest in that of chimpanzee. This similarity in the structure of the blood of man and ape is supposed to prove their common ancestry.
Now, it is true that some similarity exists between the blood of mammals, which may even admit of their being arranged in a graded system. But this chemical similarity cannot prove evolution. Pursuing the same logic we might conclude that the pen knife, the bread knife and the sword have evolved from a common ancestor! For there is a similarity in the chemical make-up of these articles, and they can be arranged in a graded system according to the degree of hardness of each. However, further research along the same lines has show that the tiger and the whale are close of kin as are also the parrot and the ostrich. But such inconvenient facts are ignored by the evolutionist.
Blood analysis has revealed other interesting facts as shown by B.C. Nelson. The specific gravity of human blood is 1059; of the pig and the hare 1060; of the frog 1055-56; of the snake 1055, and the monkey’s 1054.9. From this table we can see that the frog and the snake are closer to man that the monkey, while our nearest relation is the pig!
It may look somewhat strange to base our relationship with the pig on flimsy evidence such as the similarity in the specific gravity of the blood. Yet the suggestion of a piggian ancestry was the theme for a University extension lecture in India a few years ago by a learned professor of Zoology holding a Ph.D. degree of the University of London. Of course he had many other facts of similarity to the support his thesis that we have closer ties with the Pig than with the Monkey or the Ape!
But this is not all. If the blood test be a criterion of common ancestry, why not the milk test too? And chemical analysis shows that the animal which stands nearest to man, in this respect, is neither the monkey nor the pig but – the DONKEY!
Some have even found support for this ancestry in the traditional customs of some primitive peoples. For among the tribal people in Asia there is still the practice of feeding infants when they are born with donkey’s milk instead of human milk. To what ridiculous conclusions do evolutionists lead us at times!
Secondly: Proof from Geographical Distribution – The proof from blood precipitation test and the proof from geographical distribution have not been presented by evolutionists in recent years. However, they do find a place in some text books of zoology, and for that reason they are considered in this series.
The proof from geographical distribution essentially consists in setting up a ridiculous idea of special creation, not warranted by the Bible and knocking it down again by ridicule. And because such an idea of special creation is unthinkable, evolutionary interpretation for the present distribution of animals and plants presumably is correct. Charles Darwin noted the similarity between the fauna of the Galapagos Islands (500 miles off the west coast of South America) and those of the main continent, and argued that such similarity was inexplicable on the basis of special creation (i.e. the idea that each species was created separately in its particular locality). This interpretation of special creation is not implied in the Scriptures. For the Bible not only permits variation within the ‘kind’ created but also clearly indicates that all land animals migrated from a single spot after the Genesis flood. Evolutionists argue that our finding marsupial mammals only in Australia is due to the fact that the continent got separated from other parts of the world before the other mammals evolved. To this Duperett’s answer seems to be the right explanation. According to him the fauna of Australia and Tasmania is not an indigenous survival from the Mesozoic era but come there by immigration at a recent epoch (Transformations of Animal World, p. 306). This agrees with the Scriptural account. However, on the question of distribution evolutionists themselves are sharply divided, and in the current debate this is not usually presented as evidence in favour of the theory of Evolution.
“But what about the fossils,” asks the evolutionist, “don’t they show evolution?” Darwin stated, quite correctly, that if his theory was true, there should be very large numbers of ‘in-between types’ found as fossils. If the forelimb of a reptile, for instance, has turned into the wing of a bird, why don’t we find a series of fossils showing these stages – part-limb, part-wing; or part-scale, part-feather?
Darwin said that the absence of such intermediates was the ‘most obvious and serious objection’ against his theory. 120 years later, Dr. David Raup, the head of one of the great museums in America, said that the situation concerning missing links ‘hasn’t changed much’ and that ‘we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time’.
So what do we have? Evolution expects millions of in-between forms. Some evolutionists claim there are some – maybe a handful of such in-between fossil types. Other leading experts say there are none.
Below: Archaeopteryx
What is not often known is that the strange fossil creature Archaeopteryx, often used as an example of a transitional form between reptiles and birds shows none of the crucial transitional structures which would establish it beyond reasonable doubt – the feathers are fully formed, and the wings are proper wings. It has a backward facing claw and curved feet characteristic of perching birds. It was most definitely not, as some would reconstruct it, a running feathered dinosaur.
Some living creatures (e.g. the platypus) are also a mosaic of features found in different classes. This odd little fellow, who had fur like a mammal, a beak like a duck, a tail like a beaver, venom glands like a snake, lays eggs like a reptile, yet suckles its young, is a good example of such a mosaic. It is not, however, a ‘half-way house’ between any two of the creatures listed.
This general absence of in-between forms also applies to so-called ‘human evolution’. This might be surprising considering that so many alleged ‘ancestors’ are paraded. It is difficult to track all the varied and changing claims, but the past century has show that each widely trumpeted ‘ancestor’ claim is quietly discarded – but only when some new candidate(s) can be found to replace it. Today, much is made of the australopithecines/habilines – a broad group of which the famous Lucy fossil is best known.
Dr. Charles Oxnard is one of a growing number of evolutionist anatomists who, having painstakingly examined vast numbers of measurements by computerized multivariate analysis, do not believe that these creatures are human ancestors.
Left: The skeleton of the famous ‘Lucy’ – regarded as a ‘remarkably complete’ ‘hominid’ skeleton. Her (and her type’s) claim to human ancestry is under severe challenge from expert anatomists.
He states that although initially it was thought that they were human-like or at least intermediate between apes and humans, the reality is that they ‘differ more from both humans and African apes than do these two living groups from each other. The australopithecines are unique.’ He indicates that the non-ancestor status of these creatures is supported by an increasing number of investigators who are ‘independent of those representing individuals who have found the fossils.’
What about so-called Homo erectus? Well-defined Homo erectus skeletal types were most probably true humans living after the Flood (described in the Bible in Genesis), and the break-up of people (after God’s forced dispersion at Babel, also described in the Bible) into small, isolated populations gave ideal conditions for the rapid isolation and enhancement of (pre-existing, creating) genetic differences. Such racial variation would also have included bony features.
Compared to the very wide variation in other features in the human race, the skeletal differences between erectus and other human skeletons are, after all, not that extreme. Interestingly, in Europe, not only erectus, but also Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon types (which both have larger brain capacities, on average, than today’s populations) are now known to have been living at the same time as ‘modern’ types.
Tools found recently in Indonesia in association with a stegodon have caused evolutionist Dr. Allan Thorne to suggest that these alleged ‘prehuman ancestors’ had seafaring skills and technology. Quoted in The Australian of August 19, 1993, he says of them “They’re not [i.e. shouldn’t be called] Homo erectus, they’re people.”
If one uses the evolutionists’ own timescales and criteria for classification, and plots all ‘hominid’ fossil discoveries on a chart, it will readily be seen that the idea of any evolutionary sequence is a shambles.
“It’s all well and good to attack evolution,” says the evolutionist, “but where are the evidences in favour of special creation?” Firstly: Design - The Bible says, ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.’ Witness to God and His creation is not wanting in the cosmic world. Both to a casual observer and to the student of details, the universe speaks of a design. In Einstein’s words, ‘The scientist’s religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection’ (The World As I See It, page 9). For instance, the size of the universe as revealed by the 200-inch telescope reaching out to a distance of two billion light years, with its billions of stars and their planets, all moving in their own orbits with such clock-like precision, without any confusion, speaks of an all-wise and Almighty Creator who not only created them, but also keeps them going.
The amazing accuracy with which the earth revolves round the sun year after year, taking exactly 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes and 48 seconds like the flawless machine, speak of the master Engineer, and His perfect design. Who could have started the planets in motion, each in its own orbit and regularly proportioned in their distances from the Sun? Who is keeping them moving continuously? Such marvellous accuracy and precision cannot come into being through fortuitous chance operations, as evolutionists contend. None of the theories put forward by the cosmologists, be it Laplace’s ‘Nebular Hypothesis’ or Fred Hoyle’s ‘Steady State Theory’ or Gamow’s ‘Big Bang Theory’ can adequately account for such marvellous design. In Psalm 33:6, 9 it is said, “By the work of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the hosts of them by the breath of his mouth. For he spake and it was done. He commanded and it stood fast.”
The earth, designed for our habitation, is ‘weighed’ and hung upon nothing (Job 26:7). Her mass and size is adjusted to retain atmosphere and water in exactly the right proportion to maintain life. She is kept at the right distance from the sun, to be neither too cold nor too hot. She is tilted, unlike the other planets, at an angle of 23°, to give seasons of the year for sowing and reaping to the harvest. Lest the earth be washed by the waves of the sea, the moon is kept at the right distance from her. Who calculated and placed the moon? What about the atmosphere of the earth? It is weighed and kept balanced, that the lighter nitrogen may go up and the heavier oxygen may come down every time we breathe. What about the mystery of the formation of ice at 4°C? And the wonderful design and beauty of snow flakes? What of the mystery now revealed inside the atom? Who could have reversed the law of electricity within the atom, that positive charges should attract positive charges among the protons? The Bible says, “the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth his handiwork.”
The same handiwork of the Creator is also revealed among animals and plants. The marvellous way in which the eye of man is constructed is clear evidence of God’s handiwork; it would take volumes to describe the marvels of design in the bee and her hive, in the spider and his web, and thousands of such adaptation designs in nature. These could not have been developed by the accumulation of mere hit-and-miss chance variations.
Secondly: Instincts – Looking at instincts, we find that every animal is not only equipped with its own structure and form but is also provided with an instinct suitable to its own mode of life. Thus each bird builds its own peculiar nest according to the instinct given to it.
There is no evolution or even improvement of nests seen among them with the passage of time. The apes which built their crude nests of leaves have not improved their lot and taken to mud houses, although men endowed ‘with wisdom from on high’ have moved from mud huts into air-conditioned rooms. Without any training or memories of the past, every generation of birds is capable of migrating thousands of miles over unknown lands and seas to the very spot of the earth where their parents once roosted. They do so by the instinct with which they are created. Likewise, every generation of wasps knows how to sting the caterpillar at the exact spot of its nervous system just to keep it paralysed, but alive as prey for their developing young. More wonderful still is the instinct of that small silvery fish the grunion. The timely spawning of their eggs, the fertilisation by the males, and the gathering of the fry, are marvels of God’s handiwork. The pregnant female grunions lay their eggs in the sand on Californian beaches exactly 15 minutes after high tide the night after the fortnightly high tide. These eggs have to be fertilised by the males within 30 seconds. Then these fertilised eggs buried in the sand are safe till the next tide, a fortnight later. By that time the eggs develop; with the next high tide they hatch out suddenly when touched by the salt water, and the new born fry are washed back into the sea by the receding waves. The question is, who taught grunions to time the tides? And who fixed the incubation period of the eggs to synchronise with the next high tide? And who adjusted the pull of the sun and the moon to be timed with the spawning of grunions? It is a clear demonstration of the marvellous design and the handiwork of an all-wise Creator. It is He who endowed the grunions with the right instinct to discern the time and tide.
Thirdly: Law and Order – Law and order are by no means confined to the heavenly bodies. They are apparent also in the tiny atom, which is now known to be a ‘universe within a universe.’ We see one law applicable to all matter outside the atom – the law of positive repelling negative charges – and quite another law governing the protons (charges within the nucleus of an atom). Inside the atom positive charges attract each other. This is a mystery. How came out the reversal of a ‘law’ of nature? Science has no explanation for this ‘mystery of the universe’ within the atom. But the Bible says (referring to the Lord Jesus Christ): “By him were all things created that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible…and he is before all things, and by him all things consist (or hold together).” Thus the study of physics leads us to innumerable laws governing matter and energy. And chemistry teaches us that the elements in nature do not chemically combine with each other as they like, but according to the laws already determined. If two atoms of hydrogen gas combine with one atom of oxygen gas they will always and invariably produce water, a liquid. This is a fixed law of nature, which no man can alter. And there can be no law without a Lawgiver.
Fourthly: Balance in Nature – The universal independence of all life on Earth is another clear witness of a ‘Master mind’ behind the creation. All life forms a wonderful unit. There is a perfect balance maintained in nature, not only among animals but also between animals and plants, and even between the living and the non-living. Checks and counterchecks are everywhere in nature to maintain the balance, lest promiscuity should overrun the earth. For instance, flying insects which can multiply rapidly are kept in check by the bats and birds. Large fishes eat the more prolific smaller fish, and the smaller mammals are preyed upon by their larger predators. Evolutionists contend that insects evolved long before the birds, their predators, came in. If that were so, insects would have destroyed all the available vegetation and higher life could not have evolved. The Bible informs us that all life was created in six days. Only thus could the balance in nature have been maintained.
Charles Darwin’s example of the effect of cats on red clover is a good illustration of the interdependence of plants and animals. He says “if field mice are not kept in check by cats, the nests of bumble bees would be destroyed by too many mice; with no bumble bees the red clover could not be fertilised and would soon die out.” What a beautiful instance of interdependence! Further, the bumble bee’s size, weight, and mouth parts, etc. are so well adapted to effect pollination in red clover, that no other insect can do this job. Here we see that the flower and the bee are designed for each other by the great Designer.
The interdependence of the Yucca plant of the desert and the Pronuba moth is another wonderful example. Such a complicated and perfectly balanced relationship could never have “happened” by the fortuitous variations and adjustments of Evolution. It can be explained only by terms of an all-wise Designer and Creator.
Fifthly: Origin of Life – Then again, for the spontaneous generation of life evolutionists believe that mere interaction of chemical constituents of protoplasm as such is not adequate, but that certain very special and improbable conditions of atmosphere are indispensable. They assume such ideal conditions to have existed at the beginning, and hope that they can be repeated. But biochemical investigations so far conducted indicate that this task is not so simple. In an article on spontaneous generation of life published in the annual of the Creation Research Scientists’ Society (1964) Dr. Paul A. Zimmerman of Michigan, writes as follows: “Most scientists agree that the original environment must have been free of oxygen. Oxygen in the atmosphere would effectively oxidise any early organic molecules and prevent the development of life. It would also by the formation of ozone effectively shield the earth’s surface from the high-energy ultraviolet radiation required by the theories. On the other hand, ultraviolet light has a lethal effect on living organisms. If it were not filtered out by the atmosphere, no life could exist today. It thus seems a most unlikely source upon which to depend for starting life.” He concluded the article in the following words: “Modern bio-chemical research has served to reveal much of the mystery of the chemistry of life. But in the unravelling of the vast complex of cell chemistry, it has exposed still more the statistical improbability of spontaneous generation. It is an improbability so large as to be equated with impossibility.” These facts illustrate how life is dependent upon so many synchronising factors, which are essential not only for the maintenance of life but also for its origin. Only an all-knowing, all-powerful Creator would have been able to produce matter out of nothing, and condition all the factors necessary for life on this planet at one and the same time.
Thus, whether we investigate the origin of life or of matter, or the splendour of this beautiful and orderly universe - from the tiny atom to the distant galaxy of stars - in all these we see only the glory and majesty of an all-wise Creator. We may therefore agree with Dr. Einstein that “the scientist’s religious feeling takes the form of rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.”
Below: Albert Einstein
There are many questions which the evolutionist may ask about the idea of special creation as found in the Bible which appear to conflict with science; the proceeding are a few such questions and some brief summaries of answers to them.
What happened to the dinosaurs? Before the Flood, dinosaurs and man lived together on our planet. Extinction of the great marine reptiles, along with the majority of all other types of sea creatures, would have been caused by the violent upheavals of the Flood, many being buried and preserved as fossils.
Two of each kind of land-dwelling dinosaurs survived by being taken into the Ark. After the Flood, they faced a radically different and more hostile world, and became extinct, along with countless other less spectacular creatures, some time after. There is some evidence that men knew about dinosaurs for a short time (perhaps several centuries after the Flood) before they finally became extinct. The descriptions of behemoth (Job 40:15) and leviathan (Job 41:1) quite possibly refer to some of the few post-Flood giant reptiles still in existence at that time. Job is thought to have lived before the time of Moses (i.e., before 1400 BC), but the writer of the Psalms (Psalm 74:14; 104:26) and the prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 27:1) also make mention of the great beast leviathan and they are dated much later. Added to this is the obvious fact that not every square inch of this earth has been explored, and there may yet be some of these intriguing kinds of creatures alive on our planet.
What about carbon-14 dating? This whole dating method is dependent upon knowing what the C14/C12 ratio was at the time of the organism’s death. The value used is based upon the assumption that the C14 in the atmosphere was long ago built up to steady state, that is, the amount entering the atmosphere is in balance with the amount leaving (by decay). The fact is that modern measurements show that C14 is still building up rapidly, and this would mean that the whole atmosphere is much less than (approximately) 30,000 years old. This would also have the effect of making C14 ages artificially older, especially the earlier dates. There are a number of other effects which would increase this tendency.
In addition, tests performed using the carbon-14 method date currently living creatures as having died thousands of years ago. These and other anomalous results dictate concerning the accuracy of this method.
Were there really ice ages? There is good evidence for only one ice age, in the so-called Pleistocene epoch of the evolutionists’ time-scale, just before man is presumed to have left written records. Evidence cited by evolutionists for earlier ice ages is open to other interpretations. Today’s polar ice caps and alpine glaciers are the remains of the vast ice sheets that covered about a third of the globe at their greatest extent. The Ice Age must therefore have occurred soon after Noah’s Flood.
Evolutionary geology, based on the uniformitarian (slow and gradual) belief, is at a loss to explain the evidence of the catastrophic arrival of the Ice Age – for instance, the “snap freezing” of great hairy extinct elephants (or mammoths) in Alaska, Siberia, and elsewhere. However, such catastrophism is readily explainable within the Biblical framework of Noah’s Flood and its after-effects. Whether or not the impact of an asteroid or an icy comet triggered the Ice Age, the collapse of the pre-Flood water vapour canopy (the waters above) at the outset of the Flood year (the opening of the “windows of heaven”) would have produced a profound and permanent change in the Earth’s immediate post-Flood climate. Rapid cooling at the poles and warming at the equator would have induced excessive snowfalls and the build-up of vast ice sheets, until after a few centuries conditions stabilized and the ice retreated. References to ice in the book of Job are consistent with that patriarch having lived at this time.
How could all the human races come from Noah, his three sons and their wives? Modern genetics show that when a large, freely interbreeding group is suddenly broken into many smaller groups which from then on breed only among themselves (as the Biblical description of the language dispersion at Babel would imply), different racial characteristics will arise very rapidly. It can be shown that one pair of middle-brown parents could produce all known shades of colour, from very white to very black, in ONE generation. The racial characteristics which exist today have not evolved, and generally speaking, are simply different combinations of pre-existing (created) genetic (hereditary) information. The environment plays a secondary role in favouring certain combinations over others.
“OK,” the evolutionist concludes. “You have a lot of good ideas and arguments, but really, at the end of the day, what harm is the teaching of the theory of evolution doing?” Well, firstly: Evolution justifies atheism – Everyone who insists there is no God relies upon evolution to explain nature without a designer. It is the necessary foundation for many religious world and life views such as atheism, agnosticism and the associated secular humanism with its motto: ‘if nobody made us, nobody owns us, so there’s nobody to set the rules except us.’ There is no logical reason to be bound by the principles set out in the Ten Commandments, for example, if other parts of the Old Testament are rejected as ‘cultural myths.’
Secondly: Nazism and Evolution – Much has been written about one of Fascism’s more infamous sons, Adolf Hitler. His treatment of the Jews may be attributed, at least in part, to his belief in evolution. P. Hoffman, in Hitler’s Personal Security (p. 264), said: “Hitler believed in struggle as a Darwinian principle of human life that forced ever people to try to dominate all others; without struggle they would rot and perish…Even in his own defeat in April 1945, Hitler expressed his faith in the survival of the stronger and declared the Slavic peoples to have proven themselves the stronger.”
Left: Hitler, who used evolution to justify his treatment of the Jews and other racial groups
Sir Arthur Keith, the well-known evolutionist, explains how Hitler was only being consistent in what he did to the Jews – he was applying the principles of Darwinian evolution. In Evolution and Ethics (p. 28), he said: “To see evolutionary measure and tribal morality being applied vigorously to the affairs of a great modern nation, we must turn again to Germany of 1942. We see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for a national policy…The means he adopted to secure the destiny of his race and people were organized slaughter, which has drenched Europe in blood…Such conduct is highly immoral as measured by every scale of ethics, yet Germany justifies it; it is consonant with tribal or evolutionary morality. Germany has reverted to the tribal past, and is demonstration to the world, in their naked ferocity, the methods of evolution.”
Thirdly: Racism and Evolution – Stephen J. Gould in Natural History (April 1980, p. 144), said that “Recapitulation provided a convenient focus for the pervasive racism of white scientists; they looked to the activities of their own children for comparison with normal, adult behaviour in lower races.” Gould also concludes that the term “mongoloid” became synonymous with mentally defective people because it was believed the Caucasian race was more highly developed than the Mongoloid. Therefore, some thought that a mentally defective child was really a throwback to a previous stage in evolution. The leading American palaeontologist of the first half of the 20th century, Henry Fairfield Osborne, adds fuel to the fire with his belief that “The Negroid stock is even more ancient than the Caucasian and Mongolian…The standard of intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old of the species Homo sapiens” (Natural History, April 1980, p. 129).
Right: Aborigines,
the “missing link”?
Many of the early settlers of Australia considered the Australian Aborigines to be less intelligent than the “white man,” because aborigines had not evolved as far as whites on the evolutionary scale. In fact, the Hobart Museum in Tasmania (Australia) in 1984 listed this as one of the reasons why early white settlers killed as many aborigines as they could in that state. In 1924 the New York Tribune (Sunday, February 10) had a very large article telling their readers that the missing had been found in Australia. The missing link referred to happened to be aborigines from the State of Tasmania.
The incredible thing is that we live in a society that states it wants to be rid of racist attitudes. Yet we are conditioned to racist attitudes by our very education system, and the whole foundational basis for racism permeates people’s minds.
It was the evolutionary view that convinced anthropologists there were different races of humans at different levels on the evolutionary ladder. This led them to believe there were different levels of intelligence and ability. It is the Christian view that teaches there is one race (in the sense that we all came from the same two humans, and therefore there are no lower or higher evolutionary groups) and that all people are equal.
At one school, a teacher said to her students that, if ape-like creatures had evolved into people, then this should be seen to be happening today. Some of the students told her that this was happening today because some aborigines are primitive and therefore, still evolving. Regrettably, in the children’s eyes the teaching of evolution had relegated the Australian Aborigines to a subhuman level.
Fourthly: Abortion and Evolution – Many will remember being taught at school that as an embryo develops in its mother’s womb it goes through a fish stage with gill slits, etc., and other evolutionary stages until it becomes human. In other words, the idea is that as the embryo develops it passes through all the evolutionary stages reflecting its ancestry. This theory of “embryonic recapitulation” was first proposed by a man called Ernst Haeckel. Not many people realise that this whole theory was an intentional deception. I quote, “But it still remains true that, in attempting to prove his law, Haeckel resorted to a series of dishonest distortions in making his illustrations. Branding them as dishonest is not too harsh, since Haeckel mentions where he originally procured some of his drawings without mentioning the alterations he made” (Creation Research Society1969 Annual, Volume 6, Number 1, June 1969, p.28).
Eventually, Ernst Haeckel admitted this fraud, but the deplorable aspect is that this theory is still taught in many universities, schools and colleges throughout the world. Admittedly, evolutionists who have kept up with the latest writings know that this view is wrong and refrain from teaching it in their classes. However, in most of the popular school textbooks and reading materials this view is still promulgated in various forms, often very subtly.
As people accepted that the child developing in a mother’s womb was just an animal reflecting its evolutionary ancestry, there was less and less problem about destroying it. As evolutionary ideas became more accepted, the easier it became to accept abortion. In fact, some abortion clinics in America have taken women aside to explain to them that what is being aborted is just an embryo in the fish stage of evolution, and that the embryo must not be thought of as human. These women are being fed outright lies.
Let me state here that abortion certainly existed before Darwin popularized his evolutionary theory. However, his evolutionary theory has been used to give abortion its respectability, and thus the great increase in abortion that we see today.
If the world is ‘just there’, if life is the result of a fascinating fluke, and if we ourselves are nothing more than biological accidents, we are faced with an avalanche of questions:
• If information came into being by chance, how can we know that anything is true?
• How can evolution account for the universal and invariable laws of logic, on which all out thinking depends? On what basis can we study the world in any coherent way and come to sensible conclusions about it?
• If the brain is nothing more than an accident of biological evolution, why should we trust its ability to tell us so? How can chance accumulations of atoms and molecules decide that that is what they are?
• How can shrink-wrapped bags of biological elements have any rights to justice, freedom, possessions or happiness – or even to life itself? What gives us any greater value than rocks or reptiles, trees or termites?
• How did the products of a succession of genetic flukes learn to remember the past, evaluate the present and wonder about the future?
• Why should we look for purpose or meaning in life? What is the sense in genetically programmed machines talking about ‘quality of life’ and ‘values’, or concerning themselves with aims or aspirations?
• As it is impossible to jump from atoms to ethics and from molecules to morality, why do we have an inbuilt sense of right and wrong? Where did conscience come from, and why does it have such amazing power? Why do we sometimes feel guilty or ashamed?
• Why do we have a sense of obligation or responsibility to other people? Why should mere blocks of animate matter be concerned for the temporary well-being of other blobs if both are on their way to extinction?
• How can we live – or die – with dignity if our existence is meaningless? Why do we take ourselves so seriously if Richard Dawkins is right to say that we are nothing but ‘jumped-up apes’?
• If the survival of the fittest is evolution’s greatest prize, why should we not encourage the non-survival of the unfit? Why should we care for the frail, the mentally defective, the chronically sick, the senile, or the starving? Should we not give evolution a helping hand by getting rid of them – and the sooner the better?
• If humans are no more than grown-up germs, why are we the only species preoccupied with death? Why should approaching it – or delaying it – be of the slightest concern to us? If we began as a fluke, live out a farce and end as a fertilizer, what hope or help can we give to someone who is dying?
• Why is our sense of spirituality so strong that man has been called ‘a religious animal’? Is this something we should expect to happen to dust left around for millions of years?
Dr. John Moore spoke during the annual sessions of the American Association of the Advancement of Science.
He described the theory that man evolved from “amoeba and sea-slimes” as an “incredible religion,” but not “science”.
CONCLUSION
After intense research for almost a century and a half by qualified scientists in the field of biology, bringing to light many facts of science which contradict the assumptions of Darwin, the statement of Sir Arthur Keith that “Evolution is unproved and unprovable, we believe it because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable” may now be restated as follows: “Evolution is unproved and now found to be untenable. We believe in creation because it was always the only possible alternative, and is now found to be more reasonable.” In Sir James Jean’s words, “Everything points with overwhelming force to a definitive event or events of creation at some time or times not infinitely remote.” (Eos or The Wider Aspects of Cosmogeny, page 35). Whether it be the study of cosmology, physics, chemistry, biology or biochemistry, geology or palaeontology, as far as the known facts of science are concerned, we are being compelled to uphold creation rather than evolution. It is no longer ‘creation’, but ‘evolution’ of one basic kind from another basic kind that is ‘unthinkable’. It is no longer ‘Christianity’ that is the principal obstacle of human progress but ‘evolution’ that really hinders human progress. As Professor W.R. Thompson (Introduction to Darwin’s Origin of Species, edition, 1963 edition, page 20, points out: “A great deal of this work (research work stimulated by Darwinism) was directed into unprofitable channels or devoted to the pursuit of will-o-the-wisps.” The same author quotes D’Arcy Thompson’s remark “on the stultifying effect of Darwinian theory’. This apart, the social import of the concept of evolution has been disastrous and unworkable. We are therefore made to realise, that both for the progress of science and for the moral and spiritual progress of the human race, the earlier we abandon the philosophy of evolution, the better it will be for mankind.
THE REMEDY
The true remedy lies in completely abandoning the Darwinian conception of evolution and re-examining critically the facts of science with an unprejudiced mind, with a view to seeing whether they will fit into the only alternative doctrine, namely, the doctrine of ‘creation’ as recorded in the Bible. After personal investigation and examination of some of the original materials on which the theory of evolution was based, the editor has become convinced that scientific facts fit in better with the concept of creation than with evolution. Thus the doctrine of creation does not go counter to the established laws of thermodynamics. On the other hand it agrees with the principle of uncertainty and gives an adequate explanation for the origin of matter and life. It is also in harmony with the facts of palaeontology and genetics, giving ample scope for scientific research to discover the extent of variation within the basic kind created. The doctrine of creation does not lead to scientific speculation of falsification of scientific data in order to support a false theory. The concept of creation as stated in the Bible is not only in harmony with the latest facts of science but also promotes human progress in the right direction. It develops the complete man – his body, mind and also his spirit. It does not teach and lead men to the wrong ‘code of ethics’ to fight and kill each other. It takes cognizance of his spiritual hunger which evolutionists ignore.
The concept of creation leads man to his Creator, and it satisfies the inner longings of his soul. For man is not an animal to be satisfied with the material things of the world. He is essentially a spiritual being.
The reason why so many oppose the doctrine of creation is often due to prejudice or careless reading. Careful reading of the Scriptures, with an open mind, will reveal that no established scientific fact contradicts the story of creation as described in the first chapter of the Bible. On the other hand, such a study will show that the doctrine of creation, the doctrine of sin, and the catastrophe of the Noahic flood as stated in the Bible, alone can reconcile all the facts of cosmology, cosmogony, the origin of life, its reproducing only ‘after its kind’, its variation within limits, and all the facts of Palaeontology. The facts of Palaeontology, namely, the sudden and violent entombment of animals leaving millions of fossils aggregated together and others preserved in ice in the very act of feeding, can, in fact, be explained only in terms of a universal flood as described in the Bible. Geological strata with their fossils indicate not the order of evolution or even creation, but the order of burial in the waters of that deluge.
These facts of science can harmoniously be blended only in terms of creation. The doctrine of creation not only harmonises demonstrable facts of science, but also the truths of the spiritual realm, which is ignored by the protagonists of evolution. Truly “all things were made by Him and without Him was not anything made that was made”. For it is the same Creator who inspired the prophet to write the account of creation.
SOURCES
The following publications were used for this section and are available on loan from the editor:
Evolution or Creation by Professor H. Enoch
The Lie: Evolution by Ken Ham
Stones and Bones by Carl Wieland
The Answers Book by Ken Ham, Andrew Snelling & Carl Wieland
Evolution: Fact or Fiction? by John Blanchard
Have You Been…Brainwashed? by Duane T. Gish, Ph. D.
The Reason Why by R.A. Laidlaw
DARWIN’S RECANTATION
The following is an excerpt taken from Professor H. Enoch’s book “Evolution or Creation,” and is an account of Darwin’s deathbed recantation.
“The atheistic influence of evolution on the faith of man cannot be better illustrated than in the life of its own exponent, Charles Darwin, the Father of Evolution. Young Darwin, according to his own expression was ‘quite orthodox’ in his Christian faith even during the time of the famous Beagle Expedition. He had a good taste for music and poetry and a heart for the things of God, which he lost during his later years. In fact he made up his mind to become a minister of Jesus Christ and underwent theological studies at Cambridge for about three years. But as his belief in the theory of evolution increased, his faith in Christianity and God declined, until fifty years later he wrote: ‘For myself, I do not believe there ever has been any revelation.’ Though not wantonly, Darwin lost his faith as he became a confirmed evolutionist. Unfortunately this has been the experience of many a young man of godly parentage, who has made shipwreck of his faith on the theory of evolution. The Scripture has a timely warning for such in Romans 1:21, 22. We are exhorted not to become vain in our imagination lest we become spiritually blind, and this was particularly the experience of Charles Darwin, and of others, who, ‘when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing themselves to be wise they became fools.’
There is yet another important lesson to be learned from the experience of this great scientist. Lady Hope, who visited Charles Darwin during his last days on earth, has the following to say (Quoted in the Bombay Guardian, 25th March 1916) regarding his views on evolution towards the end of his life.
‘It was on a glorious Autumn afternoon when I was asked to go and sit with Charles Darwin. He was almost bedridden for some months before he died. Propped up with pillows, his features seem to be lit up with pleasure as I entered the room. He waved his hand towards the window as he pointed out the beautiful sunset seen beyond, while in the other he held an open Bible which he was always studying.’
‘What are you reading now?’ I asked.
‘Hebrews,’ he answered, ‘still Hebrews, The Royal Book, I call it…’ Then he placed his fingers on certain passages and commented upon them.
I made some allusions to the strong opinions expressed by many unbelievers on the history of the creation and then their treatment of the earlier chapters of the book of Genesis. He seemed distressed, his fingers twitched nervously and a look of agony came across his face as he said, ‘I was a young man, with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything. And to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them.’ Then he paused and after a few more sentences on the holiness of God and the grandeur of this Book, looking at the Bible which he was holding tenderly all the time, he said:
‘I have a summer house in the garden which holds about thirty people. It is over there (pointing through the open window). I want you very much to speak here. I know you read the Bible in the villages. Tomorrow afternoon I should like the servants on the place, some tenants and a few neighbours to gather there. Will you speak to them?’
‘What shall I speak about?’ I asked.
‘Christ Jesus,’ he replied in a clear emphatic voice, adding in a lower tone, ‘and His salvation. Is not that the best theme? And then I want you to sing some hymns with them. You lead on your small instrument, do you not?’
The look of brightness on his face I shall never forget, for he added, ‘If you take the meeting at 3 o’clock this window will be opened and you will know that I am joining with the singing.’
We thank God for the above confession from the Father of Evolution himself. It serves as a good warning to every youngster not to become vain in his or her imagination, and blind to spiritual things. Darwin never regretted the scientific facts he observed and recorded. But his remorse was for the godless philosophy of life for which he was responsible.
Be it Darwinism, Militarism, or Atheism, they all seem to have one common object in view, namely, to throw off the restraints of righteousness and to free man from submission and service to God. This defiance of God and His righteousness has been predicted already in the Bible in the second Psalm as follows:
‘The kings of the earth set themselves and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and against His anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the Heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall he speak to them in his wrath and vex them with his sore displeasure…’
Surely this was the experience of Hitler who worked out the Darwinian code of ethics in his nation, and will be the experience of every ‘ism’ that exalteth itself against the Lord and His Christ, ‘For the world passeth away and the lust thereof, but he that doeth the will of God abideth forever.’
‘The world by wisdom knew not God’ and so, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.’ ‘Be wise now, therefore, O ye Kings: be instructed ye judges of the earth…Blessed are all they who put their trust in Him.’ ‘For the law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. The testimony of Jehovah maketh wise the simple.’ ‘The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth his handiwork.’ It is to bring young men and women to his conception and acknowledgement of God that this book (Evolution or Creation – Professor H. Enoch) has been written. God’s word has a definite warning against the ‘isms’ of the day, be it Darwinism, Militarism or Atheism. It says, ‘Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of this world, and not after Christ.’ ‘For in Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.’ Let the exhortation given to young Timothy be our guide. ‘O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings and oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith.’ 1 Tim. 6:20.”
Like to know your thoughts on the article.
Tallan wrote:
> One of the main arguments used by creationists against evolutionists
> is the evolution of the eyeball. How did such a complex organ evolve
> from a single cell?
>
> Two scientists tried to model evolution of the eyeball using a
> computer simulation. They started with one photo-sensitive cell and
> applied a random mutation to it. They then took the original cell and
> applied a different random mutation. Repeat 50 times. They now had 50
> results that had had one mutation applied to each. The simulation
> then tested every result to see which was the best at detecting
> light. They took this 'best result' and used it as the basis for the
> next generation. Rinse and repeat.
>
> After a hell of a lot of generations (can't remember exact figure),
> taking the 'best' each time, they ended up with, you guessed it, an
> eyeball! Only this eyeball was infact slightly better than ours, the
> lens it had evolved was better (I think there were actually 2
> lenses), which goes to show that evolution is an entirely feasible
> proposition. It also demonstrates that evolution will do the best it
> needs to do for a certain job, not the best it can do period.
>
> {Oh yes, black holes have been observed, not directly as this is an
> imposibility, but indirectly using other stars and maths and stuff.}
Right, Tallan this is an article about "evolution" my brother wrote. It talks about Darwin and others. Enjoy.
Before exploring the theory of evolution on scientific grounds, let us first address the matter from a point of logic and common understanding. Let’s imagine: we stand together on the wharf as a big ocean liner draws alongside, and I say to you, “A lot of people think that ship is the result of someone’s carefully designed plans, but I know better. There was really no intelligence at work on it at all; the iron, by some mysterious process, gradually came out of the ground and fashioned itself into plates; slowly holes were formed in the edges of these plates, and rivets appeared, flattened themselves out on either side, and after a great time, by this same evolutionary process, the engines were in place, and one day some men on the seashore found her floating quietly in a sheltered cove.”
You would probably consider me a lunatic, and move further into the crowd to escape my senseless chatter. Why, you know that where there is a design there must be a designer, and, having seen other productions of the human mind just like the steamer in question, you would refuse to believe it was not planned by human intelligence and built by human skill.
Yet there are men not considered fools who tell us that the solar system evolved from its nebulous state by chance, that in some mysterious way it came – that there was really no higher intelligence at work on it; they tell us they know no God but nature, on the other hand there are many thoughtful men who believe that God is transcendent; that is, while He reveals Himself in nature, in that is laws and principles are expressions of His power and wisdom, He Himself is essentially the sum of them all. Evolutionists and atheists offer us the anomaly of design without a designer, of creation without a Creator, of effect without a cause, and to escape from this dilemma ask, “If God be considered the ‘first great cause,’ account for Him, who made God?” Now, such a question contradicts itself, for it is evident no cause could make the first cause, or the first cause would become also the second cause, which is a mathematical absurdity.
Every thoughtful person believes in a series of causes and effect in nature, each effect becoming the cause of some other effect. Now the acceptance of this fact logically compels one to admit that there must be a beginning to any series – that is, there could never have been a first effect if there had not been a First Cause. This First Cause to me is Deity, and because I cannot tell where God came from is not a satisfactory reason for denying that He exists, else I might as well deny the existence of the millionth effect which, for the sake of argument, might happen to be this world. You see, if I admit one cause as ever having existed, I am bound eventually by induction to arrive at the First Cause. We will explore the subject of the origin of life later in a more in-depth and scientific context.
“But wait a minute,” says the evolutionist, “Isn’t evolution a science and creation just a religious belief?” If this common idea were true, why would so many highly qualified scientists today accept the direct creation of a functioning world (just as it says in Genesis, the first book of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures) and reject evolution? In fact, the modern creation movement is a fast-growing minority.
In the US alone, it is conservatively estimated that there are upwards of 10,000 professional scientists who believe in biblical creation. In 1993 in South Korea, for instance, the Korea Association of Creation Research already had a membership of over 1,000 scientists, the majority with at least a Master’s or Ph.D. degree in some area of science, and including 100 full-ranking university professors. The Moscow Creation Science Fellowship was formed with 10 members a short while ago. A year later it had escalated to 120 holders of advanced science degrees.
Most university professors have one earned doctorate; we know of members of the creation movement (e.g. A.E. Wilder-Smith) who have the rare distinction of three such doctorates. Historically, most scientific disciplines were founded by great scientists (Newton, Pasteur, Faraday, to name but a few) who were all creationists.
Right: Professor A.E. Wilder-Smith, who holds three science doctorates
Real science depends on measuring or watching something happen, and checking it by doing it again. Even if, for example, reptiles did change into birds millions of years ago, as evolutionists allege, the scientific method could never prove that as a fact, because it was not observed happening. If you could somehow turn a reptile into a bird today, even that wouldn’t prove it happened millions of years ago. Equally, you can’t insist that God should repeat the miraculous creation of many groups of birds and reptiles, programmed to reproduce after their kind, just so you can watch it.
Both are ideas held on faith; each belief system (evolution or creation) offers arguments and evidences to bolster that faith. Creationists maintain that theirs is a reasonable and logical belief system, backed up by the weight of evidence observable in the present.
As we study evolution, let us first consider the morphological evidence for it. Firstly: Evidence from Classification - In his study of the various organisms in nature, the evolutionist finds some organisms to be very simple in structure and others more complicated. He finds it possible to arrange or classify these organisms in a fairly graded system from the most simple to the most complex, or, as he would put it, from the ‘lower’ to the ‘highest’. Thus he places a single-celled animal like amoeba first, and next to it or ‘above’ it the multicellular hydra, and next to it amphioxus, and then a fish, an amphibian, a reptile and a lower mammal. Next to the lower mammal he places a lower ape. Next to that a higher ape, and lastly the most complex of all – Man. When he has finished arranging these creatures in that order, from the simpler to the more complicated, he turns round to the creationist and says: “See, here is a proof for the theory of evolution, showing how the complicated evolved out of the simpler ones!”
This is a strange proof indeed! Such proofs are not wanting in any sphere of life, for simple and complicated things which lend themselves to such arrangements exist everywhere. By arranging his books on a shelf in a graded system, depending on the size or complexity of its contents, a student can also prove the ‘evolution’ of his books. The reader may well see the absurdity of such an argument, for it assumes the very thing to be proved. Nevertheless it has deceived thousands of students in the past and is still deceiving thousands more who allow themselves to be carried away by sheer weight of ‘scientific authority’, instead of thinking for themselves clearly and logically.
In his book A Critique of Evolution Theory the late well-known evolutionist T.H. Morgan of Columbia University admits that the proof from classification is in fact no real proof at all. On page 9 of the same book he says that when the fallacy of the argument is pointed out to pupils of his who believe in evolution, they are resentful. We may boldly affirm that this proof is absurd; and the fact that organisms can be arranged in a certain order does not preclude the possibility of both the simple and the complex coming into existence simultaneously. The Bible says that all animal life was created in two days (Genesis 1:20-27). With God such things are possible.
Secondly: Proof from Comparative Anatomy – When a student of anatomy studies the structure of various animals in detail such as the bones, the muscles, the arteries, the veins, etc., it becomes apparent to him that there is a certain similarity of structure underlying them all. For example the anatomy of cat, dog, monkey and man resemble each other a great deal, taking bone for bone, muscle for muscle, and nerve for nerve, even to the smallest detail. It may also be stated that the resemblance between the animals themselves varies. Thus a cat resembles a dog more than a monkey, and a monkey resembles a man more than it resembles a dog. Based on this similarity of structure animals can be arranged in a fairly graded system. Again, comparing the anatomy of the wing of a bird, the paddle of a whale and the arm of a man it is observed that they are all constructed on the same general plan taking bone for bone, muscle for muscle and nerve for nerve. The evolutionist contends that such similarity of structure can be explained only on the basis of evolution, namely, that they all had a common ancestor.
Similarity of structure is a scientific fact, for one can observe it on studying the anatomy of these animals. But the interpretation put on this similarity can reasonably be denied. For this similarity of structure can with equal reasonableness be used as an argument in favour of the doctrine of the special creation. For instance, if the various colleges of the city were compared, one is sure to find many points of similarity. Each may have an entrance, an office room, a Principal’s room, a library with books, class rooms with blackboards and seating arrangements, etc. This comparison may be extended even to minor details, to show that the resemblance between two Science Colleges is greater than the resemblance between an Arts College and a Science College. But from this similarity of structure it cannot be argued that the biggest (first grade) Science College building came out of a smaller (second grade) Science College building or that both Science and Arts College buildings evolved out of a common ancestor! For we know that they were all constructed separately. Yet they may well have been planned and constructed by one architect at one and the same time. Similarity in design in the case of colleges does not prove their evolution; neither does similarity of design prove evolution in the case of living organisms. To the believer in the Bible, similarity in plan of structure among living organisms merely establishes the fact of one great
Architect, the Creator, who had in mind one great pattern which He used while making His natural species with such modifications as were necessary for their different conditions of life. He could as well have created them all on different patterns, the dog with four legs, the cat with five, the cow with six and the elephant with nineteen! He could have put the nostrils of the monkey behind its ears and given man two heads! But as they all have to live upon the same earth, breathing the same air and drinking the same kind of water, it was but reasonable that a wise Creator should construct them all on a similar pattern, allowing modifications wherever necessary. Thus similarity of structure, as revealed in comparative anatomy, may as well point to a common Creator as to any evolutionary process.
Now let us consider the evidences for evolution from blood relationship. Firstly: Blood Precipitation Test – This test is supposed to support the theory of evolution by demonstrating ‘blood relationship’ that exists between man and the lower animals. George Nuttal of Cambridge, during his investigations which led to the discovery of vaccination, came across a by-product known as the anti-human serum. Human blood added to this liquid forms a thick white precipitate; with the blood of a bird there is no reaction, but the blood of mammals like lemurs, monkeys and chimpanzees yields varying degrees of precipitate, slightest in the case of lemurs and heaviest in that of chimpanzee. This similarity in the structure of the blood of man and ape is supposed to prove their common ancestry.
Now, it is true that some similarity exists between the blood of mammals, which may even admit of their being arranged in a graded system. But this chemical similarity cannot prove evolution. Pursuing the same logic we might conclude that the pen knife, the bread knife and the sword have evolved from a common ancestor! For there is a similarity in the chemical make-up of these articles, and they can be arranged in a graded system according to the degree of hardness of each. However, further research along the same lines has show that the tiger and the whale are close of kin as are also the parrot and the ostrich. But such inconvenient facts are ignored by the evolutionist.
Blood analysis has revealed other interesting facts as shown by B.C. Nelson. The specific gravity of human blood is 1059; of the pig and the hare 1060; of the frog 1055-56; of the snake 1055, and the monkey’s 1054.9. From this table we can see that the frog and the snake are closer to man that the monkey, while our nearest relation is the pig!
It may look somewhat strange to base our relationship with the pig on flimsy evidence such as the similarity in the specific gravity of the blood. Yet the suggestion of a piggian ancestry was the theme for a University extension lecture in India a few years ago by a learned professor of Zoology holding a Ph.D. degree of the University of London. Of course he had many other facts of similarity to the support his thesis that we have closer ties with the Pig than with the Monkey or the Ape!
But this is not all. If the blood test be a criterion of common ancestry, why not the milk test too? And chemical analysis shows that the animal which stands nearest to man, in this respect, is neither the monkey nor the pig but – the DONKEY!
Some have even found support for this ancestry in the traditional customs of some primitive peoples. For among the tribal people in Asia there is still the practice of feeding infants when they are born with donkey’s milk instead of human milk. To what ridiculous conclusions do evolutionists lead us at times!
Secondly: Proof from Geographical Distribution – The proof from blood precipitation test and the proof from geographical distribution have not been presented by evolutionists in recent years. However, they do find a place in some text books of zoology, and for that reason they are considered in this series.
The proof from geographical distribution essentially consists in setting up a ridiculous idea of special creation, not warranted by the Bible and knocking it down again by ridicule. And because such an idea of special creation is unthinkable, evolutionary interpretation for the present distribution of animals and plants presumably is correct. Charles Darwin noted the similarity between the fauna of the Galapagos Islands (500 miles off the west coast of South America) and those of the main continent, and argued that such similarity was inexplicable on the basis of special creation (i.e. the idea that each species was created separately in its particular locality). This interpretation of special creation is not implied in the Scriptures. For the Bible not only permits variation within the ‘kind’ created but also clearly indicates that all land animals migrated from a single spot after the Genesis flood. Evolutionists argue that our finding marsupial mammals only in Australia is due to the fact that the continent got separated from other parts of the world before the other mammals evolved. To this Duperett’s answer seems to be the right explanation. According to him the fauna of Australia and Tasmania is not an indigenous survival from the Mesozoic era but come there by immigration at a recent epoch (Transformations of Animal World, p. 306). This agrees with the Scriptural account. However, on the question of distribution evolutionists themselves are sharply divided, and in the current debate this is not usually presented as evidence in favour of the theory of Evolution.
“But what about the fossils,” asks the evolutionist, “don’t they show evolution?” Darwin stated, quite correctly, that if his theory was true, there should be very large numbers of ‘in-between types’ found as fossils. If the forelimb of a reptile, for instance, has turned into the wing of a bird, why don’t we find a series of fossils showing these stages – part-limb, part-wing; or part-scale, part-feather?
Darwin said that the absence of such intermediates was the ‘most obvious and serious objection’ against his theory. 120 years later, Dr. David Raup, the head of one of the great museums in America, said that the situation concerning missing links ‘hasn’t changed much’ and that ‘we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time’.
So what do we have? Evolution expects millions of in-between forms. Some evolutionists claim there are some – maybe a handful of such in-between fossil types. Other leading experts say there are none.
Below: Archaeopteryx
What is not often known is that the strange fossil creature Archaeopteryx, often used as an example of a transitional form between reptiles and birds shows none of the crucial transitional structures which would establish it beyond reasonable doubt – the feathers are fully formed, and the wings are proper wings. It has a backward facing claw and curved feet characteristic of perching birds. It was most definitely not, as some would reconstruct it, a running feathered dinosaur.
Some living creatures (e.g. the platypus) are also a mosaic of features found in different classes. This odd little fellow, who had fur like a mammal, a beak like a duck, a tail like a beaver, venom glands like a snake, lays eggs like a reptile, yet suckles its young, is a good example of such a mosaic. It is not, however, a ‘half-way house’ between any two of the creatures listed.
This general absence of in-between forms also applies to so-called ‘human evolution’. This might be surprising considering that so many alleged ‘ancestors’ are paraded. It is difficult to track all the varied and changing claims, but the past century has show that each widely trumpeted ‘ancestor’ claim is quietly discarded – but only when some new candidate(s) can be found to replace it. Today, much is made of the australopithecines/habilines – a broad group of which the famous Lucy fossil is best known.
Dr. Charles Oxnard is one of a growing number of evolutionist anatomists who, having painstakingly examined vast numbers of measurements by computerized multivariate analysis, do not believe that these creatures are human ancestors.
Left: The skeleton of the famous ‘Lucy’ – regarded as a ‘remarkably complete’ ‘hominid’ skeleton. Her (and her type’s) claim to human ancestry is under severe challenge from expert anatomists.
He states that although initially it was thought that they were human-like or at least intermediate between apes and humans, the reality is that they ‘differ more from both humans and African apes than do these two living groups from each other. The australopithecines are unique.’ He indicates that the non-ancestor status of these creatures is supported by an increasing number of investigators who are ‘independent of those representing individuals who have found the fossils.’
What about so-called Homo erectus? Well-defined Homo erectus skeletal types were most probably true humans living after the Flood (described in the Bible in Genesis), and the break-up of people (after God’s forced dispersion at Babel, also described in the Bible) into small, isolated populations gave ideal conditions for the rapid isolation and enhancement of (pre-existing, creating) genetic differences. Such racial variation would also have included bony features.
Compared to the very wide variation in other features in the human race, the skeletal differences between erectus and other human skeletons are, after all, not that extreme. Interestingly, in Europe, not only erectus, but also Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon types (which both have larger brain capacities, on average, than today’s populations) are now known to have been living at the same time as ‘modern’ types.
Tools found recently in Indonesia in association with a stegodon have caused evolutionist Dr. Allan Thorne to suggest that these alleged ‘prehuman ancestors’ had seafaring skills and technology. Quoted in The Australian of August 19, 1993, he says of them “They’re not [i.e. shouldn’t be called] Homo erectus, they’re peopl
> One of the main arguments used by creationists against evolutionists
> is the evolution of the eyeball. How did such a complex organ evolve
> from a single cell?
>
> Two scientists tried to model evolution of the eyeball using a
> computer simulation. They started with one photo-sensitive cell and
> applied a random mutation to it. They then took the original cell and
> applied a different random mutation. Repeat 50 times. They now had 50
> results that had had one mutation applied to each. The simulation
> then tested every result to see which was the best at detecting
> light. They took this 'best result' and used it as the basis for the
> next generation. Rinse and repeat.
>
> After a hell of a lot of generations (can't remember exact figure),
> taking the 'best' each time, they ended up with, you guessed it, an
> eyeball! Only this eyeball was infact slightly better than ours, the
> lens it had evolved was better (I think there were actually 2
> lenses), which goes to show that evolution is an entirely feasible
> proposition. It also demonstrates that evolution will do the best it
> needs to do for a certain job, not the best it can do period.
>
> {Oh yes, black holes have been observed, not directly as this is an
> imposibility, but indirectly using other stars and maths and stuff.}
Right, Tallan this is an article about "evolution" my brother wrote. It talks about Darwin and others. Enjoy.
Before exploring the theory of evolution on scientific grounds, let us first address the matter from a point of logic and common understanding. Let’s imagine: we stand together on the wharf as a big ocean liner draws alongside, and I say to you, “A lot of people think that ship is the result of someone’s carefully designed plans, but I know better. There was really no intelligence at work on it at all; the iron, by some mysterious process, gradually came out of the ground and fashioned itself into plates; slowly holes were formed in the edges of these plates, and rivets appeared, flattened themselves out on either side, and after a great time, by this same evolutionary process, the engines were in place, and one day some men on the seashore found her floating quietly in a sheltered cove.”
You would probably consider me a lunatic, and move further into the crowd to escape my senseless chatter. Why, you know that where there is a design there must be a designer, and, having seen other productions of the human mind just like the steamer in question, you would refuse to believe it was not planned by human intelligence and built by human skill.
Yet there are men not considered fools who tell us that the solar system evolved from its nebulous state by chance, that in some mysterious way it came – that there was really no higher intelligence at work on it; they tell us they know no God but nature, on the other hand there are many thoughtful men who believe that God is transcendent; that is, while He reveals Himself in nature, in that is laws and principles are expressions of His power and wisdom, He Himself is essentially the sum of them all. Evolutionists and atheists offer us the anomaly of design without a designer, of creation without a Creator, of effect without a cause, and to escape from this dilemma ask, “If God be considered the ‘first great cause,’ account for Him, who made God?” Now, such a question contradicts itself, for it is evident no cause could make the first cause, or the first cause would become also the second cause, which is a mathematical absurdity.
Every thoughtful person believes in a series of causes and effect in nature, each effect becoming the cause of some other effect. Now the acceptance of this fact logically compels one to admit that there must be a beginning to any series – that is, there could never have been a first effect if there had not been a First Cause. This First Cause to me is Deity, and because I cannot tell where God came from is not a satisfactory reason for denying that He exists, else I might as well deny the existence of the millionth effect which, for the sake of argument, might happen to be this world. You see, if I admit one cause as ever having existed, I am bound eventually by induction to arrive at the First Cause. We will explore the subject of the origin of life later in a more in-depth and scientific context.
“But wait a minute,” says the evolutionist, “Isn’t evolution a science and creation just a religious belief?” If this common idea were true, why would so many highly qualified scientists today accept the direct creation of a functioning world (just as it says in Genesis, the first book of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures) and reject evolution? In fact, the modern creation movement is a fast-growing minority.
In the US alone, it is conservatively estimated that there are upwards of 10,000 professional scientists who believe in biblical creation. In 1993 in South Korea, for instance, the Korea Association of Creation Research already had a membership of over 1,000 scientists, the majority with at least a Master’s or Ph.D. degree in some area of science, and including 100 full-ranking university professors. The Moscow Creation Science Fellowship was formed with 10 members a short while ago. A year later it had escalated to 120 holders of advanced science degrees.
Most university professors have one earned doctorate; we know of members of the creation movement (e.g. A.E. Wilder-Smith) who have the rare distinction of three such doctorates. Historically, most scientific disciplines were founded by great scientists (Newton, Pasteur, Faraday, to name but a few) who were all creationists.
Right: Professor A.E. Wilder-Smith, who holds three science doctorates
Real science depends on measuring or watching something happen, and checking it by doing it again. Even if, for example, reptiles did change into birds millions of years ago, as evolutionists allege, the scientific method could never prove that as a fact, because it was not observed happening. If you could somehow turn a reptile into a bird today, even that wouldn’t prove it happened millions of years ago. Equally, you can’t insist that God should repeat the miraculous creation of many groups of birds and reptiles, programmed to reproduce after their kind, just so you can watch it.
Both are ideas held on faith; each belief system (evolution or creation) offers arguments and evidences to bolster that faith. Creationists maintain that theirs is a reasonable and logical belief system, backed up by the weight of evidence observable in the present.
As we study evolution, let us first consider the morphological evidence for it. Firstly: Evidence from Classification - In his study of the various organisms in nature, the evolutionist finds some organisms to be very simple in structure and others more complicated. He finds it possible to arrange or classify these organisms in a fairly graded system from the most simple to the most complex, or, as he would put it, from the ‘lower’ to the ‘highest’. Thus he places a single-celled animal like amoeba first, and next to it or ‘above’ it the multicellular hydra, and next to it amphioxus, and then a fish, an amphibian, a reptile and a lower mammal. Next to the lower mammal he places a lower ape. Next to that a higher ape, and lastly the most complex of all – Man. When he has finished arranging these creatures in that order, from the simpler to the more complicated, he turns round to the creationist and says: “See, here is a proof for the theory of evolution, showing how the complicated evolved out of the simpler ones!”
This is a strange proof indeed! Such proofs are not wanting in any sphere of life, for simple and complicated things which lend themselves to such arrangements exist everywhere. By arranging his books on a shelf in a graded system, depending on the size or complexity of its contents, a student can also prove the ‘evolution’ of his books. The reader may well see the absurdity of such an argument, for it assumes the very thing to be proved. Nevertheless it has deceived thousands of students in the past and is still deceiving thousands more who allow themselves to be carried away by sheer weight of ‘scientific authority’, instead of thinking for themselves clearly and logically.
In his book A Critique of Evolution Theory the late well-known evolutionist T.H. Morgan of Columbia University admits that the proof from classification is in fact no real proof at all. On page 9 of the same book he says that when the fallacy of the argument is pointed out to pupils of his who believe in evolution, they are resentful. We may boldly affirm that this proof is absurd; and the fact that organisms can be arranged in a certain order does not preclude the possibility of both the simple and the complex coming into existence simultaneously. The Bible says that all animal life was created in two days (Genesis 1:20-27). With God such things are possible.
Secondly: Proof from Comparative Anatomy – When a student of anatomy studies the structure of various animals in detail such as the bones, the muscles, the arteries, the veins, etc., it becomes apparent to him that there is a certain similarity of structure underlying them all. For example the anatomy of cat, dog, monkey and man resemble each other a great deal, taking bone for bone, muscle for muscle, and nerve for nerve, even to the smallest detail. It may also be stated that the resemblance between the animals themselves varies. Thus a cat resembles a dog more than a monkey, and a monkey resembles a man more than it resembles a dog. Based on this similarity of structure animals can be arranged in a fairly graded system. Again, comparing the anatomy of the wing of a bird, the paddle of a whale and the arm of a man it is observed that they are all constructed on the same general plan taking bone for bone, muscle for muscle and nerve for nerve. The evolutionist contends that such similarity of structure can be explained only on the basis of evolution, namely, that they all had a common ancestor.
Similarity of structure is a scientific fact, for one can observe it on studying the anatomy of these animals. But the interpretation put on this similarity can reasonably be denied. For this similarity of structure can with equal reasonableness be used as an argument in favour of the doctrine of the special creation. For instance, if the various colleges of the city were compared, one is sure to find many points of similarity. Each may have an entrance, an office room, a Principal’s room, a library with books, class rooms with blackboards and seating arrangements, etc. This comparison may be extended even to minor details, to show that the resemblance between two Science Colleges is greater than the resemblance between an Arts College and a Science College. But from this similarity of structure it cannot be argued that the biggest (first grade) Science College building came out of a smaller (second grade) Science College building or that both Science and Arts College buildings evolved out of a common ancestor! For we know that they were all constructed separately. Yet they may well have been planned and constructed by one architect at one and the same time. Similarity in design in the case of colleges does not prove their evolution; neither does similarity of design prove evolution in the case of living organisms. To the believer in the Bible, similarity in plan of structure among living organisms merely establishes the fact of one great
Architect, the Creator, who had in mind one great pattern which He used while making His natural species with such modifications as were necessary for their different conditions of life. He could as well have created them all on different patterns, the dog with four legs, the cat with five, the cow with six and the elephant with nineteen! He could have put the nostrils of the monkey behind its ears and given man two heads! But as they all have to live upon the same earth, breathing the same air and drinking the same kind of water, it was but reasonable that a wise Creator should construct them all on a similar pattern, allowing modifications wherever necessary. Thus similarity of structure, as revealed in comparative anatomy, may as well point to a common Creator as to any evolutionary process.
Now let us consider the evidences for evolution from blood relationship. Firstly: Blood Precipitation Test – This test is supposed to support the theory of evolution by demonstrating ‘blood relationship’ that exists between man and the lower animals. George Nuttal of Cambridge, during his investigations which led to the discovery of vaccination, came across a by-product known as the anti-human serum. Human blood added to this liquid forms a thick white precipitate; with the blood of a bird there is no reaction, but the blood of mammals like lemurs, monkeys and chimpanzees yields varying degrees of precipitate, slightest in the case of lemurs and heaviest in that of chimpanzee. This similarity in the structure of the blood of man and ape is supposed to prove their common ancestry.
Now, it is true that some similarity exists between the blood of mammals, which may even admit of their being arranged in a graded system. But this chemical similarity cannot prove evolution. Pursuing the same logic we might conclude that the pen knife, the bread knife and the sword have evolved from a common ancestor! For there is a similarity in the chemical make-up of these articles, and they can be arranged in a graded system according to the degree of hardness of each. However, further research along the same lines has show that the tiger and the whale are close of kin as are also the parrot and the ostrich. But such inconvenient facts are ignored by the evolutionist.
Blood analysis has revealed other interesting facts as shown by B.C. Nelson. The specific gravity of human blood is 1059; of the pig and the hare 1060; of the frog 1055-56; of the snake 1055, and the monkey’s 1054.9. From this table we can see that the frog and the snake are closer to man that the monkey, while our nearest relation is the pig!
It may look somewhat strange to base our relationship with the pig on flimsy evidence such as the similarity in the specific gravity of the blood. Yet the suggestion of a piggian ancestry was the theme for a University extension lecture in India a few years ago by a learned professor of Zoology holding a Ph.D. degree of the University of London. Of course he had many other facts of similarity to the support his thesis that we have closer ties with the Pig than with the Monkey or the Ape!
But this is not all. If the blood test be a criterion of common ancestry, why not the milk test too? And chemical analysis shows that the animal which stands nearest to man, in this respect, is neither the monkey nor the pig but – the DONKEY!
Some have even found support for this ancestry in the traditional customs of some primitive peoples. For among the tribal people in Asia there is still the practice of feeding infants when they are born with donkey’s milk instead of human milk. To what ridiculous conclusions do evolutionists lead us at times!
Secondly: Proof from Geographical Distribution – The proof from blood precipitation test and the proof from geographical distribution have not been presented by evolutionists in recent years. However, they do find a place in some text books of zoology, and for that reason they are considered in this series.
The proof from geographical distribution essentially consists in setting up a ridiculous idea of special creation, not warranted by the Bible and knocking it down again by ridicule. And because such an idea of special creation is unthinkable, evolutionary interpretation for the present distribution of animals and plants presumably is correct. Charles Darwin noted the similarity between the fauna of the Galapagos Islands (500 miles off the west coast of South America) and those of the main continent, and argued that such similarity was inexplicable on the basis of special creation (i.e. the idea that each species was created separately in its particular locality). This interpretation of special creation is not implied in the Scriptures. For the Bible not only permits variation within the ‘kind’ created but also clearly indicates that all land animals migrated from a single spot after the Genesis flood. Evolutionists argue that our finding marsupial mammals only in Australia is due to the fact that the continent got separated from other parts of the world before the other mammals evolved. To this Duperett’s answer seems to be the right explanation. According to him the fauna of Australia and Tasmania is not an indigenous survival from the Mesozoic era but come there by immigration at a recent epoch (Transformations of Animal World, p. 306). This agrees with the Scriptural account. However, on the question of distribution evolutionists themselves are sharply divided, and in the current debate this is not usually presented as evidence in favour of the theory of Evolution.
“But what about the fossils,” asks the evolutionist, “don’t they show evolution?” Darwin stated, quite correctly, that if his theory was true, there should be very large numbers of ‘in-between types’ found as fossils. If the forelimb of a reptile, for instance, has turned into the wing of a bird, why don’t we find a series of fossils showing these stages – part-limb, part-wing; or part-scale, part-feather?
Darwin said that the absence of such intermediates was the ‘most obvious and serious objection’ against his theory. 120 years later, Dr. David Raup, the head of one of the great museums in America, said that the situation concerning missing links ‘hasn’t changed much’ and that ‘we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time’.
So what do we have? Evolution expects millions of in-between forms. Some evolutionists claim there are some – maybe a handful of such in-between fossil types. Other leading experts say there are none.
Below: Archaeopteryx
What is not often known is that the strange fossil creature Archaeopteryx, often used as an example of a transitional form between reptiles and birds shows none of the crucial transitional structures which would establish it beyond reasonable doubt – the feathers are fully formed, and the wings are proper wings. It has a backward facing claw and curved feet characteristic of perching birds. It was most definitely not, as some would reconstruct it, a running feathered dinosaur.
Some living creatures (e.g. the platypus) are also a mosaic of features found in different classes. This odd little fellow, who had fur like a mammal, a beak like a duck, a tail like a beaver, venom glands like a snake, lays eggs like a reptile, yet suckles its young, is a good example of such a mosaic. It is not, however, a ‘half-way house’ between any two of the creatures listed.
This general absence of in-between forms also applies to so-called ‘human evolution’. This might be surprising considering that so many alleged ‘ancestors’ are paraded. It is difficult to track all the varied and changing claims, but the past century has show that each widely trumpeted ‘ancestor’ claim is quietly discarded – but only when some new candidate(s) can be found to replace it. Today, much is made of the australopithecines/habilines – a broad group of which the famous Lucy fossil is best known.
Dr. Charles Oxnard is one of a growing number of evolutionist anatomists who, having painstakingly examined vast numbers of measurements by computerized multivariate analysis, do not believe that these creatures are human ancestors.
Left: The skeleton of the famous ‘Lucy’ – regarded as a ‘remarkably complete’ ‘hominid’ skeleton. Her (and her type’s) claim to human ancestry is under severe challenge from expert anatomists.
He states that although initially it was thought that they were human-like or at least intermediate between apes and humans, the reality is that they ‘differ more from both humans and African apes than do these two living groups from each other. The australopithecines are unique.’ He indicates that the non-ancestor status of these creatures is supported by an increasing number of investigators who are ‘independent of those representing individuals who have found the fossils.’
What about so-called Homo erectus? Well-defined Homo erectus skeletal types were most probably true humans living after the Flood (described in the Bible in Genesis), and the break-up of people (after God’s forced dispersion at Babel, also described in the Bible) into small, isolated populations gave ideal conditions for the rapid isolation and enhancement of (pre-existing, creating) genetic differences. Such racial variation would also have included bony features.
Compared to the very wide variation in other features in the human race, the skeletal differences between erectus and other human skeletons are, after all, not that extreme. Interestingly, in Europe, not only erectus, but also Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon types (which both have larger brain capacities, on average, than today’s populations) are now known to have been living at the same time as ‘modern’ types.
Tools found recently in Indonesia in association with a stegodon have caused evolutionist Dr. Allan Thorne to suggest that these alleged ‘prehuman ancestors’ had seafaring skills and technology. Quoted in The Australian of August 19, 1993, he says of them “They’re not [i.e. shouldn’t be called] Homo erectus, they’re peopl
Tallan wrote:
> One of the main arguments used by creationists against evolutionists
> is the evolution of the eyeball. How did such a complex organ evolve
> from a single cell?
>
> Two scientists tried to model evolution of the eyeball using a
> computer simulation. They started with one photo-sensitive cell and
> applied a random mutation to it. They then took the original cell and
> applied a different random mutation. Repeat 50 times. They now had 50
> results that had had one mutation applied to each. The simulation
> then tested every result to see which was the best at detecting
> light. They took this 'best result' and used it as the basis for the
> next generation. Rinse and repeat.
>
> After a hell of a lot of generations (can't remember exact figure),
> taking the 'best' each time, they ended up with, you guessed it, an
> eyeball! Only this eyeball was infact slightly better than ours, the
> lens it had evolved was better (I think there were actually 2
> lenses), which goes to show that evolution is an entirely feasible
> proposition. It also demonstrates that evolution will do the best it
> needs to do for a certain job, not the best it can do period.
>
> {Oh yes, black holes have been observed, not directly as this is an
> imposibility, but indirectly using other stars and maths and stuff.}
So this proves evolution of the eyeball, even though it end up DIFFERENT than ours? You will have to try harder, mate.
> One of the main arguments used by creationists against evolutionists
> is the evolution of the eyeball. How did such a complex organ evolve
> from a single cell?
>
> Two scientists tried to model evolution of the eyeball using a
> computer simulation. They started with one photo-sensitive cell and
> applied a random mutation to it. They then took the original cell and
> applied a different random mutation. Repeat 50 times. They now had 50
> results that had had one mutation applied to each. The simulation
> then tested every result to see which was the best at detecting
> light. They took this 'best result' and used it as the basis for the
> next generation. Rinse and repeat.
>
> After a hell of a lot of generations (can't remember exact figure),
> taking the 'best' each time, they ended up with, you guessed it, an
> eyeball! Only this eyeball was infact slightly better than ours, the
> lens it had evolved was better (I think there were actually 2
> lenses), which goes to show that evolution is an entirely feasible
> proposition. It also demonstrates that evolution will do the best it
> needs to do for a certain job, not the best it can do period.
>
> {Oh yes, black holes have been observed, not directly as this is an
> imposibility, but indirectly using other stars and maths and stuff.}
So this proves evolution of the eyeball, even though it end up DIFFERENT than ours? You will have to try harder, mate.
Page: