THE TRUTH ABOUT EVOLUTION!
I
t has often been said that if you tell a big enough
lie often enough, people will believe you.
The gullibility of human beings is very well attested to -
Adolf Hitler is one of several people in human history who proved
this to be true. According to Hitler, all the problems of Germany
were the fault of the Jews! He kept spouting off about this and
trained his henchmen also in this perverted and lying
philosophy.
Without doubt, within a few years most Germans really believed
that this was true; just get rid of the Jews and...hey presto...
the German nation can again be great! Today it seems incredible
to us that the Nazis blaming of the Jewish people for all the
problems of society could have been accepted.
Of course, he was not the first; another famous German, Karl
Marx, believed and continually taught that all the problems and
evils in the world could be solved if only one could get rid of
the wealthy capitalists. Have a society just composed of the
'workers' and...hey presto!... there too you would have the perfect
society. Even well before Hitler's time, thousands accepted
his theories.
'Das Kapital' proved to be a very influential book, just as 'Mein Kampf'
would later prove to be!
But not only politicians have proven the 'big enough lie' thesis!
Perhaps nobody has been as lastingly successful as Charles
Darwin, the British naturalist. Now I don't suggest that Darwin
necessarily started off with the intention to get a big lie
accepted as truth by the majority of the world - he may well have
been sincere to some degree, but just comsider the following
points:
Evolution has proven to be hugely influential and has become
something of a 'badge' of respectability among the science
community, even though, as we always say, it is really a
philosophy and not a science at all. It is not, and never has been, empirically testable.
I just find it incredible that
although a great deal of what goes under the 'umbrella' of
'evolution' is really pseudo-science (unproven and
unprovable and really a philosophy), evolution remains largely
unchallenged within the scientific community. Why? Because it is
the badge of 'scientific' materialistic respectability. Reject it
and you only have God left, plus the eating of an awful lot of
'humble pie'!
I find that the current crop of school science teachers - at
least here in the UK - are not even aware of the work of people
like Michael Behe, the brilliant molecular biologist. Behe has -
effectively - shown that evolution could not have happened
because of the principle of Irreducible Complexity. To
Darwin, the human cell was just a blob of gunk, not a lot more.
But people like Behe have shown that the human cell is a
miniature factory of amazing complexity - moreover, you take one
part away and nothing works!
So how could this have possibly 'evolved'??
Yet evolution remains largely unchallenged even though the theory
is now in tatters, as many scientists will freely admit (especially privately).
I am told that even in this year of our Lord, 2002, several new
books have rolled off the printing presses which uphold and
promulgate evolution as aspiring new science writers try to make
a name for themselves. Of course, if some of these writers were
really brave, they really could have made a name for themselves
by powerfully attacking the theory of evolution! But that would
be dangerous and could bring their careers to an early
conclusion! No, despite the work of Behe and others the science
community still upholds evolution as their 'badge of office.' So
these new books just try to take new angles and slants without -
for the most part - daring to challenge the theory.
I also noticed a BBC television series which every week puts
forward a candidate as the 'Greatest Briton.' Charles Dickens has
been put forward, among others. But a recent edition of the
series upheld Charles Darwin for the title of the most
influential and greatest Briton.
I was surprised that the man speaking for, and advocating, Darwin
was BBC Television's Political Correspondent, Andrew Marr, who
appears to be a very sharp and intelligent commentator on
politics. But even Marr's keen and bright intellect did not allow
him to see that Darwin was not only a plagiarist (it's now known
that he was not the first to teach evolution, but he made the
theory famous, with little indication that he gave credit to the
man who first upheld this worldview), but that Darwinism
is now shot through with holes!
In truth, little remains of the theory, but the non-scientific
public are never told this and even Andrew Marr appears to be
taken in.
Without any doubt Darwin thought that within a few years of his
death, the fossil record would have demonstrated evolution to be
a clear fact of our pre-history. The truth, of course, is that
the fossil record has never shown evolution to be a viable
proposition. Despite repeated hoaxes and exaggerated claims of
'missing link' finds, there is - in reality - nothing in the way
of evidence to support this philosophy. But, again, the
public are kept in the dark about this. A few weeks ago I read a
local science teacher's 'guidelines on evolution' in which the
incredible statement was made,
"Of course, we uphold evolution because of the evidence of
fossils." Against this mis-information the famed
paleontologist, Stephen Jay Gould has pointed out that,
"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no
support for gradual change...all paleontologists know that the
fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate
forms..."(Gould, 1977).
When we put this together with the fact that it is now believed
that around 250 million fossils have now been catalogued, we can
see that the lack of available fossils is certainly not the problem!
In the face of this welter of evidence which does not
support gradual change, one evolutionist, Niles Eldridge, in a
moment of utter candour, wrote, "Evolution cannot forever be
going on somewhere else. Yet that's how the fossil record has
struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something
about evolution."(Quoted by Philip Johnson, p60-61,
Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, Inter-Varsity Press,
1997).
No, most knowledgeable scientists would smile with their tongues
'firmly in cheek' about our local science teacher's
non-scientific assertion! Let me clearly state it here,
lest there should be the slightest doubt: THE FOSSIL EVIDENCE
DOES NOT SUPPORT EVOLUTION!
Another huge problem for devout evolutionists which has emerged
over the last few years, is the discovery of DNA. DNA would have
been an utter mystery to Darwin and if he had known about it in
his day he may well have revised his teachings.
To be frank; DNA does not fit in with evolution - its as simple
as that. Maybe the honest thing would have been for scientists
to have jettisoned the theory of evolution there and then - upon
the discovery of DNA - but just think what would have been
involved in that: countless thousands of science teachers and
lecturers would have had to be re-trained, countless thousands of
scientific textbooks would have had to have been destroyed. And
on and on it goes. Moreover, the scientific establishment would
have suffered a massive 'loss of face'; would anybody ever be
prepared to listen to scientists again? This would all have been
a virtually impossible undertaking and the cost to our schools
and universities would have been astronomical! So the 'scientific
establishment' instead decided to somehow make DNA fit into the
theory of evolution! One can't help being reminded of the old
proverb: 'Oh what a tangled web we weave when we first set our
hearts to deceive'!! Of course, I am not suggesting that the
average scientist wants to deceive, evolutionary theory is simply
the intellectual diet which they have been fed for a long
time.
Here are just a few of many amazing admissions about
evolution:
Charles Darwin: "Long before the reader has arrived at this part
of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to him.
Some of them are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect
on them without being in some degree staggered; but, to the best
of my judgment, the greater number are only apparent, and those
that are real are not, I think fatal to the theory."
Toward the end of his life, Darwin openly admitted: "Not one
change of species into another is on record.... We cannot prove
that a single species has changed into another." (Darwin, Charles,
My Life and Letters, Vol. 1. Page 2 10).
Thomas Huxley said that "evolution was not an established theory
but a tentative hypothesis, an extremely valuable and even
probable hypothesis, but a hypothesis none the less." (Himmelfarb,
Gertrude, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, Doubleday and Co.,
New York, 1859, page 366).
Dr. Austin H. Clark, noted biologist of the Smithsonian
Institute, stated: "There is no evidence which would show man
developing step by step from lower forms of life. There is
nothing to show that man was in any way connected with
monkeys.... He appeared SUDDENLY and in substantially the same
form as he is today.... There are no such things as missing
links."
He also said, "So far as concerns the major groups of animals,
the creationists appear to have the best of the argument. There
is NOT THE SLIGHTEST EVIDENCE THAT ANY ONE OF THE MAJOR GROUPS
AROSE FROM ANY OTHER. Each is a special animal complex, related
more or less closely to all the rest, and appearing therefore as
a species and distinct creation." (Meldau, Fred John, Witness
Against Evolution, Christian Victory Publishing Co., Denver,
Colo., 1953, page 39, 40, 73).
William Herschel (1738-1822), who discovered Uranus and built
some of the world's greatest telescopes, said, "The undevout
astronomer must be mad." (Cited by Henry M. Morris, 'Men of
Science - Men of God' page30).
Professor Albert Fleishman, professor of Comparative Anatomy at
Erlangen University, said, "The theory of evolution suffers from
grave defects, which are becoming more and more apparent as time
advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific
knowledge, nor does it suffice for our theoretical grasp of the
facts. The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to
confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of
scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."
(Fleishman, Albert, Victoria Institute, Vol. 65, pages 194,
195).
Sir William Dawson, Canada's great geologist, said of evolution:
"It is one of the strangest phenomena of humanity; it is utterly
destitute of proof." (Dawson, Sir William, Story of Earth and Man,
page 317).
Dr. Robert A. Millikan, famous physicist and Nobel prize winner,
said, "Everyone who reflects believes in God." (Millikan, Robert
A., The Commentator, June 1937).
In an address to the American Chemical Society, he said: "The
pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to
prove the doctrine of evolution, which no scientists can do."
Dr. George Wald, a Nobel prize winner, chooses to believe in
evolution even though he said he regards it as a scientific
impossibility. He says, "The only alternative to a spontaneous
generation is a belief in supernatural creation...." (Wald,
George, "Innovation and Biology," Scientific American, Vol. 199,
Sept. 1958, page 100).
Dr. Wernher Von Braun, who masterminded the V-2 rocket of Germany
in World War II and the space program of the United States for
two decades, said in a speech at Taylor University: "The idea of
an orderly universe is inconceivable without God -- the grandeur
of the cosmos confirms the certainty of creation. One can't be
exposed to the law and order of the universe without becoming
aware of a divine intent." (Keith, Bill, Scopes II the Great
Debate, Huntington House, 1985, page 55).
Richard Goldschmidt, Ph.D., Professor of Zoology, University of
California, said, "Geographic variation as a model of species
formation will not stand under thorough scientific investigation.
Darwin's theory of natural selection has never had any proof ..
yet it has been universally accepted. There may be wide
diversification within the species ... but the gap (between
species) cannot be bridged .... Sub-species do not merge into the
species either actually or ideally." (Keith, Bill, Scopes II the
Great Debate, Huntington House, 1985, pages 55-56).
Dr. Warren Weaver, formerly chairman of the board of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, said, "Every new
discovery of science is a further 'revelation' of the order which
God has built into His universe." (Weaver, Warren, Look Magazine,
April 5, 1955, page 30).
Sir Robert Boyd, Emeritus Professor of Physics at University
College, London, says, "I worship an unseen God...getting to know
him...changed my whole world-view". (God and the Scientists, CPO -
Design & Print, page 2).
Gareth Jones, Head of the Anatomy and Structural Biology
Department at the University of Otago (New Zealand), considers
biblical truth as his "driving force". (Ibid., page 6).
Sam Berry who is Professor of Genetics at University College,
London, has explained how his considerable research in Antarctica
has made him "more and more convinced that God has revealed
himself in both creation and the Bible". (Ibid., page 11).
Here are some links which contain a great deal of reading (some
are virtual on-line books) which show that evolution is not only
anti-scientific, but is actually an act of
faith!
Please note that some of these sites and articles (not many) will probably
support the 'Old Earth Theory' (the earth is many millions of years old), and some will support a literal six-day
Creation with a 'Young Earth Theory.' Here at UK Apologetics we tend not to
support the 'Old Earth Theory' since it appears to be imposing
something on the text of Genesis 1 which is foreign to it; moreover, some outstanding scientists like the late A.E. Wilder-Smith can provide much positive evidence that our earth is only a few thousand years old. But true Christians may be found in both camps. Always
remember that the creation account itself pictures God creating
things which have the impression of great age. When Jesus
turned water into wine, the wine was created with the
impression of maturity. (Good wine cannot be produced
quickly). Nevertheless, we encourage an open mind. What we
do know is that we are powerfully
anti-Macro-Evolution.
Sometimes these sites move and a link becomes a 'dead link', if
that happens and you become aware of it, PLEASE E Mail me to tell
me.
Robin A. Brace, 2002.
You May Also Wish to Read:
THE
BIBLE AND EVOLUTION
(An essential 'read'!)
CHARLES
DARWIN: ITS TIME FOR THE TRUTH TO BE TOLD
(The internet is full of 'information' on Darwin which is years
out of date! I painstakingly researched my material for this
article in order to bring you what we can definitely state about
this man in this 21st century. His admirers will not like it)
CHALLENGING THE
NATURALISTIC PHILOSOPHY OF EVOLUTION
(Which goes a little deeper than this article).
Here are the links:
CREATION - EVOLUTION ENCYCLOPEDIA
THE REVOLUTION AGAINST
EVOLUTION
GOD EXISTS: AN
ENGINEER EXPLAINS WHY
EVIDENCE FOR GOD FROM
SCIENCE
ORIGINS
THE CREATION
CONCEPT
CENTER FOR SCIENTIFIC
CREATION
EVOLUTION:
THE TRUTH?
INSTITUTE FOR CREATION
RESEARCH
PHILLIP E.
JOHNSON PAGE
DARWIN IS DEAD
WAS DARWIN
RIGHT?
GOD
AND SCIENCE
ORIGINS RESOURCE
ASSOCIATION
MOUNT BLANCO FOSSIL
MUSEUM
CREATION STUDIES
INSTITUTE
BIBLICAL CREATION SCIENCE
15
WAYS TO REFUTE MATERIALISTIC BIGOTRY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF
OMNIOLOGY
THE PHILLIP E. JOHNSON PAGE
THE TRUE ORIGIN
ARCHIVE
EVOLUTION: FACT OR
FICTION?
CREATION
SCIENCE CENTER
CREATIONISM
CREATION, DINOSAURS AND
THE FLOOD
CREATIONISM
CONNECTION
SCIENCE AGAINST
EVOLUTION
ARGUMENTS
WHICH CREATIONISTS SHOULD NOT USE!
Counter
I dedicate this page of
resources to the glory of our wonderful Lord and Saviour Jesus
Christ.
Robin A. Brace, 2002.
|
|