EVOLUTION - GUILTY AS CHARGED

[nChrist]

# 67 But then the sheer absurdity of relying upon mutation and natural selection as the mechanism by which life, in all its variety and complexity developed can be seen on a much lower rung of the evolutionary ladder than the human brain. Some evolutionists now admit that "(t)he Cambrian explosion (the sudden appearance of multicellular life forms we discussed earlier) has caused experts to wonder if the twin Darwinian imperatives of genetic variation and natural selection provide an accurate framework for understanding evolution." (parenthesis and emphasis added)

# 68 In spite of all this, in December of 1995 The National Research Council issued a National Science Education standard which proclaimed that all K-12 students in the U.S. should be taught that …"Natural selection and its evolutionary consequences provide a scientific explanation for the fossil record of ancient life forms…"

# 69 Needless to say, not only have the waters of the theory of evolution been troubled by 'trade secrets', hoaxes, horrendous oversights, poor judgment, and flawed research, but now they have been hopelessly poisoned by the continued acceptance of disproven and discounted propositions such as natural selection and mutation.

 
END NOTES

1) Thomas F. Heinze - Creation vs. Evolution Handbook (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1980) p. 20

2) Encyclopedia Britannica 1972 Ed, Vol. 1, p. 983

3) Keith S. Thompson, "Ontogeny and Phylogeny Recapitulated", American Scientist Vol. 76, (May/June 1988 ), p. 273

4) ibid p. 273

5) Acts and Facts Vol 17, No.7, (El Cajun, CA: Institute For Creation Research, 1988 ), p. 3

6) "The First Days of Creation", Life, No 12 (August 1990), p. 40

7) F. Clark Howell - Early Man, Life nature Library, (New York: Time Life Books, 1970) p. 13; also Heinze, op cit. p. 51

8 ) Niles Eldredge - The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, (New York: Washington Square Press, 1982), p. 128

9) Ruth Moore - Man and Fossils, (New York: Time Life Books, 1970) p. 345

10) Carleton S. Coon - The Story of Man, (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1965) p. 40

11) Eldredge op cit. p. 128

12) Stephan Jay Gould, "An Essay on a Pig Roast", Natural History Vol. 98 No. 1 (January, 1989) p. 20-22 11)ibid pp. 20 & 25

13) Ibid. pp. 20-25

14) Coon, op cit, p. 39

15) ibid p. 36

16) Howell, op cit. p. 88; also Donald Johanson, "Lucy", University of Chicago Magazine, Vol 73 ( Spring 1981), p. 4

17) Eldredge - op cit. p. 126

18 ) Lyall Watson, "The Water People", Science Digest, Vol 90, (May 1982), p. 44

19) William Allman, , "The First Humans", U.S. News & World Report Vol. 106 No. 8 (February 27, 1989) p. 56-59

20) John Reader, "Whatever happened to Zinjanthropus", New Scientist, Vol 26, (March 1981), p. 802

21) Andrea Dorfman, Time, Vol 143, No. 11 (March 14, 1994), pp 80-97

22) Tim White, as quoted by Ian Anderson, "Hominoid Collarbone Exposed as Dolphin's Rib", New Scientist, Vol 28, (April 1983), p. 199

23) Pat Railer, "Redefining Man's Past", The Albuquerque Journal, Tuesday, April 20, 1982; also Donald C. Johanson, "Ethopia Yields First Family of Early Man" National Geographic, Vol 150, No. 6, (December 1976), pp. 802 - 811

24) Paul Raeburn, "Skeletons in the Closet: Did Lucy Really Walk?", Albuquerque Journal, (Sunday, June 12, 1983), p. C 10

[nChrist]

25) D. C. Johanson, "New Partial Skeleton of Homo Habilis from Olduvai Gorge, Tansania", Nature Vol 327, (May 1987), p. 205

26) Associated Press, "Ancient Kenyan Lake Bed Now a Paleontologists Paradise", Albuqurque Journal, (Wednesday, November 7, 1984) , p. C12

27) Duane Gish, "Startling Discoveries Support Creationism", Impact (September, 1987) , p. II

28 ) World Book Encyclopedia, Vol 14, p. 85 (1985 ed.); also John J. Putman, "The Search for Modern Humans", National Geographic Vol. 174, No. 4, (October 1988 ), p. 456

29) Acts and Facts, (El Cajon, CA: Creation Research Institute, 1995) p. 'o', see also "Johanson & Sagan" University of Chicago Magazine, Vol. 73 No. 4 (Spring 1981) p. 3

30) Solly Zuckerman - Beyond the Ivory Tower (Londen: Zuckerman, 1970), pp. 19 & 64

31) Eldredge - op cit. p. 123

32) ibid p. 122

33) "Fossil Bird Shakes Evolutionary Hypothesis", Nature Vol 322, (August 1986), p. 677

34) Eldredge - op cit. p. 23

35) Chester A Arnold, An Introduction to Paleontology (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1947) p. 7

36) J. R. Norman, in P. H. Greenwood editor, "Classification and Pedigrees: Fossils", A History of Fishes, 3rd ed. (London: British Museum of Natural History, 1975), p. 343,

37) Barbara J. Stahl Problems In Evolution, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1974), p. 195

38 ) Roger Lewin, "Bones of Mammals' Ancestors Fleshed Out", Science, Vol 212, ( June 1981), p. 1492

39) A. J. Kelso, in "Origin and Evolution of the Primates" Physical Anthropology (New York: Lippincott, 1974), p. 142, also Dr. Andrew Snelling, editor - The Revised Quote Book (Brisbane, Australia: Creation Science Foundation Ltd, 1990), p.13

40) Sylvia Baker- Evolution: Bone of Contention (England: Evangelical Press, 1980) p. 14

41) ibid p. 4

42) Back To Genesis, Vol 18 No, ( ElCajon, CA:Institute for Creation Research, 1Jan 1989), p. 6

43) Paul S. Taylor, "Dinosaur Mania and Our Children", Impact Vol. 16 No.5 (May 1989) p. III

44) Eldredge - op cit. p. 189

45) Dr. D. James Kennedy - The Collapse of Evolution, (Ft Lauderdale, FL: Coral Ridge Ministries, 1981), p. 6

46) Niles Eldredge - Time Frames: Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equillibria (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1986), p. 189

47) ibid p. 188

48 ) ibid p. 189

49) ibid p. 189

50) Robert E. Ricklefs, "Paleontologists Confronting Macroevolution", Science, Vol.199, (January 1978 ), p. 59

[nChrist]

51) Eldredge - Monkey Business, op cit. p. 23

52) ibid pp. 52 & 131

53) Gould, op cit p. 20

54) ibid p. 16

55) M.F. Ashley Montag, An Introduction To Physical Anthropology (Springfield, IL: Thomas, 1960), pp. 104-203

56) Carleton S. Coon, op.cit. p. 40

57) Encyclopedia Britannica, 1965 ed. Vol 6, p. 792

58 ) Eldredge - Monkey Business op cit. p. 75 (see also p. 126)

59) Howell, op cit. pp. 30-33; also Ruth Moore - Evolution, Life Young Readers Library, (New York: Time Life Books, 1970) pp. 108-109

60) Howell, ibid p. 82-83

61) ibid

62) Isaac Asimov, "In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can't Even Break Even", Smithsonian Institute Journal, Vol 1 No. 5 (June 1970), p. 10

63) Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (London: Burnett Books, 1985), p. 330

64) Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: Norton, 1986), p. 5

65) Carl Sagen, The Dragons of Eden: Speculations on the Evolution of Human Intelligence, (New York: Random House,1977) p. 120

66) Jeffery S. Wicken, "The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion"  Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol 77, (April 1979), pp. 351-352

67) Steven M. Stanley, "A Theory of Evolution Above the Species Llevel", Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, USA Vol 72(2), (February 1975), p. 646

68 ) J Madeleine Nash, "When Life Exploded" Time, Vol.146 # 23 (December 4, 1995), 74

69) "Science Education: What Students Should Know", Popular Science (March, 1996), p.31

[nChrist]

Chapter V
 
Let's Assume

Niles Eldredge's statements are used to "make a forceful fascinating case for the continuous teaching of evolution" in our public schools.

# 1 However, he is the "scientist" who cites the authority of a reader survey in Glamor magazine to establish the point that creationist thinking has been gaining ground in America I am not discrediting Glamor magazine, but I am sure that the Gallup poll uses a much more scientific approach to polling than does Glamor, but then Glamor makes no pretense of being scientific - evolutionists do.

Scientists should not rely upon reader surveys in Glamor Magazine or circular reasoning to establish their points, but evolutionists have been known to do both. Eldredge maintains that the accusation that his geologist colleagues use or have used circular reasoning is "serious ... and ... of course, false."

# 2 His denial though needs to be evaluated in light of David M. Raup's admission that "(t)he charge that the construction of the geologic scale involves circularity has a certain amount of validity."

# 3 (If you will recall, David Raup is Chairman of the Geophysical Sciences Department of the University of Chicago.)

It also needs to be evaluated in light of admissions by other evolutionists who concede the obvious. In 1956 R.H. Rastall, writing for Encyclopedia Britannica observed that "... from a strictly philosophical standpoint geologists are ... arguing in a circle."

# 4 Twenty years later J. E. O'Rourke not only reaffirmed the point that "... circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales," but added that "... geologist(s) (have) ... never bothered to think of a good reply (to the charge of circularity) feeling that explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results." (parenthesis added)

# 5 In other words, even though the circular reasoning processes which evolutionists have relied upon leaves much to be desired from the intellectual standpoint, they never felt compelled to justify their position because to many gullible people were willing to accept what they said on face value.

Concerning the whole issue of age, you might well ask, "How did evolutionists get the dates of fossils?" Their answer was, "From the position which fossils occupy in the rock in which they are found; oldest on the bottom - youngest on top." That seems to make sense. However, now if you inquired as to how they got the dates for the rocks themselves, you might be told, "By observing what fossils are found in them." You see, evolutionists know that the fossils found in Cambrian rock formations must be hundreds of millions of years old. Therefore, the rocks in which they are found must also be of the same age. "Hold it," you exclaim, "that's not scientific!" Maybe not, but it worked for them for over a hundred years until they latched on to radio isotope dating techniques.

Isotope dating is critical to the theory of evolution because it comes up with dates which seem to help the evolutionists overcome the horrendous mathematical improbabilities presented by their theory. Notice that I said "seems to help" them. In reality, even the dates which isotope dating comes up with are not far enough back in time to bring the theory of evolution into the realm of mathematical possibilities. At first evolutionists thought carbon fourteen dating would give them the hundreds of millions of years they needed. It did not, so it was discarded as unreliable for anything more than a few thousand years old.

# 6 Isotope dating is based upon man's ability to accurately measure the rate of decomposition of a material from one form into another. The rock itself cannot be dated, only the material which is found in it. IF we know how much of the original (parent) material was in the rock when the rock was formed, and IF we know how much of the subsequent (daughter) material was also in the rock when the rock was formed, and IF we assume the rate of decay from parent into daughter has been constant for the last billion or so years and finally, IF we assume that nothing has acted upon either the parent or daughter material in such a way so as to alter the amount of either material present during this entire billion year period, THEN‚ we can measure the amount of the parent material still in the rock, the amount of daughter material still in the rock, apply the rate of decay, and thereby estimate the age of the rock. Phew, that's a lot of assumptions.

Since it is impossible to test the assumption that the rate of decay determined today has been the same for several billion years, all I can say is that it takes a great deal of "faith" to believe it. However, several points need to be considered before the other assumptions can be accepted. In isotope dating two separate materials are involved in the dating process: the parent and the daughter. Various elements found in common ground water have been found to dissolve virtually every one of the parent elements and the subsequent daughter elements into which they decompose. What's more, this dissolving process can be faster in the parent than it is in the daughter and vice versa. Needless to say, this could, and would drastically effect the age derived from any dating process which must assume that both the parent and daughter elements have never been affected by any other agent during their supposed 4 billion year history. Since many, if not all of these elements could have been exposed to such agents during the Genesis flood, I do not feel that I can accept either the assumption that no agent ever effected these elements, or that we can accurately know the original amount of either the parent or daughter element present in the rock when the rock was formed.

In spite of the fact that most evolutionists leave the impression that isotope dating is fool proof, some of them have been willing to admit that everything is not quite as settled as they would have us believe. Frederic B. Jueneman has acknowledged that "(t)here has been in recent years the horrible realization that radio decay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences."

# 7 Furthermore, by definition, Darwinian evolution assumes that all things started out at age zero and then got older. If an evolutionist had been invited to the wedding at Cana, he would have been able to prove to his own satisfaction that the wine served at the end of the wedding banquet was the oldest because it had a finer bouquet and more body than the wine served earlier. (see John 2:1-11) You see, even though as Robert Jastrow informed us, true scientists have discovered that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics to not apply, evolutionistic scientists must of necessity deny the existence of a creator God using forces supposedly no longer at work today. As such, there is no possibility that the evolutionist could accept the 'story' that one of the wedding guests had anything to do with the 'creation' of this fine beverage, even if His name was Jesus. After all, the evolutionist could tell by his five senses that this wine was more than just a few minutes old. Therein lies the problem.

[nChrist]

Any evolutionist would feel duty bound to find a purely naturalistic explanation for this wine's existence. In the natural realm, wine comes from fermented grape juice. Needless to say, for good wine this process takes a minimum of several months. Therefore, since the evolutionist is compelled by his beliefs to deny God, he would ignore the fact that the jugs in question had been filled with water only moments before the wine appeared. But then that is exactly what evolutionists have been doing since Darwin first proposed his theory. They conveniently overlook facts which they themselves have observed, when those facts interfere with their naturalistic explanations. The evolutionist's prejudice against God is stronger then their desire to find the truth. In short, the problem is not their search for naturalistic explanations which account for the phenomena we observe in the physical world. That after all is what science does. The problem is that evolutionists insist upon naturalistic explanations for all occurrences, even when those explanations cause them to ignore either the observable facts, or the very laws of science which serve as the basis for all scientific inquiry.

An intellectually honest, truth seeking scientist will acknowledge all the facts with which he is faced. When no naturalistic explanation can be postulated which both accounts for these facts and complies with the known laws of nature, he will admit that the occurrence he is investigating cannot be adequately explained by modern science. The occurrence being studied may in fact be supernatural in origin. If it was, than no naturalistic explanation would be correct, no matter how well thought through it was. The theory of evolution losses on both counts. First of all it is incorrect, and secondly, it is not very well thought through.

The evolutionist's absolute prejudice against any supernatural occurrence causes them no end of difficulties. For example, they deny the possibility that any star could have been created with its path of light to earth already established. They assume that since some particular star is a million light years away and we can see it now, then that star must have been in existence for a million light years, otherwise we couldn't see its light. Let me emphasize again that there is no empirical evidence to support such a conclusion. As noted by astrogeophysicist, Dr. John A. Eddy, a solar astronomer at the High Altitude Observatory at Boulder, CO, "There is no evidence based solely on solar observation that the sun is 4.5 - 5 x 10 to the 9th years old." As an evolutionist he admits that all he can do is "... suspect that the sun is 4.5 billion, years old." (emphasis added)

# 8 However, this insistence upon the antiquity of the universe, which the evolutionists have calculated by means of their naturalistic reasoning methods, works against them just as it did in the area of geologic uniformitarianism.

If evolutionists combine this concept of the age of the universe with the projected life expectancy of the sun, they are faced with a real problem. According to astronomers, the universe is expanding. That is to say, the distance between each individual star is actually increasing. However, should this process continue at its present rate for a period of time equal to only one fifth of the estimated remaining life expectancy of our sun, the night sky would be void of stars when you looked up. Why? The distance between each star would have become so great that we would be unable to see them. The Big Dipper would disappear along with Orion the Hunter and all the other constellations. This of course puts the evolutionist in direct conflict with the Scripture which tells us that God created the stars in order to give us light at night. (Gen. 1:17)

Now, while evolutionists could care less about the Bible, they apparently don't like the idea of a dark night sky either. As such, they have made a slight alteration in their uniformitarianism thinking. Some of them will now tell you that obviously the universe must have gone through several periods of both expansion and contraction. In one instance the evolutionist rejects Biblical creation because it requires a miracle and in the next instance he offers up an idea, such as the expansion and contraction of the entire universe, and then expects us to believe that his idea is natural !

Some evolutionists have even gone so far as to use this same reasoning process to explain away the problem presented by the current level of the ocean's salinity (noted earlier). It has been postulated, that given the present rate at which salt is being added to the oceans and their present level of salinity, they could not possibility be more than a fews hundred thousand years old. Since the evolutionists know that the world is at least 4 billion years old, they have come up with an explanation for the present level of the ocean's salinity. Since necessity is the mother of invention,, the theory of salt cycles was developed. What must have happened according to this theory, is that the oceans have gone through several periods whereby salt has alternately been added to and subtracted from the oceans. By some unknown process, salt passed from the oceans back into the continental rock structure - and then back into the oceans. Needless to say, it is maintained that this happened in such a way so that this highly corrosive, readily soluble, migratory compound did not adversely effect the elements which are used for isotope dating from which evolutionists derived the huge numbers which created the necessity for the salt cycle theory in the first place!!! Such reasoning reminds me of a children's nursery rhyme we all know quite well, "Here we go round the mulberry bush." I find it interesting that such theories can be taken seriously by anyone who in one breath denies the existence of a God who has worked in the past using processes supposedly no longer observable today, and then 'exhale' a hypothesis which tells us that that is exactly what his 'science' is doing.

Creationists who accept the Biblical account of the great flood are considered religious zealots in spite of the vast quantity of geologic evidence which exists to support this event.

# 9 While even though no evidence exists to support their notions, evolutionists who propose totally untestable hypothesis' which require an expanding and contracting universe and oceanic salt cycles are considered scientific.

There is still one other hypothesis that evolutionists have proposed which requires more faith than Noah's Ark ever did. Evolutionists have conceded that the fossil record supports the fact that at least 90% of all species of animals, including dinosaurs, suffered from mass extinction.

# 10 In fact many evolutionists now believe that there were as many as 12 mass extinctions. with 5 of them being global in scope.

[nChrist]

# 11 Since they refuse to accept the idea that the geologic layers which contain the evidence for those extinctions were virtually all laid down as the result of the Biblical great flood, evolutionists must of necessity invent separate causes for the fossils which appear in each of the several distinct layers. How do evolutionists account for the largest of these episodes of mass extinction? By combining the best elements of science fiction with all the power of a disaster movie, the 'science' which first proposed salt cycles now unveils "The Giant Asteroid."

This hypothesis, first presented by Luis and Walter Alverez, goes something like this. A giant asteroid struck the earth, sending a huge cloud of dust and gas into the air. This cloud was so thick that it literally blocked out the sun throughout the entire world for several months. Without adequate sunlight, photosynthesis stopped, thereby killing all the plants. Those dinosaurs which ate the plants died as a result of the loss of their food source. Along with them, the meat eating dinosaurs who consumed the plant eating ones also disappeared. When the dust settled and sunlight returned, new plants sprang up from the seeds in the soil. Any dinosaurs which had somehow managed to survive this process were themselves killed off by the ice age which followed on the heels of the sun blocking dust cloud which, in addition to killing off the plants, cooled the earth's surface.

Since no crater can be found anywhere on or below the earth's land surface which points to an impact of this magnitude, it has been conveniently assumed that this asteroid must have landed in the ocean. But this by no means solves the evolutionist's problems. According to Edward Anders, a cosmochemist at the University of Chicago, "Even if it hit in the ocean, the impact would have created a crater 300 kilometers across..."

# 12 Why so large? Simple, as even Alvarez admits, in order for an asteroid to have done that much damage, it must have been at least 10 kilometers (6 miles) across.

# 13 What's more, it would have had to travel through space at 60 times the speed of sound, and then hit the earth with 10,000 times more power then any of the world's nuclear weapons.

# 14 At the time this book was first published (1993), the biggest crater which can be found anywhere on or under the earth is only 32 kilometers across. As admitted by most scientists though, this is no where near large enough to account for even one single episode of mass extinction.

# 15 Evolutionists who would not accept the Genesis flood as the explanation for the mass extinction they themselves have observed, are now faced with a most interesting paradox. They had no trouble finding the fossils of 6 inch long trilobites who were supposedly killed by Alvarez's asteroid, but they couldn't seem to find the 180 mile wide crater such an impact must have created. Since 1993 proponents of the giant asteroid theory claim that they have found evidence for a crater hundreds of feet beneath the Gulf of Mexico. Even IF such a crater did exist, (and its existence is questioned by many scientists), the asteroid theory fails to account for the fact that many species including "…birds, most mammals, crocodiles, lizards and snakes, turtles, and amphibians sailed right through the catastrophe."

# 16 Furthermore, this far fetched hypothesis totally fails to explain how dinosaurs and vegetation became buried under hundreds, or even thousands of feet of sedimentary rock, thereby enabling these materials to become fossilized. (Remember, things which die and then lie on the surface, or are buried under only a few inches of dust decompose, they do not become fossils.) Unless of course proponents of this theory hold to the position that this meteor impact created a worldwide flood, in which case they should be reminded that the Genesis account of the flood contains more verifiable data than does their 'it came from outer space' theory.

In reality, what these evolutionists have done is base their entire hypothesis upon the fact that the level of iridium found on the earth is higher in some geologic layers than in others. Now, while this is indeed true, it should be pointed out that the highest concentrations of this element are not located on the floors of any ocean, where this asteroid supposedly hit, but in South Africa, Brazil, and Tasmania. Also, according to an article in the Journal of Geological Education, "…most dinosaurian genera and higher taxa were long extinct before the formation of the latest Masstrichtian deposits of Montana, which preserves the only reasonably complete and well studied record of the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary on land."

# 17 While the foregoing quote may appear overly technical, I have used it for a very specific reason. You see, it was in the Cretaceous-Tertiary layers that the Alvarez's found the unusually high levels of iridium they used as justification for their asteriod theory. Yet, even Journal of Geologic Education, which is decidedly not creationist in its perspective, viewed the giant asteroid explanation about "as dead as the Cretaceous…" layer because most of the dinosaurs were already gone by the time this iridium rich layer of rock had been laid down.

# 18 However, the foregoing fact is merely one more piece of information which modern evolutionists have forgotten to mention.

Furthermore, to argue that only the impact of a giant asteroid could account for these higher levels is ridiculous. It would make as much sense for me to say that the higher levels of nickel found in some areas of the earth resulted from a collision with the moon simply because the surface of the moon contains a higher level of nickel than is normally found on earth. After all, there is as much geologic evidence to support my notion as there is for Alverez's giant asteroid story. However, I acknowledge that my hypothesis is not scientific; whereas, the evolutionists, by including the asteroid idea as part of their theory, insist that Alverez's notion be treated as scientific. Unfortunately, since 1993 this hypothesis has found its way into virtually every school textbook in America. Not because it has proven to be correct, but simply because it appears to solve the evolutionist's dilemma. Which is, "Why did the dinosaurs disappear all at once.?" I will ask you the same question the editors of the Journal of Geologic Education asked, "are these ad hoc explanations biologically plausible?"

[nChrist]

The evolutionists have again offered up a totally untestable hypothesis as part of their science, and in the process have again violated the first rule of true science. Knowingly or unknowingly they have also again called God a liar. If in fact an asteroid-induced 'Nuclear winter' did occur which lasted several years, then God has not only lied to us, but He even lied to Himself. You see, Gen. 8:21-22 tells us that after the flood, God "...said in His heart ... as long as the earth endures, seed time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease." (emphasis added) This of course does not mean that there will not be local disasters like flooding, drought, or even darkened skies following some volcanic eruption, but God has specifically promised that these will not be world wide.

There are numerous other problems presented by the theory of evolution and its fundamental premise that the lower progresses into the higher, but lack of space prevents me from going into them. The highlights I have presented thus far are however sufficient to point out three things. First, evolution is in direct irreconcilable conflict with the Bible. Neither the Bible nor pure evolutionistic thought allows you to take merely a portion of each and forget the rest. Second, by definition, total evolutionistic thought denies the existence of a creator God. Third, neither the account of the origin of life as found in Genesis, or that postulated by any form of evolutionary theory, is scientific. Both are the account of the creation of the world and man - one from the viewpoint of the Judaeo/Christian religion, and the other from the viewpoint of the religion called Secular Humanism.

From the outset of this study I have made it clear what I believe. I accept creation as a fact. Even if we momentarily set aside all the physical evidence which clearly points to this event, I have the Bible to substantiate my position. Evolutionists accept evolution as a fact and as you can see from what we have discussed so far, they have nothing more than controverted reasoning, misleading statements, faulty assumptions, and outright hoaxes to prove what they believe.

Before continuing any further, please allow me to clear up a misconception which is shared by many people. There is a vast difference between scientific creationism and the Genesis account of creation. The Genesis account of creation describes not only the origin of all things, but tells us who the originator was. Since no one except God was around at the time, no thought process which depends upon human observation and reasoning could explain this event. As such, any discussion concerning the 'origin' of the species is in fact totally beyond the limits of scientific inquiry. As Robert Jastrow so aptly noted, the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid. Origins are in fact supernatural.

On the other hand, scientific creationism, by following established rules of procedure, observation, and experimentation, analyzes the physical evidence which is all around us today in an attempt to explain by what process things change and how both these processes, and the organisms they effect, interrelate with each other. When the facts revealed by this process of examination clearly point towards an act of creation, the creation scientist is willing to admit that in all likelihood, his investigation can go no further and still remain within the bounds of purely scientific inquiry.

The evolutionist however will either deny the very facts which his own investigation has uncovered, or he will misrepresent them. As such, he will continue moving backward in time until he has abandoned all pretext of scientific inquiry. At that point, he will have left the world of true science, and entered into the realm of science fiction - otherwise known as the 'twilight zone' - wherein dwells Goldschmidt's "hopeful monster", Alverez's "Giant Asteroid", and Crick's "intergalactic protein molecule."

While I have not touched upon all the scientific discoveries which clearly demonstrate a special creation, do not make the mistake of thinking that there aren't any. Up to this point in our discussion I have concentrated upon many of the shortcomings of the evolutionist's position. While this will continue to be my general thrust, I would like to highlight merely a few of these discoveries in order to alleviate any fears you may have that there are no truly scientific facts which substantiate the creationist's position. Again, let me reiterate that I am only going to highlight just a few of them. It would take several volumes to do justice to this topic alone, but that is not the intent of this book . Should you wish to delve deeper into the nature of these facts, I suggest that you check the bibliography which appears at the end of this volume.

For now though here is a brief summary of only 5 of those discoveries and the concepts which clearly point to a special creation.

1 PRINCIPLE OF UNIVERSAL CAUSATION

As even acknowledged by the evolutionist Abraham Wolf, former professor and Chairman of the Department of History and Methods of Science at the University of London, this principle shows us the following. One cause can have many effects; however, no effect can be quantitatively greater than, or qualitatively superior to its cause.

# 19 When this principle is applied to the origins of the universe we discover:

1) The first cause of limitless space must be infinite.

2) The first cause of endless time must be eternal.

3) The first cause of boundless energy must be omnipotent.

4) The first cause of infinite complexity must be omniscient.

5) The first cause of life must be living.

Therefore, the first cause of the universe must be infinite, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, and living, which is exactly the position taken by creationists.

[nChrist]

2. FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS

According to Isaac Asimov, perhaps the best known advocate of the atheistic/humanist/evolutionistic position before his death, the First Law of Thermodynamics can be summarized as follows: "The total quantity of energy in the universe is constant." He continues his definition by noting that this law "...is considered the most powerful and most fundamental generalization about the universe that scientists have ever been able to make... (I)n over a century and a quarter of careful measurements scientists have never been able to point to a definite violation of energy conservation."

# 20 Using the evolutionist's own definition for this law we arrive at a most interesting conclusion. Since the quantity of energy has never been more or less than it is today, the universe must have come into existence with its level of energy already in place. This speaks not of gradual development, but of a moment of creation.

3. SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS

Again quoting Asimov, the Second Law of Thermodynamics can be expressed as follows, "The universe is constantly getting more disorderly."

# 21 From this fact we therefore know that the amount of energy available for use grows smaller with each passing day, even though the quantity of energy throughout the universe remains constant. Just as a watch spring which is half run down was once fully wound, so also must there have been a moment in the past when every bit of that quantity of universal energy was also available for use. That moment was at its point of creation.

4. GENETIC CODE

As you may recall from our earlier discussion, Louis Pasteur proved by experimentation that the very premise of spontaneous generation was false. Furthermore, assuming that living matter is greater than non-living matter, the Principle of Universal Causation also falsifies this premise. Not only must evolutionists overcome these two problems, but recent discoveries concerning the genetic code have thrown a major monkey wrench into their works. In fact, after being faced with proof that a genetic code of some type is found in all living organisms, even the confirmed evolutionist Leslie Orgel acknowledged in 1982 that "the origin of the genetic code is the most baffling aspect of the origins of life."

# 22 The reason that the evolutionists have such difficulty with this code is the discovery that the genetic information which is found in an organism is itself specified by the genetic code of that organism's parents. In other words, there is no other means by which it can be transmitted or received by the organism in which it is found other than by inheritance.

Furthermore, Sir Fred Hoyle, the noted British evolutionistic astronomer calculated the odds which had to be overcome in order for the first self reproducible protein to arise by chance from the primordial soup which evolutionists assume covered the earth billions of years ago. Those odds were one in ten to the forty thousandth power. That's 10 followed by 40,000 zeros! Because of the mathematical impossibility of this event taking place on earth by chance, Hoyle joined forces with Francis Crick in assuming that life must have evolved in some other portion of the universe where conditions were presumably more favorable and then traveled to earth by some unknown means.

# 23 The point is, these recent discoveries concerning the genetic code tell us that some type of code was in the first representative of each of the original species on the earth. Since it could only be placed there through inheritance, it must have been placed their by a living creator.

[nChrist]

5. PREDICTABILITY OF SCIENTIFIC THEORY

Every valid scientific theory must of necessity, be able to suggest what some future researcher should discover as he continues his investigations. The theory of creation has been in existence longer than has the intellectual exercise we call 'science'. From its very beginnings however, creation has made numerous predictions which have now been discovered to be completely accurate. The facts of the fossil record and the laws of mathematical probability which we have discussed in other sections of this book, have all verified the following points:

1) The theory of creation suggested that distinct and complex organisms would appear in the fossil record without leaving any record of fossilized ancestors.

2) The theory of creation suggested that basic categories of plants and animals would be widely distributed even at the point where they first appeared in the fossil record.

3) The theory of creation suggested that living organisms are far to complex to be the mere product of random selection.

4) The theory of creation suggested that mutations and microevolutionary changes would be neutral, harmful, or ‚ degenerative in their effect.

To the truth seeking intellectually honest scientist, the discoveries we have looked at in this section are exactly what they purport to be; namely, the results of scientific research which clearly points to a special creation. According to Robert Jastrow however, facts such as these place the evolutionists in the middle of the following bad dream. The evolutionist has "... scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

# 24 However, since most evolutionists don't like either bad dreams or evangelical theologians they simply ignore the facts we have just examined. Rather than acknowledge their error, they willingly go back down the mountain of ignorance into the valley of the absurd. They have chosen instead to walk along the path of the preposterous where they are joined by their hiking companions, Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man.

 
END NOTES

1) Niles Eldredge - The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, (New York: Washington Square Press, 1982), Back Cover

2) ibid p. 98

3) David M. Raup, "Geology and Creationism", The Bulletin of the Field Museum of Natural History Vol. 54, (March 1983) , p 21

4) Encyclopedia Britannica, 1956 ed, Vol 10, p. 168,.)

5) J. E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism Versus Materialism in Stratigraphy", American Journal of Science Vol 276, (January 1976), pp.47 & 53

6) David C. C. Watson - The Great Brain Robbery (Chicago: Moody Press 1976), p. 120

7) Frederic B. Jueneman, FAIC "Secular Catastrophism", Industrial Research and Development Vol. 24 (June 1982), p. 21

8 ) R. G. Kazman, "Its About Time: 4.5 Billion Years", Geotimes Vol. 23, (Sept. 1978 ), p. 18

9) John C. Whitcomb - The World That Perished, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988 ) see also Whitcomb & Morris, The Genesis Flood, (Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1962), p. 182

10) Niles Eldredge - Time Frames: Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equillibria (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1986), p. 106

11) Rick Gore, "Extinctions", National Geographic Vol. 175, (June 1968 ), p. 664

12) ibid p. 673

13) ibid p. 673

14) ibid p. 673; see also Scott Stuckey, "Mysteries of the Dinosaurs", Boy's Life (June 1989), p. 20

15) ibid p. 673

16) Kevin Padian, "New Discoveries about Dinosaurs: Separating the fact From the News", Journal of Geological Education, Vol. 36 (1988 ), p. 215

17) ibid p. 215

18 ) ibid p. 215

19) Henry M. Morris - The Biblical Basis For Mordern Science (Grnad Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984) p. 37

20) Isaac Asimov, "In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics, You Can't Even Break Even", Smithsonian Vol. 1 No. 5 (June 1970) , p. 6

21) ibid p. 10

22) Lesile Orgel, "Darwinism at the Very Beginning of Life" New Scientist, Vol. 94, (April 15, 1982), p. 151

23) Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, "Where Microbes Boldly Went", New Scientist Vol. 91, (1981), pp. 412-415

24) Robert Jastrow, "God and Astronomers", as reported in David Bender and Bruno Leons - Science and Religion: Opposing Viewpoints (St Paul ,MN: Green Haven Press, 1981), p. 50

[nChrist]

Chapter VI
 
Holy Hydrogen and Hitler

Why would seemingly intelligent people accept such a theory? Secular humanism absolutely requires that they do so. If the theory of evolution is correct, then man is slowly evolving into a better and higher state and is therefore not in need of a personal Saviour to redeem him. Just in case you think that I may have misinterpreted the evolutionist's position on this issue, allow me to call your attention to Richard Leakey's comments concerning the source of aggression in mankind. "Any aggression we show is the product of our culture and environment, not our nature." (emphasis added)

# 1 In fact, the entire premise of Leakey's book The People of the Lake is that the driving force which transformed apes into humans is the natural sense of goodness and cooperation which existed amongst man's supposed ancestors. He believes that this natural tendency to cooperate somehow caused our ancestor's brains to enlarge as they were forced to cope with the increasingly complex society such cooperation fostered.

Since humanistic evolutionists maintain that man has no original sin, they take the further position that "salvation based upon mere affirmation" in the redemptive sacrifice of Jesus Christ is in reality a destructive philosophy which diverts man's attention from his true source of power. They hold to the belief that instead of looking to God, "reasonable minds look to other means for survival."

# 2 Sir Julian Huxley, founder of the American Humanist Association spelled out in no uncertain terms just where it is that mankind must now look when he said, "...man...is not under the control or guidance of any supernatural being... but has to rely on himself and his own powers."

# 3 On the other hand, if the Bible is correct, then man is not evolving, but has in fact gone from a state of perfection to one of sin and degradation from which he cannot be rescued except by the blood of Jesus Christ. Satan has come to kill, steal, and destroy. (John 10:10) As we have so clearly seen up to this point, he has skillfully used the tools of his trade to get many people to believe his theory. I am aware that this is a rather forceful statement, but in reality, the topic we are dealing with is that of life and death.

Let's put it this way. If you were an astronaut about to take a ride on a Saturn IV rocket, how would you feel if you overheard one of the scientists who designed a major component of that rocket tell his colleagues that the design he came up with for that part had not been completely tested, or for that matter, even thoroughly thought through? Do you think that you would still be willing to put your life in his hands? I believe the intelligent answer to that question has to be "No!" However, when you accept the theory of evolution you are taking a much more dangerous ride. In the process you are putting more than your physical life on the line. Whether you know it or not, you may very well be placing your soul in the hands of just such 'scientists.'

By stating on in his book that "...the gloves are off," Eldredge acknowledges that the battle line has been drawn between creationists and evolutionists.

# 4 Unfortunately, the evolutionists have been very successful up to this point in claiming victims. All you have to do is turn to the supplementary volume to the Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (pages 792 - 793 of the 1976 hardbound edition) to see the inroads that evolution has made into liberal theology. When the liberal theologian assumes that scientific knowledge has rendered belief in the miracle of creation intellectually irresponsible, he is in reality saying that science provides us with knowledge of the limits within which God will always operate. Such a theologian has inadvertently made a god out of scientific knowledge. If in fact an Almighty God does exist, then miracles are generally possible at every moment.

Make no mistake about it, evolution is a religious belief. Of course most evolutionists would deny this, but as we have done before in this study, let's take a closer look at what evolutionists have actually said.

# 5 Concerning the teaching of the Genesis account of creation in science classes (something which I am not advocating, as long as evolution, is not taught there) Eldredge says, "Students should not be asked to believe, but they should be taught those things, such as evolution, that scientists THINK are true of the natural universe." (Capitalization mine, other emphasis his)

# 6 Roget's College Thesaurus says that a synonym for the word believe is the word think. The American College Dictionary, 1960 ed. includes in its definitions for the word think, the following: To hold as an opinion: believe: suppose." (emphasis added)

Since Eldredge maintains that his science is not a "belief system," why then does he use words which are interchangeable such as think and believe?

[nChrist]

# 7 Why not use the word, "that scientists know are true of the natural universe?" The reason of course is that no true scientist would claim to "know" the reason for the sudden appearance of the multicellular life forms which are found in Cambrian Rock, much less the origins of the universe. (Remember, even Eldredge admits that the appearance of Cambrian life forms is a mystery to his brand of science.) Therefore, he is correct in saying that evolutionistic scientists can only talk about what they think (ie. what they believe) about the natural universe, and belief requires faith. It takes more faith to accept the notion that the undeniable order and symmetry which exists throughout the entire universe is a matter of sheer chance than it does to believe that it came about through the direct action of the Most High God.

Ps. 14:1 tells us that "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'" While evolutionists are deceived, I would not call them fools. As such, they do have a god. To discover who their god is, we have to travel back in time about 3,000 years. Ancient Greek philosophy developed its own theory for the origins of all creatures. Around 100 B.C., a Roman poet named Lucretius set portions of his theory, which he had borrowed from the Greeks, to rhyme and lyric in order to make it more presentable to the average person of his day. Lucretius was cited approvingly by Professor Sir Gavin deBeer in his biology textbook Adaption when he says, "Chance was exactly what Lucretius invoked .... to explain living creatures."

# 8 Professor deBeer is correct in noting that Lucretius "invoked" chance. To invoke is to "call on a divine being" (American College Dictionary 1960), and it is their "divine being - Chance" that evolutionists call upon. Evolutionists would have us believe that Cecil Alexander's beautiful poem should now read, "All things bright and beautiful, All things great and small, All things wise and wonderful, the lord CHANCE made them all" instead of the "Lord God made them all." Over the centuries, believers in the chance development of the universe and life as we know it, have dressed up their notion in order to accommodate what they perceived as man's increasing sophistication. They no longer use poetry to express this belief in "lord chance", now they call it "evolutionistic science."

Harlow Shapely, Professor Emeritus of Astronomy at Harvard University expressed his evolutionistic fervor in this manner,

Formerly the origin of life was held to be a matter for the Deity to take care of ... But no longer. We now believe that all of the score of kinds of atoms evolved naturally from hydrogen... To me it (evolution) is a religious attitude to recognize the wonder of the whole natural world. Not only life ... why not revere also amino acids and the simple proteins from which life emerges. (parenthesis & emphasis added)

# 9 Not only have evolutionists crossed the line from science to religion, but Professor Shapley totally ignored the admonition of Deut. 4:19 which tells us that "... when you look up to the sky and see the sun, the moon, and stars - all the heavenly array - do not be enticed into bowing down to them and worshipping things the Lord you God has apportioned to all the nations under heaven." As noted in the New Testament, "In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now He commands all people everywhere to repent." (Acts 17:30) As I said earlier, this is a matter of life and death.

The evolutionists have replaced the God of creation with the 'creation god', and it is for them that Ro, 12:1 comes into clear focus.

"For although they knew God they neither glorified Him as God, nor gave thanks to Him, but in their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise they became fools... They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator - who is forever to be praised."

Evolutionists may tell you that evolution is not a religious belief, but to put it in Shakespearean terms, "A rose by any other name is still a rose."

Again though, there are at least a few brave evolutionists out there who are sheepishly willing to admit the fact that 'evolutionistic science' has all the makings of a religious movement. Anthropology professor Dr. Loren Eisley noted that he and fellow evolutionists were:

...left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which (they) could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past. (parenthesis & emphasis added)

# 10 Publicly however, most evolutionists hold to the position that belief in a God who created all things requires an illogical leap of faith; whereas, according to them, salt cycles, giant asteroids, and an expanding and contracting universe constitute scientific principles which have nothing to do with faith. They have assured us that theirs is not a religious belief system, when in reality they cling to their beliefs as tenaciously as any cult member ever has. Instead of humbling themselves before the altar of repentance, they stand proudly before the altar of human reason. They have exchanged the supernatural Lord of the universe for the more natural universal law of chance. They have traded the miraculous account of life's inception for a more 'naturalistic', though now thoroughly discounted concept called 'spontaneous generation.' They put their faith not in Jesus Christ, the Rock of our Salvation, but in the rocks of the geologic column. They have substituted the god of me, myself, and I for the One True God - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They have abandoned the Apostles Creed, instead favoring the Humanist Manifestos I and II. Finally, they have guided their lives not by the absolute standards of God's Word, but by the self-contradictory standard which assures us that there are absolutely no absolutes.

In an unsuccessful attempt to place as much distance as possible between the whole issue of religious morals and the theory of evolution, some evolutionists state that they cannot even begin to comprehend "... (how) the ethical fabric of human social behavior is dependent upon one scenario or another about how we humans got here in the first place." (parenthesis added)

[nChrist]

#11 In one very limited sense he may be right, but not for the reasons he thinks. The philosophy of evolutionistic humanism is in fact devoid of morals and ethics. Not because there is no relationship between the topic of evolution and the topic of ethics, but because the philosophical foundations of evolution are totally incapable of supporting any system of moral values. Before examining some very concrete examples of evolution's direct relationship to such things as genocide and racism, allow me to point out the predicament which evolutionistic humanists have created for themselves. In so doing, I believe that you will see why it is that their philosophy leads to a total absence of moral values.

Many evolutionistic humanists regard the universe as a self-existing non-created entity.

# 12 Carl Sagan even went so far as to state that "The cosmos is all that there is or ever was or ever will be."

# 13 The Humanist Manifestos go on to tell us that "... faith in (a) prayer hearing God ... (who is) able to do something about them (prayers) is ... outmoded." Not only that, but these documents maintain the position that the entire concept of salvation is "... harmful (because it offers people)... false hopes of heaven." parenthesis added)

# 14 This view of life causes these same evolutionists to now confidently state that "God has no role in the physical world... there is no organizing principle in the world and no purpose. Thus, there are no moral or ethical laws that belong to the nature of things no absolute guiding principles for human society. (emphasis added)

# 15 Needless to say, evolutionistic humanism has not only removed God from the realm of creation, but it has removed Him from all human endeavors. Here then is the crux of their self imposed problem. Noted humanist historians, Will and Ariel Durant, the 1976 recipients of The Humanist "Humanist Pioneer Award", have acknowledged that as humanists they "...shall find it no easy task to mold a natural ethic strong enough to maintain moral restraint and social order without the support of supernatural consolations, hopes, and fears."

# 16 There task however is not only difficult, I dare say it is impossible.

As historians, all they need to do is examine the aftermath of the French Revolution to see the total breakdown which occurs in a society when it attempts to live by the type of humanistic rationale expounded by today's evolutionists. For that matter, all they need do is to contemplate their own findings which were, "There is no significant example in history ... of a society successfully maintaining moral life without the aid of religion."

# 17 If we can find a lesson at all in what history tells us, it is this: Every society which is based upon the philosophy of evolutionistic humanism is bound to ultimately fail because of this philosophy's internal cancer. That cancer is an absence of viable moral values and ethical standards. Such a cancer eats away at the very foundations upon which society must be based if it is going to survive.

Our forefathers had no difficulty realizing that atheistic humanism could never serve as the foundation for a system of moral values which requires absolutes. Daniel Webster noted that:

...our ancestors established their system of government on morality and religious sentiment. Moral habits they believed, cannot safely be trusted on any foundation other than religious principle, nor any government be secure which is not supported by moral habits... Let the religious element in man's nature be neglected, let him be influenced by no higher motives than low self-interest, and subjected to no stronger restraint than the limits of civil authority and he becomes the creature of selfish passion and blind fanaticism... On the other hand, the cultivation of the religious sentiment represses licentiousness... inspires respect for law and order, and gives strength to the whole social fabric at the same time that it conducts the human soul upward to the Author of its being.

# 18 Not only is humanistic philosophy incapable of supporting a system of‚absolute moral values, but it was because of this very inability that humanistic evolution caught on so quickly. When asked to give his opinion as to why it was that the notion of evolution was so readily accepted by certain segments of society, Sir Julian Huxley noted that "... the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores."

# 19 It would appear that just about everyone from our founding fathers to modern day humanistic historians have observed the chilling effect which evolutionistic humanism has upon morals and ethics. But Eldredge appears to give no credence to these facts. Not only does he fail to make the apparently obvious correlation between the two, he even appears make light of Mrs. Nell Segraves for her statement that there is a relationship between drug abuse, prostitution, and other criminal activity and the teaching of evolution.

Mrs. Seagraves is the mother of the plaintiff in what became known as the "Scopes II trial". Obviously, she has taken the time to think about the logical consequences which follow from the evolutionist's line of reasoning, even if some evolutionists have not. Of what value are the virtues we know as love, charity, friendship, self sacrifice, and loyalty? Such sentiments are nothing more than a cruel joke in a system wherein the only true reality is the survival of the fittest. If man is in fact the product of mere chance, having evolved along with the apes, the fish, the birds, and the reptiles; then his claim to life is no more secure than theirs. After all, doesn't a cattle breeder "cull" his herd to eliminate unwanted strains? As such, abortion is completely justified under this system because all that is being eliminated is 'a blob of tissue' or an 'unwanted animal' that posses nothing more than the potential to be human. But then this system of thought does not discriminate, for it also allows for the killing off of the elderly and the mentally ill. In fact, it provided all the justification needed to kill off an entire race of people.

Hitler was an evolutionist, and he used this exact same line of reasoning to eliminate 6 million human beings whom he considered genetically inferior to his master race.

[nChrist]

# 20 Noted British commentator Benjamin Kidd stated that in Germany prior to world War II, "Darwin's theories came to be openly set out in political and military textbooks as the full justification for war and highly organized schemes of national policy in which the doctrine of force became the doctrine of right."

# 21 Without a doubt, Hitler had no difficulty recognizing the point that the "ethical principle inherent in evolution is that only the best has a right to survive."

# 22 But then Hitler was not the only one to hold to such a perverted view of humanity.

As a boy, Joseph Stalin shared a book he had recently discovered with a young friend of his. He assured his friend that this book would show him that "... all this talk about God is sheer nonsense."

# 23 That book was Darwin's Origin of the Species. It was the philosophy of evolution which Stalin used to justify the brutal imprisonment and murder of more than 4 million Russians. Stalin's actions though were themselves merely the culmination of Lenin's beliefs which he expressed thusly, "Darwin put an end to the belief that animal and vegetable species bear no relation to one another."

# 24 Just as you discard an imperfect tomato from your garden, so also have the communists 'discarded' untold millions of their own people who did not meet their standards of perfection.

Needless to say, in order for communist political systems to not only sanction these types of internal extermination programs, but actually plan them and then carry them out, their philosophical viewpoint must be devoid of any moral standards. They found justification for their position in the writings of Charles Darwin. While you may think that I am stretching things just a bit, I can assure you that I am not. All you need do is examine the facts. On December 12, 1859 Frederick Engles wrote to Karl Marx advising him that "Darwin, whom I am just now reading, is splendid." Marx must have wholeheartedly agreed, for on December 16, 1860, he advised Engles that "... I have read all sorts of things. Among others, Darwin's book of Natural Selection… this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view. (emphasis added)

# 25 While some evolutionists would have you believe that the 'social Darwinism' of Hitler, Stalin, Marx, and Engles was an outdated perversion of true evolutionistic thinking, I urge you to consider that its underlying thought process is alive and well today. Edward O Wilson's book Sociobiology is filled with it. As reported in the March 13, 1989 issue of Newsweek Wilson's basic premise is that man's "... social behavior is shaped by the Darwinian struggle to survive and reproduce."

# 26 While some evolutionists are upset that such ideas are again being openly discussed, their protests have had no effect. The rationale behind the social Darwinism of the 30's and 40's hasn't changed at all. The only difference between then and now is that different words are being used today to express the very same thoughts expressed by Hitler and Stalin.

Today Darwin's theory marches on, and as a consequence of the total lack of value it places upon human life, more than 2 million Cambodians were murdered under the regime of Pol Pott. Just as horribly though, more than 20 million American babies have been murdered in its abortion mills because too many Americans have come to believe that we are mere animals as opposed to being created in the image of Almighty God.

In addition to the relationship between the theory of evolution and genocide, Mrs. Seagrave also clearly understands the relationship between evolutionary thinking and racism. Even Niles Eldredge's colleague, Stephen Jay Gould has acknowledged that "(b)iological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory." (emphasis added)

# 27 Just how blatant this racism may have become is found in a quote from the late Henry Fairfield Osborn, the evolutionistic professor of Biology at Columbia University and past President of the American Museum of Natural History's Board of Trustees whom we mentioned earlier in regards to our discussion of the Nebraska Man. He stated that:

The Negroid stock is even more ancient than the Caucasian ... as may be proved by an examination not only of the brain, of the hair, of the bodily characteristics ... but of the instincts, (and) the intelligence. The standard of intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the eleven year old youth of the species Homo Sapiens.

# 28 Rather than acknowledge that there is a definite link between the evils we have just discussed and the evolutionary thought process (which by definition excludes God), the best that Eldredge could do is raise another red herring. He states that,

"... it is surely an irony that the Old Testament amply documents the presence of many of the same social ills (and plenty more) plaguing Jewish society thousands of years ago, yet nothing is said about their teaching evolution to their children."

[nChrist]

# 29 Unfortunately for him though, this illustration serves only to prove my point. You see, if Mr. Eldredge had examined the Old Testament a little more closely, he would have discovered that the kingdom of Israel (both its northern and southern portions) suffered from these evils when and only when it abandoned the truth's of God's Word and followed the false gods of its neighbors.

The problem of course is not evolution per se. Evolution is merely a symptom of the sickness, not the disease itself. Quite simply put, where God is absent, evil rushes in to fill the vacuum. Since evolution is the foundational teaching upon which humanism must rest, and humanism absolutely and unquestionably denies God, then it follows logically that where evolution and humanism are believed; crime, genocide, abortion, and other evils reign supreme. And that is exactly the point Mrs. Seagrave was making.

Obviously she clearly understands the relationship between the amoral teachings and situational ethics of humanism, and the theory of evolution. For this she is held in disdain by a man who says that he cannot understand how ethics and evolution are related; yet who himself says, "Creationism seems to me to threaten the integrity of our children's education, and this threatens the long term well being of our country."

# 30 Having previously defined creationism in his book Monkey Business as "creationism -the belief that the cosmos, the earth, and all life are separate acts of a supernatural creator", I can only assume that he feels that by teaching our children that God's Word, as recorded in the entire Bible is true, we are threatening the future of the United States of America.

Yet look at what the evolutionists have to offer us instead - "Scientists ... (who) are in no position to 'prove anything' ..." and a system which, by their own admission "... can never claim to know the ultimate truth." (parenthesis added)

# 31 Evolutionists claim on one hand to be truth seeking scientist, and on the other that "no one has yet invented a way of determining what the truth is when we have it."

# 32 Perhaps it is because of statements such as these that Dr Colin Patterson of the British Museum, who is reexamining his own position on evolution, has come to the conclusion that "...evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but it seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge."

# 33 To me it is interesting how evolutionists can ignore or simply forget past statements made by their heros when those comments now point out their own intellectual shortcomings. For example, in all his discussion about the teaching of creationism, Eldredge never once mentions the fact that Clarence Darrow, the ACLU attorney who represented the evolutionists' position in the original Scopes trial, stated that it is the height of "bigotry for public schools to teach only one theory of origins."

#34 Even Darwin acknowledged that "(a) fair result can be obtained only by stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question..."

# 35 Since most evolutionists clearly insist that only evolution be taught to today's students, they have, by their own words, placed themselves in a position which Darrow classified as bigoted, and Darwin contended was unfair.

The evolutionist's own statements regarding what science is point out yet another area which contradicts the 'simple to complex' premise of evolution. This area deals with the development of language itself. Evolution would tell us that man could barely speak when he first appeared. He then slowly evolved into the supposedly highly articulate intellectually superior evolutionists which we see today. Yet, linguistic research has shown that there is "...no tribe or people anywhere in the world which does not have thousands of words in its vocabulary and an intricate systematic way of putting words together into phrases and sentences."

# 36 What we find when we examine supposedly primitive tribes is that even their language, which appears rather simple at first glance, is in fact more often than not, the remains of a more intricate complex pattern of speech which that tribe's ancestors used. The words and phrases of the past civilization have been dropped as the functions disappeared from that particular culture which those words described.

# 37 Again, we see the breakdown of something, not its evolution. The evidence simply does not establish a general pattern of simple to complex. While it is true that new words may be coined to define new ideas or inventions, it is also true that taken as a whole, the language in which this occurs, actually becomes less complex at the same time. English is a perfect example of this phenomenon.

In addition, linguists have also discovered that there is no evidence of any common source or historical connection between any of the 50 distinct families of languages which exist in the world today. Remember, this is in spite of the fact that it has been demonstrated that man has had a single place of origin. The fact that no common link exists between these families of languages tends to support not the theory of evolution, but the Biblical account of Genesis chapter 11 wherein we are shown that God totally confused the languages of the world at the Tower of Babel.

The process of language deterioration continues on to this day. We need look no further than the "Science of Evolution" to establish this principle. When I was in school I was taught that science was the study of natural phenomena. Possible explanations for the occurrence of these phenomena were proposed as hypotheses. After initial testing appeared to verify the hypothesis, it was upgraded to the status of theory. After years of testing by men of science throughout the world using universally accepted procedures, and finding no exceptions to the theory, it was called a fact. My American College Dictionary still carries these different definitions. Eldredge however states that "philosophers of science have argued long and hard over the difference between facts, hypothesis, and theories. But the real point is this: they are all essentially the same, all of them are ideas...." (emphasis added)

[nChrist]

# 38 As we have so graphically seen, the evolutionists have completely altered the idea of what the truth is, something every humanist must do in order to justify the situational ethics he expounds. Now, they are diluting the very language which serves as the basis for modern science. Having diluted the language of science to nothing more than a series of meaningless interchangeable words (which after all is exactly what the deterioration of language does), evolutionists now feel secure in making the following statement: "... (T)he earth simply cannot be a mere ten thousand years old. This is no story concocted by a Creator as part of his creation process. The earth really is incredibly old. And of course the universe is even older - 15 billion years or so."

# 39 They can also readily assert that "precious few ideas put forth to date in science have entirely withstood the test of time. Evolution is one, so is the idea that the earth is round... Evolution is a fact as much as the idea that the earth is shaped like a ball."

# 40 When language begins to deteriorate, as the evidence shows that it has, it is a mixed blessing. In this case it serves as additional proof that Darwinian evolution did not occur. However, by using their watered down definition for the word 'fact', the evolutionist feels perfectly free in calling evolution a fact. In reality, Darwinian evolution is nothing more than a hypothesis, and a philosophical one at that.

The evolutionist's attack on the English language goes even further. After making such a preposterous statement as "evolution is a fact as much as the idea that the earth is shaped like a ball," Eldredge attempts to give the impression of impartiality. He does so by asserting that "the notion of evolution is falsifiable - we can theoretically throw it out should evidence one day point that way." (emphasis added)

# 41 This statement is misleading because it conceals the fact that as far as he is concerned, there is no way evolution could be proven false. By equating the roundness of the earth with the theory of evolution, he has pointed out the total inflexibility of his mind set. (Remember, it was this same type of inflexibility which led his predecessors to make false statements concerning the lack of transitional evidence in the fossil record.)

Eldredge's statements however serve as further evidence of the watering down of scientific terms. As we saw previously, he felt no hesitancy about interchanging the words hypothesis and theory with the word fact, but now he does the same thing with the word notion and fact. First we are told that evolution is a fact, and then we are told that it is a notion. Returning to my dictionary for a moment, I discover that a notion is a "more or less general, vague, imperfect conception or idea of something ... an opinion, view, or belief." If Mr. Eldredge would accept the dictionary definition of the word notion, then I would acknowledge evolution as a notion, for it most certainly is an imperfect conception of the origins of the species which requires a great deal of belief.

 
END NOTES
 
1) Thomas Goldthwaite, "Television", Arizona Repbublic, (November 23, 1983)

2) Humanist Manifesto I & II (New York: Promethas Books, 1973) p. 8

3) Henry M. Morris - The Biblical Basis for Modern Science, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984) . p. 36

4) Niles Eldredge - Monkey Business - A Scientist Looks at Creationism (New York: Washington Square Press, 1982) p. 24

5) ibid p. 146

6) ibid p. 147

7) ibid p. 32

8 ) David C.C Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (Chicago: Moody Press 1976) p. 98

9) ibid p. 43

10) Loren Eiseley, The Immense Journey (New York: Random House, 1957) p.199

11) Eldredge - op cit. p. 143

12) Humanist Manifesto, op cit. p. 8

13) Carl Sagan, "Cosmos", University of Chicago Magazine, Vol 73 (Spring 1981), p. 11

14) Humanist Manifesto, op cit. p. 13

15) Francis Schaeffer - The Christian Manifesto (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1981) p. 58

16) ibid p. 45

17) ibid p. 45; also Will and Ariel Durant - The Lessons of History, (New York: Simon and Shuster, 1968 ) p. 15-

18 ) Robert Flood, The Rebirth of America, (St Davids, PA: The Arthur S DeMoss Foundation, 1986) p.21,29

19) Kennedy, D. James, Broadcast WAND TV Channel 17, 9/15/91