Evolution and "humans are just animals".
".
This article is somewhat different than other Creation
Corner articles. It is more of an overview with four objectives:
1) To
show some major flaws with evolution dogma.
2) To show how evolution and creation are directly opposed
to each other.
3) To show how evolution thinking is a root cause of many of today's social
problems.
4) To show the importance of creation believers standing up for creation.
How is Christianity different than other religions?
What is the major difference
between Christianity and all other religions? Although some other religions (12) acknowledge a creator, Christianity is the
only one where the creator claims to be communicating with his creation - man.
Obviously, evolution, which says all living things happened by mindless accident, is the direct opposite
to an intelligent, purposeful creator. This article is in three parts as follows:
Part I
- A short history of evolution and some flaws as revealed by modern science.
Part
II - The harm caused by evolution thinking.
Part III - A comparison of the
two religions - Evolution and Christianity.
Part I
A short
history - enter what many had been looking for
Evolution gained major support in 1859
with the publication of Charles Darwin's book, "Origin of the Species". Interestingly enough, Darwin's book
reveals his own doubts and significant disclaimers. Nevertheless the disclaimers were overlooked.
Why? Darwin's book was eagerly accepted and widely acclaimed by many because it was just what they had
been looking for. After all, if you can get rid of a Creator, if "humans are just animals", then humans can do whatever
feels good to them. There are no more rules, no absolutes, no more right and wrong. And aren't we hearing
those very things widely proclaimed today?
Scientific knowledge that
tends to disprove Darwin's theory
The theory of evolution should have died a natural death
after 1859 as new scientific discoveries came on the scene. Why say that? Consider these that came after "Origin of the
Species" in 1859.
1) Life comes only from life.
Scientists of 1859 believed that living fruit flies came from dead matter. Pasteur proved them wrong by keeping
fruit in a vacuum. Guess what? There were no flies. Pasteur proved the flies came through the air, only from other
live flies. A massive lightning bolt doesn't produce life. Only living things can produce living things.
2) Laws of heredity and genetics.
Scientists
of 1859 thought many traits were passed on to offspring in a random chance way. Mendel's studies, however, changed that
thinking as his experiments proved the characteristics of the parents are passed to their offspring according to precise mathematical
ratios - not randomly or from chance..
3) Cells are not simple
after all.
In 1859 scientists believed a cell was the simplest of the simple. They believed
complexity increased only as size increased. However, with modern instruments and technology scientists were able to examine
cells, atoms, and even tinier bits of matter. Scientists now know that not only cells, but also the atoms
making up cells, are themselves extremely complex. Each one is itself a miniature universe and is intricately organized.
The first cell that evolution says emerged dripping wet from the ocean slime, far from being 1859 simple, was already incredibly
complex, marvelously designed, and enormously efficient. (13)
How efficient? Source (4) gives one answer. "Of the liver cell's many functions, over five hundred
at latest count..." Imagine that, five hundred functions being done by a single liver cell.
Widely acclaimed evolution author Richard Dawkins(8) informs us about cell efficiency, "Each one [cell]
can be thought of us a chemical factory which, in the course of delivering its primary product of usable
energy, processes more than 700 different chemical substances, in long, interweaving assembly-lines
strung out along the surface of its intricately folded internal membranes." You may want to read that again..
4) Mathematical laws of probability.
Since 1859, science has learned how mathematically
impossible are the odds of accidental life and of the complexity found throughout nature. Source (1) gives us some
perspective on these odds, "The probability of the chance formation of a hypothetical "simple" cell, given
all the ingredients, is acknowledged to be worse than 1 in a number followed by 57,800 zeros. It would take 11 full
pages of magazine type just to print this number." Many other sources confirm similar mind-boggling statistics.
5) A trillion independent, complete-within-themselves, cells have to band
together.
Look again at the odds for one cell to evolve itself. What then
do you think the odds must be of more than a trillion cells banding themselves together to form a living, perfectly
functioning together-as-one-unit human being; or indeed any other perfectly functioning animal or plant unit?
6) Cells quit evolving!
Although incomplete, some
knowledge of cells was present in Darwin's day. Source (3) informs us some significant information about cells was
known prior to 1859, "...published papers in 1838 and 1839, respectively, that clearly stated cells are the structural
units of life. This statement has come to be known as the cell theory. Another German scientist, Rudolf Virchow,
extended the cell theory in 1855 by stating that all cells come from preexisting cells. That is, cells divide to give rise
to new cells."
But..... 31 years after Darwin's book, "In
1880 August Weismann pointed out that, since cells come from preexisting cells, all cells today can
trace to their origins back to ancient cells"
Evolution supporter
source (9) writes, "Cells, whether they are single individuals or part of a multicellular organism, now arise
only from other cells."
Which leads to some questions. Since
new cells are no longer evolving, did cells develop one at a time, or all together at the
same time? If one at a time, why stop? Wouldn't logic indicate if they evolved separately one at a time, they would still
be evolving? What is it then that is stopping new cells from continuing to "evolve"? Who or what
has said, "this many cells and no more"?
7)
Irreducible complexity
Irreducible complexity is a new term
developed to describe the inter-dependence of all parts of a single cell. Once it was learned single cells are not simple
at all, but miniature complex chemical factories; it was realized that a cell is a perfectly functioning whole,
made up of a multitude of parts. The book explains,
"When early biologists
examined living cells under a microscope,...the cell's interiors appeared to be a jelly-like fluid..... With the invention
of the electron microscope...the interiors...became visible. Each eukaryotic cell is like a tiny state; it possesses a control
center, power plants, factories that make products, packaging and transport systems, a communication
system, and a waste removal* system."
Wow! I can't
make up stuff as powerful as that.
The book has a diagram of a single cell.
It is interesting to note the diagram identifies 19 working cell parts.
The point is - these parts all depend on each other, no part can function alone. They either all
function together, or none function. Logic seems to say the parts had to have come together, perfectly
operating, at the same time. The theory that a cell can evolve a molecule at a time seems disproved by this late
knowledge of the extreme "Irreducible Complexity" of cells.
There
is a comment in the book, "Botany for Gardeners"(6)...and that the cells of plants and animals are essentially the
same. A world of cells!"
8) Matter is energy.
Fifty-six
years after Darwin's book, Einstein published his famous Theory of Relativity and the equation that proved matter
is energy. Something not even imagined in Darwin's day. Einstein's proof provided enormous credibiliity to
a God who says He is composed of energy (light, spirit) and that He used some of that energy to create matter.
To sum up Part I
Each one of the above scientific
discoveries since 1859 diminishes evolution's credibility. But weighed ‘en masse' they should have
discredited it completely.
Nevertheless evolution still marches on with
the fervor of a religion. So, we too, will trudge on.
9.
A bonus point - Where are the needed changeover fossils?
Darwin himself knew that vital to
his theory was the finding of "change" fossils for millions and millions of end species. In 1859 he was confident
later geologists would find them.
But none have been found in the nearly one hundred fifty years since
1859. As source (5) puts it, " ...only that the fossil record does not support evolution. This is true for every class
of animal...Today we have innumerable fossils from the Earth's most ancient rocks...Yet there are no transitional fossils
linking microorganisms and complex invertebrates." (Consult the book for detailed support.)
There have been a few fraudulent "fossils". Eagerly embraced for years until the fraud
was exposed and reluctantly acknowledged. But those few frauds are the extent of history's changeover fossils.
Another "Creation Corner" article cited scientists' estimates there are fifteen
million species of just insects. Add to that millions of other species scientists agree are on the earth.
Now consider this - none of these millions and millions
of different species are changing!
-
none of these
millions and
millions of different
species are changing!
Ants are not trying to become beetles, bees are not
trying to become a new termite specie, birds are not trying to become lizards, dogs are not trying to fly, humans are not
growing three arms or three legs, there are no half insect and half animal new creatures, there are no half bird and half
fish creatures, and you can carry out the analogies as far as you want.
It...is...just...not...happening.
And yet, what is absolutely vital for evolution to be true?
Why it's change is it not? Change that never stops - as each evolved creature becomes 1) better
and better and 2) changes into new creatures. Constant change, unrelenting change, change all over the place.
Evolution says change went on for millions and millions of years - and by its own scenario can never stop.
It is put very simply in the massive 3½ pound book "Evolution-The
Triumph of an Idea"(7),
"Evolution is change, nothing more or less."
But instead of change, change, change, what do see?
Instead we seem to see all around us an unchangingchanging, finished creation!
Not only can evolutionists not find their needed millions of changeover fossils
to support what they claim happened in the past; there are no changeovers in millions and millions of species
alive today.
As a side observation, consider also how each specie
appears happy and content. Nowhere whatsoever do we see a desperate specie frantically trying
to become something else.
The finished creation
that we see all around us today has to be one of the strongest and most compelling logical arguments against evolution.
Indeed it might be said it is the only one we need.
Nevertheless
evolution supporters hang on and battle anew with a religious fervor.
Part II
The
end result of evolution thinking
I knew evolution and creation were opposed to each other,
but had not realized the far-reaching and actually harmful effects of evolution thinking.
Until I learned about "Eugenics" that is.
I
was seventy years old and in all my reading of thousands of books and magazines I had never even seen the term "Eugenics".
Then, just a few months ago, I learned about it for the first time - twice in the same day. What
a remarkable coincidence! A few weeks later, I ran across eugenics yet a third time. (2007 note, since then I have
read it dozens of time. Strange, it is now being talked about again.)
At
70 years of age, finding out about Eugenics was a real shock to me; maybe it will be to you too.
What
is it?
Eugenics is the end result of believing in evolution and its dogma that having descended
from apes, "humans are just animals". Eugenics is an evolutionist mind set that rationalizes:
1)
Just like animals, there are superior strains in humans and inferior strains.
2) The
superior strains are entitled to exploit and rule over the inferior ones.
The
History of Eugenics
Author Margaret Canavon(2) quotes an explanation by the well-known writer
G. K. Chesterton, ..."the system of thought which began in Evolution and has ended in Eugenics."
She explains in more detail, "In the late nineteenth century, in the wake
of Darwin and Mendel, there was intense interest in evolution and genetics. In view of the 1) prestige of science, and 2)
the decline of Christianity among the educated, it was natural that the idea of applying science to improvement of human society
should be popular. The "science" of Eugenics was developed initially by Francis Galton (1822-1911) and followers."
"A basic principle of eugenics was that animals and human beings are the
same and should be treated the same. Canavon writes, "Good care and feeding enable any particular cow or pig to develop
to the limit of its potential, but farmers are well aware that the best way to get good cattle is to improve the strain by
selective breeding.... The deliberate breeding practiced by the farmer is less haphazard (in animal nature, the weaker strains
die off) and more humane".
"According to the Eugenists, precisely
the same considerations must be applied to human beings. Central to that idea, remember, is to improve the strain by selective
breeding.... The problem - civilization protects the inferior strains.... Humanitarian social policies prevented
the unfit from being weeded out, and indeed encouraged them to propagate themselves and to swamp the race with inferior genes."
"Galton himself wrote that the first objective of eugenics was to "check
the birth rate of the unfit.... The second objective of the improvement of the race by furthering the productivity of the
fit by early marriages and healthful rearing of their children."
Canavon
provides more history. "There was a fear among the British upper classes in the first forty years of the twentieth century
that the British stock was declining."
Thus it seems eugenics has
a lot to do with breeding; with superior vs. inferior strains.
"Karl
Pearson, Galton's disciple, and Professor of Eugenics at London University, declared in 1912, "The death-rate is
selective, and if we check Nature's effective, but roughshod methods of race betterment, we must take
her task into our own hands and see to it that the mentally and physically inferior had not a dominant fertility."
A whole state arises based on eugenic thinking
Canavon continues with a shocking,
but very revealing quote, "Another Eugenics advocate, Charles Armstrong, declared that "the nation which first breeds
for efficiency - denying the right of the scum to beget millions of their kind...is the nation destined to rule the earth."
What twentieth century state arose with this thinking at its core?
What was the objective of Nazi Germany? Wasn't it the "Third Reich", which was to rule the
world for a thousand years?
What was the Nazi battle cry? Wasn't
it that they were the Master Race? Didn't they have the right - no the duty - to rid the world
of the "inferior" Jews, Poles, gypsies, the mentally ill, and similar, as they saw it, "inferior"
stock wherever they determined it was? After all, they reasoned, don't good farmers do the same to breed superior strains
of animals?
In Nazi Germany wasn't it the duty of the pure
Aryan woman to practice free sex and produce as many babies as possible, fathered by carefully selected pure Aryan males?
And wasn't it the duty of the State to school the master race children?
As
an American youngster living during the reign of Nazism, I tell you the answers are yes, yes, yes, yes to all of those questions!
What, then, was fundamentally wrong with Nazism? Doesn't it seem
to be evolution thinking carried to its end result of eugenics?
Marxism and Communism in both Russia and China also murdered millions. A study of their philosophies
reveals they too have foundations in evolution carried to its end result of eugenics.
Eugenics and the welfare state
Can evolution possibly have anything to do with
social welfare?
Canovan thought so as she wrote, "Eugenic considerations
were interwoven with much of the legislation that lies at the foundation of the welfare state."
Her point was much of the welfare state is not compassion as we are led to believe. It is
more a matter of control of the "inferior" classes. Having read this quote, I gained new understanding
of today's liberals.
As Chesterton pointed out, according to Canovan,
in one respect the poor under the welfare state are worse off than the serfs were under the feudal system.
At least the serfs had a little plot of ground that was theirs to have a garden, maybe a cow or two, etc.
Is eugenic thinking around today?
Oh, with the defeat
of Nazi Germany, it's true the term "eugenics" went into disfavor. But could it be eugenic thinking
is still very much present - just the formal title is now omitted?
Eugenics
says there are upper classes and lower classes, superior strains and inferior ones. Do we see such thinking today?
Consider a mindset that thinks most parents are inferior and only the state or "village" should
raise the child. Consider a ruling elite that is more and more taking over local school systems. (Obviously only the intellectual
elite at the top can better handle local education.) Consider the mind set where the ruling and intellectual elite send their
children to private schools, but the masses have to send theirs to what are openly admitted to be inferior
schools - rife with many educational and discipline problems. A school situation so bad that it is even reported in some school
districts one half of the teachers turn their backs on free state education and pay to give their own
children an education at private schools.
Understanding, as I did, eugenic
thinking for the first time, is it possible today's social structure really has a lot to do with Eugenics, but without
the title?
Compare today's society with what was revealed to us about
eugenic thinking and goals:
1) The breakdown of the family. (Especially notable are black families -
(11)from 82% both parents in the 30's to 30% today.)
2) The removal of God from schools,
textbooks, and public buildings.
3) The breakdown of education for the "lower" classes. A
number of studies that measured today's test results in poorer schools vs. tests at the same schools in the past reveal
this breakdown.
4) The dogma that just like "the other animals" humans should practice free
sex and be promiscuous.
5) The consequences of no family unit and free sex are taken care of by the
state in public funded abortion clinics.
6) The development of a citizen class that depends on monthly
state checks and programs.
Considering the above accomplishments, can we
see some eugenic goals carried out, including that of control of the so-called "lower" classes;
so they placidly accept their lot, remaining docile and subservient to the "superior" classes?
More eugenic thinking today?
How about a year 2000 article that appeared in
prestigious Time magazine. The thrust of the article was that because some apes and other animals kill their young, why we
should not be surprised when a girl takes time out from the prom to have a baby in the rest room, promptly throws the newborn
in the dumpster, and then merrily goes back to finish dancing at the prom! No, according to the article, this behavior should
be accepted because, after all, other animals from time to time kill their young.
Right now, today, there are sociologists busily studying animal "family"
behavior so they can apply what they learn to human families! An especially rewarding part of their study would probably
be finding animals that kill their young from time to time.
Could such
thinking be eugenics, but without the title?
Part III
Has Evolution
Become a Religion?
Has evolution progressed from theory in 1859, to eugenics
in 1900, to being a religion in 2000?
Consider.
The evolution theory is taught today in our schools as proven fact. The creation alternative is not even allowed
to be presented. The various media also treat evolution as fact.
Today's
evolution does seem much like a religion, and a controlling one at that. One that requires an enormous amount
of religious faith from its followers. A book I thought excellent on exposing evolution's religious
aspects as well as refuting its doctrines, was "Darwin's Leap of Faith", sub-titled "Exposing the False
Religion of Evolution" by John Ankerberg and John Weldon.
The
two religions compared
I think readers will find an actual comparison of the two religions
revealing. Consider:
Evolution says: :Man, descended from apes,
is "just another animal".
:Man, descended from
apes, is "
just another animal".
Christianity
says: Man is made in the image of the creator God.
Man is made in the
image
of the creator God.
Evolution says: Just like animals,
humans have a superior strain and an inferior one. The superior is entitled to rule, The inferiors
should be subservient and accept control by their superiors.
Just like animals, humans
have a superior strain and an inferior one. The superior is entitled to
rule, The inferiors should
be subservient and accept
control by their superiors.
Christianity says:
Each human being is created equal and have equal rights. We are all brothers
and sisters.
Each human being is created
equal and have equal
rights.
We are all brothers and sisters.
Evolution says: It's survival
of the fittest. The strong deserve to suppress, rule, and exploit the weak.
It's survival of the
fittest. The strong deserve to
suppress, rule, and exploit the weak.
Christianity says:
The strong should help the weak. We should treat others as we want to be treated.
The
strong should
help the weak. We should treat others as we want to be treated.
Evolution says: Individual lives are subordinate to the survival of the species.
The group is what is important.
Individual lives are subordinate to the survival of the
species.
The
group is what is important.
Christianity says: Each human life is equally important.
Each human life is sacrosanct.
Each human life is equally important. Each human life is sacrosanct.
Evolution says: Since all has happened by accident, there is no moral code. There are no absolutes.
There is no right or wrong.
Since all has happened by accident, there is
no moral code. There
are
no absolutes. There is
no right or wrong.
Christianity says: Man should
live by a moral code. There are absolutes, there is right and wrong.
Man
should live
by a moral code. There
are absolutes, there
is right and wrong.
Evolution says: Since all is by pure accident, and death is the end, humans should just
do what feels good to them.
Since all is by pure
accident, and death is the
end, humans should
just do what feels good to them.
Christianity says: We are not here by accident, but by purpose.
With a life after death, man has obligations and responsibilities.
We are not here by accident, but by
purpose.
With a life after death, man has obligations and responsibilities.
Evolution
says: Because "humans are just animal" , they are not really responsible for their actions,
but instead are victims of their genes, environment, etc. (We can certainly see this thinking all
around us today!)
Because "
humans are just animal" , they are not really responsible
for their actions, but instead are
victims of their genes, environment, etc. (We can certainly see
this thinking all around us today!)
Christianity says: Each person is responsible for
his or her own actions and outcomes.
Each person
is responsible for his or
her
own actions and outcomes.
Seeing the two religions
compared side by side makes it easy to see how much they are directly opposed to each other.
In Summary.
I think the ramifications of evolution
thinking reach further and with more harmful consequences than most of us have realized. What this writer
learned just recently about eugenics was for him a shocking eye opener.
How
important is the evolution vs. creation issue? I am starting to think it is very important indeed!
How has evolution and eugenic thinking changed our beloved country? I am starting to think is has
changed it very much indeed!
It is hoped this article will be a wake
up call to Christians who believe in the Creator God. It is also hoped this article might spark a desire
for Christians to prove the Creator to themselves even more fully than in the past. And for evolution believers looking at
the alternative, perhaps this article might cause you to look closer at the consequences of evolution doctrine. Are
those consequences what any of us really want?
There is
an ongoing battle taking place. Unfortunately the creation side is losing; evolution is gaining more and more prominence and
control.
We should be defending and promoting
creation at every opportunity.
C. Frazier Spencer
References and footnotes:
Note: some quotes may have underlining, boldface,
or italics added for emphasis.
(1) Creation Ex Hihilo magazine, March-May, 1995.
(2)
"G.K. Chesterton Radical Populist" by Margaret Canovan, published 197 by Bruce Jovanovich Company, NY.
(3)
"Introductary Botany" by Linda R. Berg, Ph D, published 1997 by Saunders College Publishing.
(4) "Quantum
Healing" by Deepak Chopra, published 1989 by Bantam Books, NY.
(5) "Tornado in a Junk Yard" by James
Perloff, published 2001 by Refuge Books, Arlington, Mass.
(6) "Botany for Gardeners" By Harold Wm. Rickett,
published 1957 The MacMillan Company, NY
(7) "Evolution-The Triumph of an Idea" published 2001 by Harper Collins
Publishing, Inc., NY 10022
(8) "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins, published 1996 by W.W. Norton &
Company, NY 1010
(9) "Sex and the Origins of Death" by William R. Clark, published 1996 by Oxford University
Press, New York.
10) For more, see the article, "Did the first cell evolve?"
11) Figures from Bob Woodson,
prominent black advocate for return to family values.
(12) For more on a creator in other cultures, see "How
important is creation for today's Christian?"
(13) For more on cells, see the article, The first cell
- evolved or created?
