October 17, 2017

Have You Been Brainwashed by Evolution?

By Paul A. Jones

With the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859, the question of man's origin has been settled once and for all-man descended from the monkeys just as Darwin said, right? And in this enlightened age no intelligent person-certainly no scientist-questions the fact of evolution, right? Wrong!

For years it has been assumed (repeat, assumed) that Darwin proved the theory of evolution and, having proved it, disproved the book of Genesis in the process. But, I suggest that to draw this conclusion is to misstate the facts. For, as any reader of The Origin will learn, Darwin was not at all convinced of the finality of his thesis. In the sixth chapter of his book (Modern Library edition) he writes, "Long before the reader has arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to him. Some of them are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without being in some degree staggered" (Darwin, Op. cit., p. 124). Burroughs informs us, "Darwin was as far from being as sure of the truth of Darwinism as many of his disciples were, and still are. He said in 1860, in a letter to one of his American correspondents, 'I have never for a moment doubted that . . . much of my book will be proved erroneous.' Again he said, 1862, 'I look at it as absolutely certain that very much in the Origin will be proved rubbish'" ("A Critical Glance Into Darwin," Atlantic Monthly, Aug. 20, 1920, p. 238).

At this point, one may be thinking: But what about the fossils? And what about those experiments with the fruit flies, the gill-slits, mutations, and so on-don't they prove evolution? Let's look at these "proofs" one by one and see what they prove. As for the fossil record, Dr. Merson Davies, who holds two doctorates for research in geology, believes that the fossils support creation, not evolution (see L. Merson Davies, The Bible and Modern Science (1953), p. 6). Douglas Dewar, V. Z. S., a converted evolutionist, writes, "The creation. theories explain the fossil record far better than do those of evolution, and, as the latter involve impossible transformation, they ought to be abandoned" (Dewar, Transactions of the Victoria Institute (1944), p. 75). We agree.

Often cited as proof of evolution is the fruit fly (drosophila melanogaster). But; .breeding experiments with the fruit fly, far from proving evolution, have proved the very reverse (see Douglas Dewar, The Transformist Illusion (1957), p. 150). H. J. Muller. states that "most mutations are bad, . . . In fact, good ones are so rare that we can consider them as' all bad" (Time, Nov. 11, 1946). Muller is a geneticist at Indiana University.

What about the :recapitulation theory and the argument from embryology on "gill-slits"? The recapitulation theory (ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny) is an unfortunate "proof" of evolution, as it. does not agree with the facts. As Dewar pointed out, we know, from mammalian history that teeth were developed before tongues, but in the embryo the reverse is the case (Dewar, The Transformist Illusion (1957), p. 208). Darwin's old geology professor, Adam Sedgwick, said: "After fifty years of research and close examination, the recapitulation theory is still without satisfactory proof" (Sedgwick, Darwin & Modern Science, p. 176). The argument on gill-slits, so-called, is no better than the others. Dr. A. R. Short, M.D., F.R.C.S., is authority for the statement that "the 'gill-slits' are not slits at all in mammals; they are grooves between the arches that support the blood vessels necessary to supply blood to the forepart of the body, including the developing brain. In fish, these grooves become perforated, and gills are formed; in the mammalian embryo they are not perforated, and there are no gills" (A. R. Short, Modern Discovery and The Bible (1955), pp. 64, 106).

The theory of evolution simply bristles with difficulties. For one thing, evolutionists cannot account for the migratory instinct in birds on the basis of evolution. For another, the absence of transitional forms between the major groups of animals; for another, evolution cannot account for the origin of chlorophyl. And there are many other serious difficulties evolutionists cannot explain.

If the arguments for evolution are so weak, one might ask, why are scientists so overwhelmingly in favor of it? The truth is, there are a large number of scientists who do not believe in evolution. The Creation Research Society of Ann Arbor, Michigan, numbers among its member over 400 men who hold advanced degrees in various scientific disciplines. All of these men oppose the theory of evolution for scientific reasons. Dr. Frank Marsh, Ph. D., biologist says that "if evolutionists had not wasted a generation of hard work in trying to pick up a trail which never existed, biology would be at least a generation further along in the discovery of the laws and processes which do exist" (Marsh, Evolution, Creation and Science (1947),. p. 285).

That man was created, not evolved, is the testimony of Moses (Gen. 1:27; 2:7, 21-22), Job (Job 10:8, 11). Paul (Acts 17:29; Rom. 5:13), Solomon (Eccl. 7:29; 12:1), Christ (Matt. 19:4), and of God Himself (Gen. 1:26; 3:19). In his fine book The King of The Earth (1962), Erich Sauer writes: "Thomas Carlyle was once at a meeting of learned men in which the problem of man's descent was being discussed, and was asked to give his opinion. 'Gentlemen,' he said, 'you place man a little higher than the tadpole. I hold with the ancient singer: 'Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels' (Psalm 8:6)." Ruth Benedict, in Race: Science and Politics (1943), points out that "the Bible story of Adam and Eve, father and mother of the whole human race, told centuries ago the same truth that science has shown today: that all the peoples of the earth are a single family and have a common origin" (Benedict, Op. cit., 1943, p. 171).

It is unfortunate, but true, that many who embrace evolution do so because of a bias against the supernatural. Thus, D.M.S. Watson, British biologist writes, "Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or can be proved . . . to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." Another evolutionist, Sir Arthur Keith, confessed that while "evolution is unproved and unprovable" he believed it because creation was "unthinkable." Have you been brainwashed by evolution? The case for creation is more convincing.

Truth Magazine XXI: 37, p. 588
September 22, 1977

Share