Things to consider concerning origins

As I reconstruct the site, I appreciate your patience. Sometimes "living and learning" is part of the program. We'd like to think we can perfect something before even trying it out...but it isn't always realistic. I think John Maxwell calls that "Failing Forward"...come to think of it, I guess I do that pretty regularly, if I'm honest with my day to day happenings.

Here are some things to consider in the meantime...

The idea of evolution is the prominent teaching in our public school textbooks (any age) concerning a theory for the existence and origins of man. Even 1st grade texts comments slant in this direction in order to "indoctrinate" their religious views. In case this doesn't concern you, I will remind you that there were over 80 million kids in public school last year.

In this sample letter, I have responded to some normal criticisms of the creationist view of origins. Although the names have been changed to protect the "innocent" (as if such a thing existed), this correspondence did take place.

Dear Mr. “Smith”,

I apologize for my laxity in responding to your e-mail. Thank you so much for your response. I have moved for the year and will be back in St. Louis next July 31st. Anyway, I am concerned that you may have been misled as to what a religion is. Let me explain.

Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines a religion as "a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices"
[Merriam-Webster, I. 1996, c1993. Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary. Includes index. (10th ed.). Merriam-Webster: Springfield, Mass., U.S.A.]

Here's the problem. As you well know, evolution (in all forms with the exception of micro-evolution: variations within kinds...the only form observed) is only a theory and never can be proven. A true scientist regards science as "a department of systematized knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws as obtained and tested through scientific method" (Merriam Webster, 2003).

Let's take creationists, for example, who have no problem affirming that these variations exist. But to assume the rest of the evolutionary theory as undeniable fact because of that is outrageous. Even prominent evolutionists cannot and don’t say that. Here are some examples.

"Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable." -Sir Arthur Keith

Sir Julian Huxley was one of the world's leading evolutionists in 1975 and was asked on a television interview "Why have so many scientists been so quick to adopt Darwin's theory of evolution?" His answer was rather telling...he said, "The reason we scientists all jumped at The Origin Of Species was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores."

Dr. George Wald, Harvard’s Nobel prize winner, 1989, said this: “There are only two possible explanations as to how life arose: Spontaneous generation arising to evolution or a supernatural creative act of God…There is no other possibility. Spontaneous generation (a now discarded theory that living organisms can arise from nonlife matter) was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others, but that just leaves us with only one other possibility…that life came as a supernatural act of creation by God, but I can’t accept that philosophy because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution.”

Charles Darwin, himself, said this: “As by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? The number of intermediate links between all living and extinct species must have been inconceivably great!” So, where are they? I have heard many scientists approach this question…the bottom line is that they don’t know. All the ones that have been given are hoaxes or turn out to be wrong interpretations…like the latest written about by the University of North Carolina. “For immediate release” (go to www.unc.edu/news/archives/oct05/feducci100705.htm to read for yourself) “Latest study: scientists say no evidence exists that therapod dinosaurs evolved into birds” October 10, 2005 (No. 477) by David Williamson. Archaeopteryx is not what they originally interpreted it to be…a transitional fossil…there are none. Also regarding this idea is W. E. Swinton (British Museum of Natural History, London, in Biology and Comparative Physiology of birds, vol. 1, p. 1) who wrote this: “The [evolutionary] origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved.” Time Magazine was in the conversation on November 7, 1977 (but since has only been leading the seminar to brainwash) when they wrote: “Still doubts about the sequence about man’s emergence remain. Scientists concede that their most cherished theories are based on embarrassingly few fossil fragments and that huge gaps exist in the fossil record.”

Chester A. Arnold (Professor of Botany and Curator of Fossil Plants, University of Michigan in An Introduction to Paleobotany, p. 7) wrote: “As yet we have not been able to trace the phylogenetic history of a single group of modern plants from its beginning to the present.” Stephen Jay Gould (Harvard University) wrote this in Evolutions Erratic Pace, Natural History, Vol. 5, May 1977: “The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.”

This leads us to consider that when people look at these fossils, they are interpreting them. They don’t really know where, when or how they lived. We can only guess, or at best, use our heads (which can get us into trouble) concerning the specifics. William Fritz speaks of this when he wrote of upright stumps concerning fossilized trees found upright in the fossil record (standing upright through millions and millions of years without deterioration) when he said: “Deposits of recent mud flows on Mount St. Helens demonstrate conclusively that stumps can be transported and deposited upright. These observations support the conclusions that some vertical trees in the Yellowstone ‘fossil forests’ were transported in a geologic situation directly comparable to that of Mount St. Helens.” [“Stumps Transported and Deposited Upright by Mount St. Helens Mud Flows,” Geology, vol. 8 (December 1980), p. 588.] This could be related to the world-wide flood the Bible describes in Genesis 6-8!

All dating methods are speculation because they all start with certain assumptions that no one can verify! Let me give you a similar example: If I walked into a room and found a candle burning and was asked, “How long has that candle been lit?” there are a few things I could do to find out. I could measure the length of the candle and then measure how long it took for the candle to burn over time. But there are some limitations to my understanding. For example, I would never be able to fully know how tall the candle was, or if the rate of burning stayed the same (a slow breeze can cause a candle to burn 15x’s as fast as normal). There is much speculation and assumption when making this guess. These assumptions are based on the uniformitarianist mindset (begun in 1795 by James Hutton. See http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Tools/Quotes/hutton.asp and http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i1/plate_tectonics4.asp for more on how to discern uniformitarian thinking), which was correctly predicted by the apostle Peter:

NIV 2 Peter 3:3 First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.

That is why it has been recently said that “90% of all dating methods one can use to age-date things on the earth, get dates far younger than an evolutionist would require.” (Ken Ham)

Not all scientists agree on the age of the earth. I have also sent you an e-mail article that lists many living today (not a full listing, but many that have been spoken to) and the past who would disagree with the common thought regarding this theory. (www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/default.asp) Please understand that many things were common at one time or another…but that doesn’t make them correct. George Washington died after having his blood drained twice…because they believed in the doctrine of humors…which was used when someone was sick…the thought was that their blood was bad, so to make them better, drain the blood! Well, not exactly, we need that stuff. (The Bible says that the life is found in the blood…Leviticus 17:11, 14; Deuteronomy 12:23;)

But I disagree that all or even most scientists believe in evolution…however, even if that was the case, so what? Majority opinion doesn’t make something correct. Look at some of the past presidents that majority opinion put in office! Here is what Dr. T. N. Tahmisian of the Atomic Energy Commission (USA) said: “Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact.” That is a strong statement. Could the American public just “go along for the ride” and be too lazy to check out the facts and evaluate for themselves? I believe it is possible.

So does H. S. Libson, Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK. He wrote this in “A Physicist Looks at Evolution,” Physics Bulletin, vol. 31 (May, 1980), p. 138: “In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it, and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit with it.” Professor Louis Bounoure, Former President, Biological Society of Strasbourg, agrees saying: “Evolution is a fairy tale for grownups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.”

Even Carl Sagan shows his religious holding when he admits, among others to facts like these: “The esteemed Carl Sagan and other prominent scientists have estimated the chance of man evolving at roughly 1 chance in 10 to the 2 billionth. This is the number one with two billion zeros after it and could be written out in about 20,000 booklets…According to Borel’s law, this is no chance at all.” (Eugene, Oregon Harvest House Publishers, 1993), p. 21. Dr. Richard Dawkins (Department of Zoology, Oxford University, in “The Necessity of Darwinism,” New Scientist, April 15, 1982, p. 130) said this concerning stats (like the above): “The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe it happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer.”

George Sim Johnston in “The Genesis Controversy,” (Crisis, May 1989, p. 17) said: In other words, it’s natural selection or a Creator. There is no middle ground. This is why prominent Darwinists like G.G. Simpson and Stephen Jay Gould, who are not secretive about their hostility to religion, cling so vehemently to natural selection. To do otherwise would be to admit the probability that there is design in nature – and hence a Designer.”

Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University) professed to some problems and struggles of the theory of evolution when he said this: “This notion of species as ‘natural kinds’ fits splendidly with creationist tenets of a pre-Darwinian age. Louis Agassiz even argued that species are God’s individual thoughts, made incarnate so that we might perceive both His majesty and His message. Species, Agassiz wrote, are ‘instituted by the Divine Intelligence as the categories of his mode of thinking.’ But how could a division of the organic world into discrete entities be justified by an evolutionary theory that proclaimed ceaseless change as the fundamental fact of nature?” (By the way, Stephen Jay Gould also said this concerning the verdict on Creationism, New York Times July 19, 1987, p. 34: “No statute exists in any state to bar instruction in ‘creation science.’ It could be taught before, and it can be taught now.” Also, evolutionary biologist, Michael Simmerman wrote in “Keep Guard Up After Evolution Victory,” Bioscience 37 (9, October 1987): 636, said this: “The Supreme Court ruling did not, in any way, outlaw the teaching of ‘creation science’ in public school classrooms. Quite simply it ruled that, in the form taken by the Louisiana law, it is unconstitutional to demand equal time for this particular subject. ‘Creation science’ can still be brought into science classrooms if and when teachers and administrators feel that it is appropriate. Numerous surveys have shown that teachers and administrators favor just this route. And, in fact, ‘creation science’ is being taught in science courses throughout the country.”)

Dr. Robert V. Gentry, research physicist, said this: “The Big Bang is presumed to have produced just hydrogen and helium, only 2 of the 92 elements of the earth’s crust.” Malcolm Muggeridge, (journalist and philosopher, Pascal Lectures, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada) said this: “I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be on e of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.” But that shouldn’t surprise us…that is exactly what Hitler did. Hitler said: “Let me control the textbooks, and I will control the state.” He also said “How fortunate for those in power that the people never think.” Vladimir Lenin said: “Give me your four year olds, and in a generation I will build a socialist state.” (Lenin also said: “Destroy the family and society will collapse.”)

Please understand, Mr. "Smith", I am not against science or truth. I just want to help people, and I’m not afraid of being disliked in the process. A quote from a German pastor before WWII, Martin Niemoller, sticks in my mind: “In Germany, they [the Gestapo] came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.” I want to speak before there isn’t time, and time is running short.

I take seriously what will happen to someone when they die, and I am genuinely concerned for their eternal life. I also take seriously what P. Blanchard wrote in “Three Cheers for Our Secular State,” (The Humanist, Jan/Feb 1983): “I think that the most important factor moving us toward a secular society has been the educational factor. Our schools may not teach Jonny how to read properly, but the fact that Jonny is in school until he is sixteen tends toward the elimination of religious superstition. The average American child now acquires a high school education, and this militates against Adam and Eve and all other myths of alleged history.” Or how about Senator Paul Goagland (Nebraska) who said to Everett Siliven’s attorney in 1984: “Fundamentalist parents have no right to indoctrinate their children in their beliefs. We are preparing their children for the year 2,000 and life in a global one-world society and those children will not fit in.”

So, as you can see, evolutionists are no less "religious" than any of us...they just use a different "set of glasses" to perceive the world through. Let me know if there is any way I can help you. Please see www.answersingenesis.org for more biblical answers to tough scientific questions.