Скачать 1.35 Mb.
|Why We Believe in Creation not in Evolution|
by Fred John Meldau
A MILLION VOICES — From the Universe, the earth, the atom, from numberless specialized organs and odd creatures on land, in the air and in the sea, and from the body and mind of man — bear witness for God and Creation!
READING THE MANUSCRIPT of this book was a pleasant chore, involving a surprise. It was soon apparent that here was a "must" book for this troubled, confused hour — a volume seemingly specifically "come to the kingdom for such an hour as this."
This volume is of strategic importance to millions who seek sound knowledge, and evidence honestly interpreted. Evolution is given a head-on challenge, and should indeed be challenged ere millions of students and laymen accept the fraudulent speculation. The dangerously antichrist hypothesis should be most searchingly evaluated before it is accepted. It is being accepted by many as a basis for scientific socialism, secularism, atheism, communism, moral relativism, collectivism, materialism, scientific humanism, and related "isms." For evolution and naturalism to supplant supernaturalism and creative Omniscience will be at a bitter cost.
Thinkers who would like to locate quickly, ammunition against what they feel is a totally untenable theory, will find this book a comprehensive, well-stocked arsenal. (And, incidentally, one strikingly free of such errors as are sometimes found in writings by superficial students of so profound and vast a subject).
The widespread discovery of TRUTH in the area in which this book deals has a vital bearing on the number one problem of our century: What is man, and whence came he? And the even more important question, Is the Nazarene a "made-over ape" or is He the Son of God as He said — the Saviour of the world, God manifest in the flesh — the One who can lead us into God's kingdom of immortality?
References to supernaturalism (to creationism or "creatology") now approach the state of being one hundred percent blacked out in our schools, while most science teachers and writers jet-whoosh ahead on all fronts with a teaching directly opposite to the teaching of Scripture. It is no more than fair — basically right — that "the other side" of so vital an issue also should be given to our young people!
Do algae, amebas, worms, and so on up to apes and men "evolve higher" or do they not? Could it be true, as we sincerely believe, that each living thing stays in its kind — or dies? This book gives a convincing answer; and we may well believe that its position and material will be up-to-date for years to come. The reader will judge which "side" uses the best reason. Let us decide with truth — and so avoid possible treason before God!
Leroy Victor Cleveland, Th.B., Ed.M., Ed.D., (Hon)
Secretary, USA Division, Evolution Protest Movement,
The famous Rufus Choate once engaged in a legal battle with the more famous Daniel Webster. The case depended on whether or not two wagon wheels belonged to the same axle on the same wagon. Choate advanced a brilliant argument, based on the theory of the "fixation of points," that the wheels came from the same axle. He had the jury almost convinced. Then Daniel Webster took the stand. He asked that the wheels and the axle be brought forward. It was evident they did not come from the same axle, for they were not the same size. To the honest and sensible jury Mr. Webster simply said, "Look at those wheels, gentlemen, just look at them, and see for yourself that they did not, they could not, come from the same axle and wagon." That was all the argument he advanced. The fact was evident; and the jurymen were moved by the facts — and he won the case. If judged by the FACTS in the case, evolution hasn't a chance!
Our American jury system is based on the premise that the average man or woman, though not himself an expert, can decide an issue when evidence is presented to him. We will report facts in this book, knowing that the average person can come to the right decision when facts are presented.
Many professionals are easily fooled. Consider the case of the practical jokers in Paris who tied a brush to a donkey's tail and made him swish it on a canvas within reach. A clever and ambiguous title was given it — and the "picture" was duly accepted by an art committee for exhibition!
For forty years the world of scientists was fooled by the so-called "Piltdown Man," "discovered" by Charles Dawson in the south of England and long called "Eoanthropus" (dawn man), and reputed to be from 100,000 to 500,000 years old! The Smithsonian Institution of Washington gives details of the deception in "The Great Piltdown Hoax."
Careful "detective" work done by Dr. J. S. Weiner, and others, revealed that "the lower jaw and the canine tooth are actually those of a modern anthropoid ape, deliberately altered (filed down) so as to resemble fossil specimens." The faker had cunningly "fossilized" the jaw and teeth by staining them a mahogany color with an iron salt and bichromate!
If "experts" and "scientists" can be fooled so easily by a faked surrealistic painting, or a fraudulent fossil, will they not do as badly in trying to interpret the whole history of creation from bones, fossils and unproven theories?
Many of us prefer to believe the record of the divinely inspired Scriptures that assures us that "God created" the heavens and the earth, man, and all living things. All the evidence supports the Bible record; so we are intellectually compelled to stand on the Scriptural position.
Evolution or Creation
Evolutionists and Creationists both realize that the theory of Evolution and the teaching that God created all things are mutually exclusive. Years ago Sir Arthur Keith said,
"Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable." Others have voiced the same opinion.
Huxley declared, "It is clear that the doctrine of evolution is directly antagonistic to that of Creation. . . . Evolution, if consistently accepted, makes it impossible to believe the Bible."
If Evolution Is True the Bible is False
If evolution is true, not only is the Bible mistaken in its teachings that GOD CREATED all things, but also the doctrines of the Bible rest on a foundation of sand and must collapse. H. G. Wells sums up the situation in these pointed words:
"If all animals and man evolved. . . . then there were no first parents, no Eden, no Fall. And if there had been no Fall, then the entire historic fabric of Christianity — the story of the first sin and the reason for an atonement — collapsed like a house of cards." ("Outline of History")
But if the Bible is true — and we are absolutely certain it is — then evolution is merely the vain imaginings of biased men, men determined they will not believe in a Supreme Being, but ready to believe any kind of theory that might be a possible substitute for the evident fact of creation.
Evolutionists Are Now Gloating
With characteristic cocksureness, the authors (Linville, Kelly and Cleave) of the textbook "General Zoology," write, "All scientists at the present time agree that evolution is a fact."
Julian Huxley (grandson of Thomas Huxley, famous naturalist), an English biologist, boasts in his new book, Religion Without Revelation, that God has nothing left to do — all belief in His intervention in nature or human history having been debunked. Huxley infers that since sin and forgiveness are no longer real, God, he declares, has been forced to abdicate, "evacuating section after section of His kingdom." Huxley's actual words are: "Operationally, God is beginning to resemble, not a Ruler, but the last fading smile of a cosmic Cheshire cat. *
* A reference to the grinning cat in Dodgson's "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland," in which a grinning cat, in withdrawing from Alice's view, disappears so gradually that last of all to vanish is its grin.
Huxley, and more recent advocates of the "God is Dead" nonsense, and all other unbelievers who seek to drive God out of His own universe, will pay dearly for their folly.
What Evolutionists Are Aiming For
Thousands of American scientists are confirmed "scientific socialists," bent on bringing to eventual fruition their ideal of "scientific socialism." Communists know they do not have a chance to make America communist by means of a frontal attack on our ideology. But they also know they have a very good chance of bringing in communism through the back door of state socialism, and that is what they are trying to do. **
**Khrushchev made a prediction sometime ago that "the U. S. will go socialistic." Many students of political trends think he is right. The only thing that can save America from such a national calamity is the presence of millions of BIBLE-BELIEVING CHRISTIANS in our good land, who believe God and believe His Word.
Believing they have won the battle of the mind in intellectual circles, because so many have accepted the philosophy of evolution, evolutionists are looking forward to "the next step in the evolution of man," the introduction of "societal organism." In this book, "Evolution and Human Destiny," Fred Kohler says evolution is leading us on to a "scientific" world state.
"The individual. . . . must always suffer death. For the species as a whole (the race). . . . it would appear probable that a new integration step will take place, leading to the formation of an entirely new organic entity — namely the societal organism." "This," he adds, "is proceeding at a surprisingly fast pace."
Then he injects this horrifying thought: "The further evolution of human society would be greatly affected by the development of a reproductive system operating on a societal level. . . . An entirely different situation would prevail were it possible to sire future humanity from the best fraction of a percent of the human race" (pp. 107-109).
So, many of the intellectual leaders of our nation are seeking to browbeat and brainwash "the common herd" into the acceptance of the theories of evolution, jelled into the political formula of state socialism. And they are willing to prostitute our "rugged individualism," rape the human mind, banish marriage, and force the public into a goose-step mentality that can be led into the totalitarian setup of their predicted "societal organism." This eventually will demolish the home and set up a materialistic state based on "scientific breeding" that will produce a loveless, godless, Christless race, each individual being a mere cog in the state machine and Huxley's "scientific humanism" will replace God and Christ.
Could it be that the disciples of evolution, living in a Gospel-enlightened land, have closed their minds to the truth to the point where God has sent them strong delusion "that they should believe a lie" because "they received not the love of the truth, that they may be saved"? (see 2 Thess. 2:11, 10). One thing we know: tens of thousands of scientists and intellectuals in our country have turned from the Living God to faith in the preposterous theory of evolution.
On the other hand, scores of noted scientists have witnessed against evolution.
Prof. Fleischman, modern zoologist of Erlangen after repudiating Darwinism, said, "The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."
The late Sir William Dawson, Canada's great geologist, said of evolution, "It is one of the strangest phenomena of humanity; it is utterly destitute of proof."
Such a great thinker as Dr. Robert A. Millikan, famous physicist and Nobel prize winner, said, "The pathetic thing is that we have scientists who are trying to prove evolution which no scientist can ever prove." (Dr. Millikan is an evolutionist; but he is honest enough to admit it is a theory that can NOT be proved).
Our Method of Presenting Proof
We plan to prove in this book that (1) the evidence shows that nature — inorganic and organic: the world around us — must be the work of an Almighty, All-Wise Creator; and (2) "Evolution" is an utterly inadequate answer to the facts of nature. By disproving "evolution" we help to establish the fact of creation; by establishing the fact of the creative work of God, we disprove evolution.
Acknowledgements and Dedication.
In a work of this kind, touching on scores of highly specialized fields of science, the author has had to seek the advice, criticism and suggestions of biologists and other scientists. He wishes to acknowledge his special indebtedness to Prof. Leroy Victor Cleveland, Canterbury, Conn., and Willard L. Henning, Dep't of Biology, Bryan College, Dayton, Tenn. Others gave unstintingly of their time and resources of knowledge to assist in the preparation of this work. The author, however, must take full responsibility for the final form of all statements in the book.
We dedicate this book to two Christian business men — the late Lawrence Luce, Sr., of Fort Valley, Ga, and the late W.L. Hardin. Sr., of Atlanta. Ga. — whose financial assistance made possible its original publication.
THE CASE PRESENTED
"Development" and normal "growth" are not evolution. "Evolution" is often used to include the development and progress in inventions and industry, in such phrases as "the evolution of the telephone" or "the evolution of the automobile." The proper word to express such thoughts is "development."
Darwin defines organic evolution (p. 523, Origin of Species) as "the belief that all animals and plants are descended from some one . . . primordial form."
Commenting on the views of Lamarck, Darwin approvingly said, "He upholds the doctrine that all species, including man, are descended from other species . . . all change in the organic world being the result of (natural) law and not of miraculous interposition."
The LINE OF DESCENT from the lower to the higher forms of life is often given (with some variations) as follows: Protozoa — primitive metazoa — worms — fish — amphibians — reptiles — birds — mammals — man. Some recent Zoology textbooks (as Storer and Usinger) no longer refer to "a line of descent" but they speak of "specialized forms" that descended from some supposed ancestral lines (now non-existent) from which all present forms of animal life arose. This is a meaningless evasion — an alternate approach that solves no problems. But always, the transmutation from the lower form of life to the higher pre-supposes the gradual change by natural, resident forces, unaided by any external, supernatural intervention.*
*Many today hold to a modified theory of evolution — "Theistic evolution." It is based on the assumption that the higher plants and animals developed from lower forms of life, and that this was God's way of creating all higher forms of life, including man. This we are convinced is not in accord with either the facts of nature or Scripture, hence must be rejected.
The Bible Teaching Set Forth
The Bible clearly teaches that God created the heavens and the earth, and all forms of life on earth, including man. He created plants and animals in various "kinds" (families and genera) and gave each "kind" the power to reproduce, but only "after its kind."* (See Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 25, 26-27).
* The Hebrew word used in Genesis 1 for "create" is bara and infers Divine power. The Hebrew word for "kind" is min and obviously refers to a related group capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. It corresponds more to our word "genera" than "species" for some "species" according to recent classifications, do interbreed, with fertile offspring.
The statement that life as created by God should "bring forth after its kind" does not preclude the bringing forth of a great variety of that kind. For example, we have the canine "kind" in which are the related dogs (of many varieties), foxes, wolves, and hyenas.
Unfortunately, much confusion has resulted from the use of the word "evolution" to denote mere improvement of a species, or the development of new "varieties" within the species. Obviously, there are many "varieties" within each species — but to develop new varieties is definitely NOT evolution. Evolution teaches the change, or transmutation, via a generally slow, gradual process of mutation, of one genus into another, the lower into the higher. It does NOT refer merely to the "improvement" of a species. The controversy then is NOT over the "improvement" of a species by interbreeding, nor the development of different "varieties" within the species, but over the evolution of a NEW genus or "kind," the new developing from the old, the higher from the lower.