Basic HTML Version
genetic code. lt is this random
error-making in the genetic ma–
chinery that jurnishes evolut ion
with the stu.lf oj creative change.
We did not say t hat mutations
cou ld not account for
sorne
changes
in t he structure or appearance of
organisms. 1n fact, we gave an
example of t his. What
The Plain
Truth
did state is that mutations
cannot p roduce
genuinely new
forms of life. We stand on this
statement. Whi le minor variations
in appearance or structure might be
produced by mutations, there is no
evidence whatsoever that mutations
produce the ki nd of quant um leaps
requ ired by the theory of evolu–
tion.
The j oss il record
c/early shows e110lution
has taken place.
The fossil record pro-
is speculati ve in science i s there–
j ore wrong.
As far as taking science as a "fin–
ished product" is concerned, we are
fully aware that scientific theories
undergo cont i nua! refincment.
Many scientists cheerfully admit
that they are speculating. We have
no complaint wit h scient ific specula–
t ion as long as such is truthfu lly
identified as speculat ion. Evolution–
ists however do not admit that the
theory of evolution is speculative.
lnstead, they palm off speculation as
fact. In the March
23,
1981, issue of
t he
Chronide of Higher Education,
Rolf M. Sinclair, a physicist at t he
U.S. National Science Foundation,
is quoted as follows:
''
guage
defines jaith or heliej in
God as a " beliej that does not
rest on logical prooj or material
evidence."
A d ictionary is not an arbiter of
truth. Actually, dictionaries give
severa! definitions of faith. Not
every dictionary definition of fai t h
demands the exclusion of logic, rea–
soning or material evidence. True
fai th, t he kind of fait h spoken of in
the Bible, is not a blind, supersti–
tious, illogical faith.
1t
is a faith
based on "evidence of things not
seen" and is in harmony with logic,
reason and the factual world.
Where did God come jrom?
S ince the creator of the universe
would have to be more "compli–
cated" than the universe
itself, the probability oj
God coming into exi s–
tence by chance would be
vides considerable evi–
dence that evolution did
not occur. Consider t he
facts. Evol u t ion wou ld
require a foss il record
that shows the
gradual
We do not ... dispute the
existence of cases in which
natural selection has
less than the probability
of the universe coming
into exi stence by chance.
This is a popu lar argu–
ment.
It
has two funda–
mental flaws.
changing of one species to
another with numerous
transitional
forms. But
instead the fossil record
shows broad gaps be–
tween fossil species for
which there are no inter-
occurred... . Natural selection
First of aH, an Eterna!
Being does not need to
come into existence, s ince
he has always existed. 1t
makes no sense to ask:
can only explain survival
med iate forms.
of the fittest. lt does not explain
arrival of the fittest .
"What is the probability
that a Being, who always
existed, carne into exis–
tence?" The question is
inherently cont rad ictory.
Note this startling ad–
mission of an evolutionist:
"T he known fossi l rec-
ord fails to document a
single example of phylet ic
evolution accomplishing a major
morphologic t ransition and hence
offers no evidence that the gradual–
istic model can be valid"
(Macro–
evolution: Pattern and Process,
Steven M. Stanley, page 39).
S cientis t s have created lije.
They made a simple organism that
could eat oi/ spills in the ocean
and then die out j or lack oj j ood.
Act ually, these organisms were
not created from nonliving matter.
They were developed from existing
living organisms through genetics.
These genetic engineers have no
more claim to creating life than a
dog breeder does.
You are presenting to your read–
ers the j allacy that science is a
finished product and that whatever
12
''
" The fact of evolution is as
incont rovertible as the fact that t he
earth is spherical rather than
flat."
T he author and biochemist Isaac
Asimov stated:
"Scientists have no choice but to
consider evolution a fact" ("The
Genesis War,"
Science Digest,
October, 1981, page 85).
" Having the fact of evolu tion
befare us ... "
(ibid.,
page 85).
"Evolution is a fact ... "
(ibid.,
page 87).
Honestly, does that sound like
speculation to you?
Your acceptance oj God 's exis–
tence is not based on rational
thinking.
The American Heri tage
Dictionary of the E nglish Lan-
Second, ete rna! exis–
tence is not a chance phe–
nomenon. Someo ne or
something either always existed or
did not always exist. No probability
is involved. For this reason we can–
not apply probability to questions
such as, " Does God exist?" or " Has
t he universe always existed?"
Why could not God have chosen
to use evolution to produce lije
jorms we see in the world?
Where does a 500-pound gorilla
si t ? Wherever he wants. How did
an Eterna! God create l i fe?
Obviously, however he wanted!
Would a super intelligent, super–
powerful Divine Being use a chaot–
ic, random, haphazard process such
as evolution to create life? We
quote the eminent scientist Sir
Fred Hoyle:
(Continued on page 38)
The
PLAIN TRUTH