Basic HTML Version
evolulionary explanation may not
be complete or compelling but
nothing e/se is possib/e."
In other words, lhe evolutionisl,
after he has left the Creator out of
the picture, because he found the
traditional inlerpretalion of Gene–
sis lo be in error, has no choice but
lo try making evolution work. As
this well-known author remarked,
"no alternate explanation to evolu–
tion is possible."
Evolutionists are stuck with evo–
lution. This, in spite of the fact that
they cannot adequately explain lhe
mechanism by which evolution is
supposed to have taken place.
There are all those gaps in the
"evolutionary tree."
Oh, there have been attempts to
fill those gaps- with a measure of
wishful thinking. Charles Darwin,
for example, wrote in
The Origin of
Species
that "the number of inter–
mediate and transitional links,
between all living and extinct spe–
cies,
must have. been
inconceivably
great. But assuredly,
if
this theory
be true [he doesn ' t sound con–
vinced!], such
must have lived
upon the earth" (emphasis ours).
"Must have"? But where? When?
Who has found the proof that this
"inconceivably greal" bost of inter–
mediate species existed? Where are
all those missing links that "must
have" lived on earth? One hundred
years after Darwin this essential
proof is embarrassingly absent!
Even a sizable number of evolu–
tionists have come to accept that
"transitional links" will never be
found. But since they are aware of
no plausible alternative to evolution
that would involve God, the Cre–
ator is kept out of the picture. In an
effort to bridge the gaps in the bio–
logical record, as revealed in geol–
ogy, the idea of "punctuated evolu–
tion," or evolution by leaps, has
attracted .recent interest. Jf, howev–
er, a long, slow process of evolution
has failed to leave a credible record,
it is certain an evolution-by-leaps
has lefl even less of one.
Sorne seek to get around the dif–
ficulties in tbe evolutionary concept
by resorting to a form of theistic
evolution. This brings God into the
evolutionary process. But only far
enough to get evolution over the
rough spots like the origin of the
first living cells, missing links and
20
other such troublesome problems.
lt is merely another effort to inter–
pret the physical evidence without
giving God lhe credit.
Not that the Bible is specifically
a science textbook.
1t
is not. But
where the Bible speaks on scientific
matters, it is in harmony with the
facts of science.
Correctly understood, the Gene–
sis account .renders totally unneces–
sary any attempt to explain the
physical evidence in evolutionary
terms. Consider a couple. of the
popularly cited ' 'proofs" of evolu–
tion and see how easily they fit into
the biblical account of creation.
Evolutionary science places heavy
emphasis on comparative embryolo–
gy. So what if the embryos of
humans, chickens, pigs and turtles
look similar at certain stages in thei¡:
development? That's no problem. ·
One Designer designed them all.
Why wouldn't tbere be similarities?
Why wouldn' t there be a repetition of
themes justas individual buildings by
the same architect or different mod–
els of automobiles made by the same
company may have similarities?
Most houses and most automobiles
look similar in the early stages of
manufacture. So it is with embryos.
A pig embryo, however, never
becomes a chicken. Nor a chicken a
turtle. Nor a turtle a .huma!). Each
reproduces after its kind.
.
But what is the origin of the differ–
ent "kinds" with their individual
characteristics? Evolutionists have
derided .creationists for continually
citing examples of ihe "wonders of
nature." But such chiding does not
answer. tbe question: How can the
design evident in the "wonders .of
nature" be explained? The skill of the
garden spider in building its web, the
interdependent partnership between
certain insects and flowers, the dead–
eye accuracy of the arcber fish, tbe
entertaining antics of dolphins and
seals, the agile trunk of elephants,
and man himself- an assemblage of
30,000,000,000 living cells function–
ing harmoniously, capable of
thought, of emotion, of expression,
able to split atoms he cannot see orto
construct immense edifices-these
. and incalculable numbers of other
"wonders" cannot be rationally
accounted for by a blind, purposeless,
unintelligent, time-and-cliance pro–
cess of evolution.
The subject cannot be avoided.
Nor can the conclusion: Design
demands a Designer!
What about the "survival of the
fittest"? Which schoolchild has not
read about the light-colored moths
and lhe dark-colored moths on the
tree trunk? The light-colored ones,
if more conspicuous, are quickly eat–
en by birds. The dark moths survive
because they are less visible.
"See?" proclaim the evolutionists,
"survival of the fi ttest." And indeed
it is. Tbe principie of su.rv1val of the
fittest does have a place in the natural
scheme. But it does not bring about a
change from one life form to another!
It does not explain the
cirrival
of the
fittest.
It
merely helps determine the
survivability under given conditions
of varieties naturally occurring with–
in the bouñdaries of each Genesis
kind. The dark-colored moths do not
become something else. They are still
moths·. And so they shall ever be.
These are two of the primary .
proofs given for evolution. And yet,
as these examples illustrate, tbe phys–
ical evidence of and ·by itself does not
require .an evolutionary explanation.
In arder to fit into the concept of
evolution· the physical evidence must
be interpreted according to evolu–
tionary thought.
_It
is not the evidence
itself that is even the central issue in
the creation versus evolution contro–
versy. lt is the
interpretation
of that
evidence that is the crux of the whole
matter!
.
In other words, the evidence used
or discovered by evolutionis,ts does
not pose a problem for creationists
who unde(stand the true biblical
account of creation.
Seeing the Facts Clearly
Interpretaiion .of evídence is one
thing. There is_ unfortunately, how- .
ever, another factor sometimes at
work: lack of candor.
The Plain
Truth
publisbed an ·article sorne
months ago as·serting that the mar–
velously complex human. eye could
not bave evolved from "primitive"
· eyes. An inquiring reader sent a
copy of the
Plain Truth
article toan
evolutionist editor for comment.
Notice how the answer he received
obscures the facts.
"Eyes in existence today," the
evolutionist wrote back, "range all
the way from light-sensitive spots
(Continued on page 28)
The
PLAIN TRUTH