Basic HTML Version
46
EVOLUTION...
Mysterious New Religion?
forced to abdicate his kingdom section
by scction." "Opcrationally God is be–
ginning to rescmble, not a ruler, but the
last fading smile of a cosmic cheshire
cat."
I sincerely doubt that Mr. Huxley ex–
pericnced a wavc of protcst challcnging
these as blasphcmous allegations, since
attacking God has Long since been con–
sidered not only acceptable, but chic.
But it is amusing to meto ponder the
attitudcs of thosc indignant spirits
whose irc is arouscd at tbe slightest
questioning of evolutionary dogma.
Had
J
said, in past articles, "Our
FAITH
in God depcnds on our reluc–
tance to accept thc antagonistic doctrine
of cvolution," I can almost see the
sneers, and hear the shrieks of derision
and chortlcs of scorn from dyed-in-the–
wool evolutionists. Had I said, " In
religion one should
NEVF.R
acccpt a
scicntific explanation if a spiritual ex–
planation is possible, or indeed, con–
ccivable,"
1
shouJd have b<:en accused
of the very narrowcst of anti-scientific
bias!
It
would seem such arguments work
both ways.
Mr. Huxley also said , "Darwinism re–
moved the wholc idea of God as the
Creator of organisms from the sphere of
rational discussion," tht1s labeling any
and all who should
cver
challcnge Dar–
win's conclusions as being irrational.
Strong words, those - and a most
direct challengc to thc Creator and H is
laws. Another writcr said, "The first
point to makc about Darwin's theory is
that it is no longer a theory, but a fact.
No serious scientist would deny the fact
that evolution has occurred, just as he
would not deny the fact that the earth
goes around the sun" (
1
JJ/Ies in Evoill–
tion,
p.
41).
A
House Divided
But scrious or not, many scientists
HAVE
dcnied that cvolution is a proveo
fact - and there are nearly as many
varying postulates for evolutionary
thought as thcrc are cvolutionists to
propose them.
Whilc somc laymen may be under the
The
PLAIN TRUTH
impression evolutionists are unificd in
their acceptance of cvolutionary theory,
the truth is far different.
For example, "As we know, there is a
great dit•ergence of opinion
among biol–
ogists, oot only about the causes of
evolution but even about thc actual pro–
cess"
(J
011mal
of the American Soen–
tific A ffiiiation).
Mr. Huxley himself said, "Wc need
not deoy the fact of cvolution
became
u·e
have not yel disrot•ered the
nw–
chinery."
From left to right, illustrations
showing similority of human,
chicken, ond shork embryos. ls
this o proof of evolution? Or
doesn't this more logically show
that all embryos were designed
by the sorne master orchitect –
a supreme Creator?
Jf
this were your approach to under–
standing, say, a modera jet airplane, you
would appear a Iittle ridiculous. To
confidently
aJsmne
it had
EVOLVl'D,
and
to call your
aJSmnption
a
FA(T,
even
while admitting it was incomprehensible
to you just
HOW
such a modern marvd
COULD
have evolved- well ...
Said another author, "In other words,
the evolutionists do not doubt for a mo–
ment that evolution has occurrcd; but
when it comes to the qucstion of just
precisely
HOW
evolution occurs they are
at a loss to answer"
(New ViewJ
OIL
Evoltttion,
G. P. Congcr).
February, 1970
And still another said, "Among the
present generation no
informed
person
cntertains
t117)'
do11b1
of thc validity of
the evolution theory io the sense that
evolution has occurred, and yet nobody
is
audac10us enough
to
believc himsclf
in the posscssion
of
the knowledge of
the
aclllttl mechmlics
of evolution"
(The i\fflftJiom of Philo1oph)',
p.
70,
Will Durant).
lt
seems to
be
a matter of selecting
the "notion" or the "thcory'' which is
most appcaling to you, and then oper-
ating from the point of view of that
theory!
But can theories color even thc
known, provable, practica! facts?
lndeed they can!
Recently, one layman attempted to
cnlighten me on the theories of "theis–
tic evolution," the while daiming to set
forth comparative anatomy aod physi–
ology as his most basic proof.
He nevcr for a moment saw thc
whole argumeot of comparative anat–
omy
IS EVEN 6.ETTER SUITED TO DIVINE
CREATION,
since
it
plainly shows a
MASTER PLANNER,
and
ONE DESIGNER,
utilizing
ONE OVERALL PLAN.
Jr/h;
didn't he see this?
Because his whole
approach
was pre–
conditioned, in advancc.
Preconditioned Attitudes
Once your
attitttde
is set, your mind
condit ioned to "see" something which