Basic HTML Version
dogma is "something held as an es–
tablished opinion." Dogma is "a
point of view or tenet put forth as
authoritative
without adequate
grounds. ,,
Let's examine merely one crucial
tenet of evolutionary theory - the
alleged key to evolutionary progress
itself - mutations. Mutations are
hereditary alterations in an orga–
nism which are transmitted from
one generation to another.
The theory of evolution states
that all the present forms of Life
gradually evolved, via random mu–
tations, from sorne original cell
which had evolved from protein-like
substances in nature.
But, creationists ask, are muta–
tions really the long sought key to
evolutionary progress?
What Mutations Prove
Biologists have demonstrated that
random mutations, in combination
with other factors, can lead to new
hereditary variations among plants
and animals.
So far, however, both creationists
and evolutionists are in agreement.
Biblical creationists do not dispute
the fact of mutations or the new
hereditary variations that they bring
into being.
Creationists assert that mutations
and recombinations of genetic ma–
terials have never been demon–
strated to bring about new types or
forms of organisms. Such changes as
have been observed have always
been within the limits of known
types or forms of organisms.
Sorne biologists, aware of the fact
thal an accumulalion of very slight,
"micro" mutations would not be
sufficient to cause the tremendous
diversity of living things such as ex–
isl on the earth today, have opted
for a variation of the mutation the–
ory. They tbeorize that sudden and
major mutations, called macromula–
tions, may account for evolutionary
progress. Yet this theory is so lack–
ing in evidence that the vast major–
ity of scientists reject it.
26
Any sudden major mutation, for
example, in a delicate, finely tuned
organ, such as the eye or ear, would
most likely result in the loss of eye–
sight or hearing ability, particularly
when we realize that such a change
is completely "at random" !
Consider: If even the slightest
thing went wrong with the eye, if the
retina were missing, or the optic
nerve were not properly connected,
or the lens were too smal4 too large,
or opaque, or if the dimensions of
the eye itself were in error, the eye
would be useless! How, then, can
one imagine that such a complex
organ as the eye evolved "sud–
denly," in a "giant creative leap"?
Clearly, the theory of evolution
does not rest on a solid, secure foun–
dation.
It
is a very tenuous theory,
built on much speculation, supposi–
tion, guesswork, hopeful hypotheses
and faith. From the standpoint of
probability alone , the chances
against a human being "evolving''
from ancient scum three billion
years ago, from a few chemicals to a
30-trillion-celled organism of in–
credible complexity - with eyes,
ears, nose, teeth, limbs, digestive
system, skeletal build, circulatory
system, and an astonishing brain
with a mental capacity that totally
sets man apart from every animal or
plant on earth - simply surpass the
estimated number of atoros in the
known universe!
Wby, then, ask creationists, do
evolutionists believe their theory is
true and only argue about the tech–
nical points involved?
The Human Side of
Science
Perhaps the best explanation has
been pinpointed by the renowned
American naturalist Joseph Wood
Krutch, who wrote: "Many biolo–
gists have moments when they ac–
knowledge the ultimate mystery and
wonder of life but often they are too
irrevocably committed to
mecha–
nistic dogmas
and
too afraíd of the
sneers of theír fellows
not to hedge
even when their own logic compels
them to admit that the accepted
premises are by no means wholly
satisfactory"
(The Great Chain of
Life,
p. 163).
This famed naturalist saw the fal–
lible, human side of science - the
side where human nature, prejudice,
opinion, and bias run strong. He
discemed that scientists have never
been given a rational and scien–
tifically reasonable alternative to
evolution.
Another author, Fritz Kahn, pul
the question tltis way: "We are
loday under the spell of the evolu–
tionary thinking begun 150 years
ago by Kant and Laplace in astron–
omy, by Thomas Vuckle and Herder
in hislory, by Buffon, Lamarck and
Danvin in biology." He continues:
"We lhe children of those genera–
tions
automatícally
think in terms of
evolution ..."
(Desígn of the Uní–
verse,
p.
202).
Plainly, the world has substituted
evolutionary dogma in place of
medieval theological dogma.
An Alternative to
Evolutionary Theory
There is an alternative lo both the
theological errors of many creation–
ists and the belief of evolutionists.
The Bible simply states "In the
beginning (at sorne remole, unspeci–
fied períod of time] God created the
heaven and the earth" (Genesis
1:1). That statemenl is completely
in
accord with the empirical knowl–
edge amassed by scientists, astrono–
mers, and biologists. Whenever
scientists discuss the question of ori–
gins, they admit that science hasn' t
provided an answer that "proves"
how or when the universe or life
originated. The question of origins
goes beyond scientific testing.
Why, then, won't many admit
that it is entirely logical , plausible,
and sound to consider the biblical
statement that God created lhe uní–
verse and life? The explanalion is
that belief in creation has been too
often combined with many un-
PLAIN TRUTH
June
1973