W W W W  World Wide Web Witness Inc.  Home Page   Contents Page for Volume  What is New

The last of it

This phrase, involving the concept of the thrust and finality of things, brings to mind the supreme comedy of the concept of theistic evolution applied to man. What would you have ? A body being prepared over millions of years with various parts being set in motion ? ready in some elements for use when the times come which would make it possible for them to be activated ? one being made ready for a spirit at such time as it would be donated by divine action, which would at the last make man able to be in the image of God ? (Genesis 1:26, 2:27, Proverbs 20:27, 1 Thessalonians 5:23, 1 Corinthians 2:9:13).

Aeons of time, on such a basis, would be set aside for the completed preparation of what was not yet ready for such a spirit in man, and the development of the structural and neural groundwork for such a spirit, when at last its time had come.

It would be like putting on power steering and air- conditioning on a car, without the power to run them; they become rather worse than useless appendages in those circumstances, having to be first maintained and then carted about with no useful product for the time. But that is what evolution is all about, time. Thus the man being equipped for the great day when he would be ready for being a truly rational, symbolic logic type of linguist and thinker, and a worshipper, would for millions of years (on the usual model, but for whatever time) have the disadvantage, the anti-survival problem of useless, vulnerable equipment. This of course counters the usual approach in the evolutionary fairy tale, forgetful as normal of arrival and talking uselessly of survival; for in that setting, however inept, this is a minus, not a plus.

Worse is to follow for this model, relating to the Creator. God would, for the theistic evolutionist, have to be as it were oiling and maintaining this useless mess, till the spirit was given to man. Or would it be different, would the specifics of man, in his spirit, be poured into the inadequate receptacle of an unprepared form, so that it could not operate aright, beng without the right equipment! Would God then provide man with a spirit and its desires, together with bad equipment (less development 'time' taken) unable to interpret them, guaranteeing a caricature of God in the mind of almost-man!

Such a god might be the devil, but then he has shown no power to create at this level. The caricature of God is hardly in line with the clear statements of scripture, which, as we see, indicate God is very careful about his name, and will not lend it to comic or other irreverent antics. Truth matters to Him, He requires it, He is it. He is acutely concerned for the due use of His name, which expresses His character, and for the avoidance of foolish libels, labels, comedies, misconceptions and misuses. It is one of the Ten Commandments which features this point (Exodus 20:7), frequently in focus in the Bible (e.g. Deuteronomy 32:21, Ezekiel 36:22, 8:12-18, Jeremiah 14:13-17, 23:14-30, v. 24 in context).

The concept of making a systematically necessary deformation of truth as part of God's creation, an item in the way He chose to bring it to be, is not merely wholly and outrageously contrary to what Genesis 1-11 teaches; it is systematically wholly divorced from all God teaches of Himself. This it is not necessary to repeat in detail; but it is necessary to mention.

In fact, evolution in general, and theistic evolution in heightened form, bears a relation to the Bible of... divorce, contradiction and in effect rugged condemnation. Each curses the other. Theistic evolution has this special extra effect: it damns the hand that castigates it, caricatures the One who executes discipline, and ends, implicitly, telling Him that that is the sort of thing He does without provocation, for it is in His own heart. It is like a prisoner telling the judge that if he were God, this sort of 'cruelty' is just the sort of thing that would appeal to him in a work of creation. (Of course, godless non-theistic evolution has the same implication; it is just that the exponents would not realise it. In fact, they also deny God outright, as if to tell the judge: 'And furthermore, you don't even exist! Get that!' Pardon is merely the more distanced by such irrational and intemperate indulgences of fancy.)

One must however repeat this, for it is too good to let go readily: the failure of the Bible to endorse mutually exclusive propositions like those of theistic evolution and its entailed teaching on God's morals, ethics, work, is one more of its wonders.

If you study the work of students, you will realise that consistency is not always achieved. The broader the scope, the deeper the attempt, the greater the danger. The Bible, the most intense, extensive, analytical work, with mutually conformed depositions from the Lord spreading over thousands of years, never once has an inconsistency of its thought or teaching, its principles of presentation. Men may invent contradictory theologies; but this, the Bible does not do. Fantasies (*44) arise and fall; the Bible does not join them. Believers may be assaulted in this century or that; but the Bible does not change; it does not have to, for it speaks the truth.

This current field is merely one more delightful exhibit, where men, even recently, have set forth ideas and notions (cf. Chapter 2, earlier, and esp. pp. 128-140 supra) which are becoming so utterly ludicrous, even scientifically, as knowledge progresses, that we look in awe to see that the very first writer of the Bible in God's name, made no such mistakes.

When God is for you, you are perfectly safe: with God, one is enough.

The presentation of a spirit of man, all at once, a spirit made, all at once, is precisely what the Bible teaches. It is apt, adequate and significantly free from the defenestration so abjectly suffered by competitors. And what does it teach here ?

It is this: that One Creator, adequate in power, does what is cohesive in concept, to produce what holds no confusions or alien admixtures: that is, man at the outset.

As it is written: "God made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions" (Ecclesiastes 7:29).

This being is made in His own image (not geometrical, since He is a Spirit, but personal), so that thus a product is created. Able to act aright or awry, being free to respond or react, this being, man, defiles itself so liberally that we even have anti-evidential (where evidence applies), illogical and illusory hypotheses presented as if science by some scientists and, in some States like South Australia, blithely foisted on the young, denied normal liberties of debate, while... While what ?

It is done while the Christians are told not to be concerned, for they can have a god of some kind lying around somewhere. A god of some kind indeed; for as we have been at pains to demonstrate, the kind of 'god' concerned, Biblically is the devil. Thus man in government, provides for man governed, the wildest irrational folly, out of his own mind, in defiance of logic, scientific method and evidence. For this, as for various other misrepresentations which man in his confusion makes against son or daughter, wife or friend, and for such things over the ages, man is judged, and the force of the judgments is being augmented with time. This same man, however, if he is so moved, may repent of his follies, seek his Creator, accept His remedy, cease blaspheming His name by acting as if He did not have one, and be re-created.

But if not ? Where God is mocked by such dire misuses of His name (even children do not always reflect that they are mocking, though still responsible), what then ? Then, as for example in South Australia: then is our freedom eroded, many children are educationally abused, and truth is set aside - in favour of illusion - by command. And the children ? they are being taught to mock... It is scarcely surprising that with many, there seems an increasing facility to apply this caricature of learning, sad distortion of man, in the corruptive eruptions of disillusion. Command delinquency!

This is nothing new, but reaches new depth of deprivation of duty and truth, of which we may hear from Psalm 2, from the music of the Messiah; for its impact against the Christ has been foretold, and foretold to mount till man would assume control of his universe, even with its just and due curse, ignoring the penalty and indulging the cultural paranoia.

Civilisations have come and gone, and follies have been foisted onto the name of God. Is it surprising ? The beauty has its basis, as does the judgment, in God. The sin has its cry for recompense; God in His mercy may delay it, but judgment comes; while God in pity, has provided a remedy, a remedy for what, after all, is His creation.

Man is so marvellous a production that he can mock or even deny its Maker; and He is so infinitely wonderful a Creator that in advance, He has prepared and announced the procedure for pardon, in the Messiah, who came in the form of the man whom He had created, and spoke face to face with man the sinner. Offering Himself in a blessed humility with a love that inspires man in His image, He came as Himself the sacrifice, the only sacrifice, for that miscreant, man... man who has erred, but who may return on the path, prepared as surely as the circuitry of his brain, or the power of his thought, or the functionality of his will. Man may return on the path of God, to the heart of God, where he was first prepared.

End-notes to Chapter 2

1 A list of 180 vestigial organs compiled by Wedersheim has, we learn, been almost emptied by the luxuriant surge of developing knowledge: little is left for the disciples of controversy. See Evolution and Christian Thought Today, Ed. Prof. R. Mixter, p. 13. He also makes reference to Strauss and Legros Clark, see infra.

Of interest, more recently, is the article A Human Vermiform Appendix - A General Surgeon's Reflections, by Dr. J. Warwick Glover. It appears in the Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, Vol. 3, 1988. The author cites the most recent edition of Gray's Anatomy, grandfather of detailed medical texts as a background, and current as to modernity:

In view of its rich blood supply and histological differentiation, the veriform appendix is probably more correctly regarded as specialised than as ... degenerate.
Leaving facile assumptions for a moment, and facing facts, we see these two: blood supply and histological differentiation. Says Glover:
It can be seen that ... it is now generally accepted that the appendix is a highly specialised, well- differentiated organ apparently developed to the maximum in its specialisation in man.
This merely illustrates the devastating effect evolutionary assumptions can make in anaesthetising to facts. It is noteworthy (op.cit. p. 33) that monkeys do not have such an organ. He brings out the underlying humour well:
Evolutionary postulations would have us believe that a tailed mammal without an appendix gave rise to a monkey with a tail but still without an appendix, which then gave rise to an ape without a tail but with an appendix, and then on to man where the appendix has developed to the extreme!
Although an oversimplification, says Glover, this highlights the confusion. On the imaginary path to an extremely specialised organ, there is anything but the continuity to be postulated; far less is there transition. In fact, it might appear that if any theory mocked at evidence in the history of science, rather than following it, this is it.

2 See MINDING THE MARVELS OF MICROBIOLOGY: pp. 114 ff. infra (i.e. Section 2, DESIGN AND THEORY).

3 See as for *2, and also Section 3, DESIGN AND LANGUAGE, pp. 119 ff., infra.

4 Professor William Strauss of John Hopkins University also states:

There is no longer any justification for regarding the vermiform appendix as a vestigial structure.

It was Sir Wilfred LeGros Clark, of Oxford University, who some decades ago noted that the blood supply of the appendix was too rich for a dysfunctional organ. Yet a school textbook happily refers to the organ as 'vestigial'... and we now find that such matters are not, repeat not to be freely discussed in State-run school science classes.

So it goes... but where ?

5 Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity, Ed. Moore and Slusher, Zondervan, 1970.

6 Professor Karl Popper, The Poverty of Historicism, pp. 197-198.

7 Professor Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations, pp. 36-39. In his Objective Knowledge, Popper is decidedly declarative, affirming (p. 267):

Neither Darwin nor any Darwinist has so far given an actual causal explanation of the adaptive evolution of any single organism or any single organ.
Perhaps this notable non-attainment to which Popper above refers could be aptly phrased: 'the poverty of evolutionism'...


Dr Duane T. Gish, in his Evolution: The Challenge of The Fossil Record, provides some interesting retrodictive data on dilemmas and ditherings on the part of organic evolutionists.

Fascinating in this respect, and very seriously underlining the inability to achieve scientific clarity in that easiest of verificatory exercises, retrodiction - showing WHY your theory in fact required to happen what did happen - on the part of evolution, is this quotation.

It comes from Professor Derek Ager, Professor of Geology at Swansea, Wales a man whom Gish describes as a "fervent anticreationist":

It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student, from Trueman's Ostrea/Gryphea to Carruther's Zaphrentis delanouei, have now been "debunked". Similarly, my own experience of more than twenty years looking for evolutionary lineages among the Mesozoic Brachiopoda has proved them equally elusive.
This, taken from the Proceedings of the Geological Association, 87:132 ( 1976 ) is of great interest, as it is an empirical statement encompassing both personal review of the findings of others, over time, and of his own.

It fits perfectly with Professor Popper's protest that no law of evolution is available to signify its "goings" and that it is wholly unpredictable (as indeed, anything wholly unobservable and unverified and unseen, may be!). This is far from science.

Equally revealing is the point made by the British zoologist (and as Gish notes, evolutionist) Mark Ridley:

In the chapters on the fossil record in the Origin of Species, Darwin showed that the record was useless for testing... In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation. (New Scientist, 90:830-1981.)
Strange is the theory of events never seen, which does not call as a witness the testimony of their past!

It reminds one of a profound and romantic passion, wrought by a novelist, who, endeavouring to write an historical novel without too much research, is more likely to be embarrassed than helped, by accurate historical references to the period of the book.

Thus Professor W.R. Thompson, F. R. S. in his New Challenging Introduction to the Origin of Species (1956, for the Everyman Library Edition), declares:

A long-enduring and regrettable effect of the success of the Origin was the addiction of biologists to unverifiable speculation... The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity...
Here he cites the 'reckless statement of Haeckel' (caught up in something hard to distinguish from fraud in pushing the illusory concept of 'recapitulation', using misleading diagrams - he notes Haeckel's Fallacies by R. Blake, 1908); as also the "shifting, devious, and histrionic argumentation of T.H. Huxley"; the Piltdown fraud, and the suppression of vital information concerning the Pithecanthropus.

He moreover notes that since "there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the process," it is "therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non- scientific public to the disagreements..."

He proceeds :

To establish the continuity required by theory, historical arguments are invoked, even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypothesis based on hypothesis, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion.
Darwin, he states, satisfied a certain natural, human appetite, but we are beginning to realise now that the method is unsound and the satisfaction illusory. As to Darwin:
If we found in the geological strata a series of fossils showing a gradual transition from simple to complex forms, and could be sure that they correspond to a true time- sequence then that would be something.
This is certainly what Darwin would have liked to report but of course he was unable to do so. What the available data indicated was a remarkable absence of the many intermediate forms required by the theory; the absence of the primitive types that should have existed in the strata regarded as the most ancient; and the sudden appearance of the principal taxonomic groups ... Darwin in the Origin was not able to produce palaeontological evidence sufficient to prove his views but ...the evidence he did produce was adverse to them; and I may note that the position is not notably different to-day.
Against this wallowing in the imagination of a novelist without the discipline of scientific method, for the character of the claims, there is of course a simple fact almost continually forgotten or ignored by many propagandists (for whom of course fiction is often a notable adjunct, as here). It is this: the verification of the scientific fitness to survive of the hypothesis of self-creation of life and its types, individuals and complexity is precise, negative and continual. Once however is enough to end a scientific theory in its existing form, or altogether.

The feverish activity of contemporary biologists, with theory upon theory to replace Darwin, all deficient in schema, verification, natural law constraints or harmony with natural law, or indeed logic itself, as in any warrant: this works 'the unconscious' overtime, for the panting artisans of theory. Like Tantalus at his receding stream, they are ever trying, ever failing.

All this again illustrates the sad and even pathetic, the lamentable condition of the heart of man without God. Such would rather invent, through 'unverifiable hypothesis', to use Thompson's phrase, and despite clear contradiction of the very channels of knowledge, and - as we show - of its basis of validity... would rather 'create' an imaginary creation without a Creator, or the conditions requisite for it. The addiction to the visible means for visible results is in stark contrast with the impact of the invisible in imagination, peace and vision, in beauty, love and that stark creativity by which man at times breaks through cultural barriers, in ways not mere recombination. All this man not only knows, but lives.

Yet when it comes to his Creator, to whom he owes responsible living, how frequently he would be as god. Unhappily, he does not even know the way to do it; and the mirth- provocative fact is that he is now leaving more and more decisively the addiction to the gradual, as a substitute for creation, and is looking for the sudden... the immediate, for, indeed, 'creation' to 'arise' at once, the advanced product, far beyond all that man the thinker is, from... well, anything will do, so long as it is not God.

But anything ? Alas, the anything, logically (and man reasons with logic, and asserts- see Chapter 1, Section 1, Part 2 supra), is not just anything; it must rather be what is sufficient for everything, the law, the order, the programs, the language in the cells, the correlation of industry, the integration of thought shown even in physical cells, the sudden arrival of so much, and the sophistication of that, the laws of thought and the powers to rove of the human spirit.

As was shown in detail in Chapter One (supra), this leads inexorably to God. As is shown in Chapters Three and Ten, in particular, the imaginative endeavours to 'escape', while good work perhaps for the prospering playwright attuned to the current kinks of man, fail logically to stand.

'Nineveh' (to adapt from the prophet Nahum) 'is fallen. Who will bemoan her!' The theory of evolution is rubble; and there are those who pick among the rubble.

9 Evolution In Living Organisms, p. 103, cf. p. 88. In the latter we read: ''No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.''

The pertinent advance of integral ordered complexity has never introduced itself to the mind of man, been seen, noted or confirmed. It is as completely contrary to thought as to sight, and is in all respects as obvious as clouded water in a mist.

Yet theories in science should be built on the presence of facts, begging for interpretation, not force- fed by pugnacious pining in their absence. Theistic evolution (see pp. 78, 70, and pp. 87 ff. infra) fares no better with the evidence.

10 Professor A.E. Wilder Smith in his Man's Origin, Man's Destiny, speaking as Professor of Pharmacology at the University of Southern Illinois, notes (p. 68) the necessity to meet the downgrading law, the second law of thermodynamics, whereby order tends to decrease unless relevant contrary energy is injected... a flat contradiction of organic evolution as a natural tendency.

In chapter 2, Wilder Smith, having stressed that directional energy is needed for upgrading, not the choice chance rompings of bulls in their energy in biological china shops, says:

Today we have already discovered some of the conditions necessary for synthesis of life...
[though it has not been done!], and adds:
Only if thought or a "technical intelligence" ... gets to work on synthesis, can we expect a higher order.
In this way, the world is seen as God's laboratory. The irony is conspicuous, but the statement is both practical and pragmatic.

11 The Evolution of Life, p. 149, in Vol. 1 of Evolution after Darwin (U. of Chicago Press, 1960). See also pp. 44-65 and p. 108, para 1, on Denton, infra.

12 Pseudo-science: full of assumptions, empty of evidence, it is in fact a modern form of what Paul called in his day: "Profane empty babblings, and oppositions of science (knowledge) falsely named," 1 Timothy 6:20. See end-note 13; and p. 212 infra.

13 See EXTENSION ON SCIENTIFIC METHOD (Creation, Collision of Alien Concepts, with special reference to the Cambrian'Age'): see pp. 145-159 infra.

14 In Tinkle's work on heredity, provision for variation was noted, in terms of pure and other lines of botanical or cattle specimens, for example, with the limits being reached in a given direction; after which, variation is practically regarded as inferior.

The combination of genes so that recessive genes can function is not of course 'creative' in making something which was not there, but in exposing what now is not able to display itself. Playing with the cards does not make new cards, though it can be practically valuable in making what man wants more immediately available than current combinations of genes in reproduction would do.

If for example an existing higher milk yield gene were to be put in a format of other genes, from recombinations of existing stock, so that the result was an improvement in the new setting, which might hold superior elements in other respects, all one is doing is playing cards. One does not invent a new gene; far less is it naturally produced. One is using what has been created, arranging it with intelligence for practical purposes. The use of genes in different combinations is especially fascinating in breeding; with the well- known and often experienced limits implicit in the system of genes. See Tinkle Heredity, Chapters 5 and 6, with Heribert Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung, pp. 1160-68.

15 See Section 4, pp. 125 ff., infra.

In this place, we shall be referring to Dr Henry Morris' three works, Evolution In Turmoil, The Twilight of Evolution and The Troubled Waters of Evolution, as well as to Dr William Tinkle's Heredity. Also mentioned are Thus Spake Zarathustra, a work of Nietzsche, later to become insane, an infection which threatened Europe following to some extent in his ideological wake in this century, it might almost seem. This philosophic distillate was published in 1901 in New York and London, beckoning to a pride and a joy in conflict which would soon be requited in blood and agony.

Another delusively developmental German philosopher, Hegel, is there noted relative to his works such as Philosophy of Right, 1855 and Phenomenology of The Spirit, 1807, English 1868.

It is convenient to deal with the practical detail first.

16 Professor Heribert Nilsson, University of Lund: Synthetische Artbildung, 2 vols. 1954.

17 Nilsson, English Summary, op.cit., pp. 1211-1212.

18 Grassé in his Evolution Of Living Organisms, p. 88 has this to say: No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.

On p. 103 (op.cit.), he adds on this topic:

There is no law against day dreaming, but science must not indulge in it.

Malcolm Muggeridge in his Pascal Lectures, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada expressed his thought thus:

I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially to the extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future.
'Posterity,' he indicated, would 'marvel' at the 'incredible credulity' with which the hypothesis has been accepted. Søren Løvtrup in his Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (1987), critically dismissing the gallant follies of Darwinian gradualism, states:
I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science - p. 422.
Arrested by the fact that creative arrivals on the biological scene do not stand on prior columns of observable Darwinesque transition, but appear with sudden bold originality, he explores the crimping and cramping effect he discerns on student research and thought. This comes through the extent to which (non- Darwinian) 'speculation is banned' (i.e. on many a non-creative campus, and the implication is that this situation is near to pandemic).

What he does not however sufficiently realise is the fear of the known: this wholly unacademic stringency, so deplorably conspicuous to him in his position, does serve for something, however illegitimately. It serves to ward off the realisation that the investment of thought, code and language in these (biological) productions is the work of the intelligent Creator, who keeps... books! (Cf. Romans 1:18, Ephesians 4:18; and Ezekiel 2:8 - 3:10. See pp. 315Aff., 251-252N infra, 83ff., 121, 131 supra.)

This prodigious, brilliant capacity, as seen in the cells, has implications that seem, doubtless, to many, either consciously or unconsciously, or in some unhappy combination of both, more undesirable than the careful pursuit of logic and reasons is desirable.

As a matter of fact, the Bible makes reference to both biological and moral or spiritual books, and the first is abundantly verified in the current work on micro-biology. Coded propositions without parchment are a biological, a bio-chemical specialty so well adumbrated in Psalm 139:15-16 - "My frame was not hidden ... Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unformed: and in Thy book, all my members were written, the days they should be fashioned, when as yet there was none of them. How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God ! How great is the sum of them!" (Italics added.)

Indeed. The moral correlative may then occasion distress for many; and it too, appears - is declared - in the Bible.

i) In history:

"Oh go, write it before them on a table, and note it in a book,
that it may be for the time to come forever and ever, that this is a rebellious people,
lying children, children who will not hear the law of the Lord:

who say to the seers,
See not;

and to the prophets,
Prophesy not unto us right things; speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits"(Isaiah 30:8-10)... and

ii) In Heaven:

"And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God, and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books" (Revelation 20:12 ).

One thing however, it must be noted, Løvtrup sees and sees clearly in discussing Darwin's famous fantasy; and to this we do well to attend (op.cit., pp. 352-353):

It remains an unsatisfactory state of affairs that the fossil record stubbornly fails to deliver one single bit of evidence in support of ...'phyletic gradualism' which is supposed to be a prediction of the micromutation theory.
The point is well taken. It is anti- verified, non-science. Since it is non-science, as science it is nonsense. Indeed these raw facts appear as distressing harassments of all evolutionary theories, none of which can give any experimental examples, none of the whole 'cornucopia' of them, to use Løvtrup's expressive term for the multitude. (As to this experimental side, Løvtrup appears weary of what he feels undue stress here, upon students who seem chained to doctrinaire unproductivity, by cultural conformism at the academic level. Things are no doubt difficult when what you seek quietly refuses to appear.)

None can give, then, experimentally verified principles or laws in terms of which such reluctant 'creations' are seen to occur; while few show any facility to accept the efficient factory from which these duly operative facilities in the world of biota were - by the logical necessities so often shown - engendered. Like so many wild children, evolution is bankrupt; but it refuses to return to the parental home - for better instruction; while playing vapid games with words (Løvtrup op.cit. 351-353, 384-385, 422), antics with semantics that produce nothing. (Cf. pp. 132-139, 157-159 supra, 251-252N infra.)

This child of thought remains ''in a far country'' (Luke 15) and lives on husks that contain no life. As always, God is not mocked; and the many mutant theories of evolution achieve no progress to the point... but merely tread water - and the water is deep! Large parts of the academic, political and social world are as well able to drown in this as in any another anti-God dam of delirium, deluded by defiant surrealism.

19 Nilsson, op.cit, p. 1113. On p. 1212, he reinforces the dictum:

"It may, therefore, be firmly maintained that it is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of the palaeobiological facts."

For a detailed treatment of human fossils, see M. Bowden's Ape-man Fact or Fallacy ? My Th.D. work, REASON FOR FAITH AND LIFE FROM GOD, also covers it in some detail on pp. 227-292. Here let us observe the protestation of famed comparative anatomist, and innovator in computer-related 'multivariate analysis' in this field, Lord Solly Zuckerman, that "no scientist could logically dispute the proposition" that any change from ape creature to man which occurred did so without leaving any fossil traces of the steps of the transformation.

(P. 64, Beyond The Ivory Tower.)

The dearth of relevant data is similarly attested by Dr Duane Gish in his 1986 work, Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record, Chapter 6.

For summary convenience, to orient to the area briefly, some salient items from my cited work, and other sources is provided in the EXTENSION following.



Human fossils represent a place for dedicated deceit. An extended treatment is provided in my Reason For Faith: Life From God, pp. 227- 271. For the present brief reference, the following points are culled.

1) Dates are a matter of high scientific controversy.
Highly regarded and eminently qualified experts (such as Professor Andrews of England, God Science & Evolution) note that the assumptions involved rob the radioactive method of objectivity; while carbon dating is extremely limited as to the recommended antiquity to which it is applied. When fixed conditions are assumed, we might as well assume anything we want, and be done with it - over the thousands of years.

Carbon dating also must meet the fact that there is not yet equilibrium of radioactive and normal carbon in the atmosphere, and John Morris presents mathematical reasoning to show this suggests an atmospheric date in thousands (only) of years. Harold Slusher's excellent physics monograph, on The Age of the Earth, gives complex mathematics from the Physics Department of El Paso University, Texas to show from cooling considerations relative to the temperature of the earth, a low to very low age for this planet, as does Professor Thomas Barnes (Professor Emeritus in that Department) relative to the earth's magnetic field indications. All this is dealt with in my separate article on dating, and its allies (see pp. 73-81 supra; and 159 ff., 226 ff. and 235 ff. infra).

At this point, we merely note that this area does not provide answers so much as questions, while the 'pleochroic halos' for the study of which Dr Gentry has achieved world fame, indicate that radioactive-particles were trapped in rock within fractions of seconds, indicating extraordinary cooling and short periods of rapid action. This affects not only dates, but is startlingly in accord with what might be expected from Creation Ex Nihilo.

2) The sequence of fossils is the next consideration.
While dating techniques and results must affect this very question, suppose that contrary to evidence, as shown in its place, we accepted certain geological theories still comparatively popular. Even then, we have the following categorical considerations.
i) The deliberate hoax, freely admitted and clearly proved, of the Piltdown Man. This is not a matter of any controversy. Why then was it perpetrated ? In view of Lord Zuckerman's clear-cut indication that if man had been directly created there is no scintilla, no speck of evidence to show to the contrary (Beyond the Ivory Tower) - we may find motive enough. Man arrived... there he is, tableau! and  even within the thought world of evolutionists, this is done ...

"without leaving
any fossil traces
of the steps of the transformation" (p.64).

"No scientist," says Zuckerman, "could logically dispute the proposition" that no "traces of the steps" of change have been left. What prodigious science is this! There, it is a testimony to fact which even the hypnotism of evolutionism cannot dispel from the mind of this serious scientist, for whom facts have a certain language of their own.  Despite the hoaxes, pretences and false claims, the inadequacy of the evidence appeared before Zuckerman so categorically confirmed it.

Indeed, in view of his outstanding eminence as a specialist in comparative anatomy, one who has blasted the 'neutrality' of science as his objective, computer-oriented measurements have had to overcome that large resistance which he cites from scientists with pre-conceived ideas, this summary statement of his, confirms the more the traumas of evolutionary zealots, facing what for them is the unhappy evidence. It is backed by years of painstaking research and fascinating analysis.

In my work, REASON FOR FAITH AND LIFE FROM GOD (pp. 227-271) dealing with this topic at length, detail of Zuckerman's work is given with some care. Here we merely note this eminent scientific specialist's result (summed in capitals, above). A companion scientist from the University of Chicago, Dr Oxnard, also of outstanding name and considerable fame in the field, has noted the fact to which we now attend, in the next point. It is...
ii) the vast antiquity of perfectly modern exhibits in the human fossil field. (Re this 'antiquity' see my dating op. cit.). Modern types at the start of the evidence is what we face. Thus Oxnard refers to:

pieces of evidence... (which) mean that perhaps as long as five million years ago or even longer there may have been creatures living... classifiable as man in a way we now deny to Australopithecus (whether named "Homo habilis", "H. africanus" or whatever else).
One such 'piece' was a talus in layers dated around 2 million years, apparently quite modern in type; and another, an arm bone (Kanapoi) dated around 4 millions of years, similar to that of modern man. The reference to the Australopithecenes is one to a specialty of Oxnard and Zuckerman, the removal of which from the lists of possible ancestors of man has left evolution scattered and scampering for convenient replacements, not forthcoming. (See: Review Article: The Place of the Australopithecines in Human Evolution: Grounds For Doubt ? In Nature, Dec. 4, 1975, by Oxnard, Zuckerman's Beyond The Ivory Tower, and the latter's article on this topic in the Journal of The Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, January 1966, Myths and Methods In Anatomy. Some six years after this review, Oxnard - well-cautioned, and presumably concerned at the repeated misadventures of sensationalistic adventurers, seeking to bridge the gulf to man - declares: "There has never yet been announced a new find that was not a human ancestor" - a delightful touch of irony relating to the catastrophic failure to find ancestors for man... before God - not the ancestor, but the antecedent, the Creator... See also pp. 234-235 infra.)

iii) Next we are faced with the enormous antiquity (by the 'assumed' dating techniques, here employed merely for the purposes of argument, providing what is technically an a fortiori argument) of the Castenodolo find. (There were various human bones, skull fragments, scattered remains of two children, a woman's skull of modern capacity, with skeleton. The finder, Professor Ragazzoni had the materials he gained inspected and confirmed by Professor Sergi.) Of this, renowned palaeontologist, Sir Arthur Keith declared:

As the student of prehistoric man reads and studies the records of the 'Castenedolo' find, a feeling of incredulity rises within him. He cannot reject the discovery as false without doing injury to his sense of truth...
The date ? the deposits, which were in the Pliocene period by current approach, would be put back around 7 to 12 millions of years. Bowden in his Ape Man Fact or Fallacy? examines the matter, and fully agrees with this feeling of Keith, and furthermore, demands accord with the evidence, irrespective of theory. Mutilations of evidence or non-acceptance on merely doctrinaire theoretical grounds is another fascinating last-ditch work of deceit; but into this we need not go.

iv) Strongly allied to the force of the above consideration is the enormous antiquity (on popular but disputed theory) of the Calaveras Skull. Found and verified by experts, with much care relative to this site, this was deemed similar to the skull formation of a modern Indian. This also was in Pliocene deposit, according to the work of the two scholars who specially investigated the matter. These, the Californian State Geologist, Professor Whitney and Dr Wynam, decisively corroborated it.

v) Inferentially related to this matter of sequence of fossils, are the Laetoli Footprints, rather pervasively held, as Gish notes in his Evolution: Challenge of the Fossil Record, to be around 3.7 million years old. It is found described in this way by White in a book by Johanson and Eddy: The Beginnings of Humankind - (Johanson having since disregarded Lucy after all, as negative evidence mounted, not least from Zuckerman and associates):

Make no mistake about it... They are like modern human footprints. If one were left in the sand of a California beach today, and a four-year old were asked what it was, he would instantly say that somebody had walked there. He wouldn't be able to tell it from hundred other prints on the beach, nor would you.
Gish makes the point that assumption based on theory, distorting the appearance, is not the true path of science. What these footprints appear, in this case, is prima facie evidence; and it fits to perfection with the stubborn facts that never will satisfactorily fit into the preconceived mould: antiquity has modern man. It comes over and over again. Empirical science has to accept all evidence, without beggaring it by bias, if it wants truth. (See also *44, p. 252B infra,  and this current set, SMR, in Ch. 2, Supplement B.)

vi) Similar in force to our issue, are the Paluxy River footprints, in a site conventionally dated at over 100 million years (Wilder Smith op.cit. 135-136) - Dr Gary Parker in his Creation: The Facts of Life, notes how obviously human the prints are, stride length normal for man, prints in child size, adult size and some few men could fill today.

These human prints criss-cross, notes Parker, with dinosaur tracks. Drs. Parker and Henry Morris have personally investigated the field and Parker notes:

We found some (one the size of my wife's foot) on one of the park ledges. Most of the prints are under water and outside the park, but our guide one summer was able to find one print by sighting in from a landmark along the bank. To find the other prints in that series, all I had to do was put my foot in the first print ( it was easy to tell it was a left and not a right one ) and then reach back with my right foot one stride length, then back with my left foot, and so on. The last print ended in a dinosaur track lying across the path.
These prints have been made the subject of a film for a doctorate, and much inspected, indeed at one stage circled with red paint. Time is telescoped by evidence so abortive of the blighted bias of gradualism.

vii) Also significant in terms of alleged antiquity, is the find of the Leakey team of leg bones of modern human appearance, according to report, at the same strata level as skull 1470, which is 'dated' as around two millions years old. (Gish: Evolution The Fossils Say No! - p. 106 - and Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record, pp. 165, 170 ). All such finds vastly pre-date the discredited Java Man, the lost Pekin fragments, and leave exactly the situation Lord Zuckerman described.

viii) Similarly notable is Richard Leakey's find beneath the level of the Australopithecene material in the (African) area, of 'the remains of a circular stone habitation hut, a product of Man still fabricated in Africa today'. (See Dr Duane Gish: Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record, p. 203.)

ix) Doubly significant is the fact that Dubois who visited on the world his Pithecanthropus Erectus with such impact, his 'Java' man - only decades later publicised an earlier fossilised 'find' in allied regional deposits: a modern skull high in cranial capacity! The specialised Selenka-Trinil expedition then reduced the Pithecanthropus age, found hearth foundations at the same level and a fossil molar deemed older - and modern human. Over and again, the last (homo sapiens) is first!

Without our going any further: we note the deceit or deviousness which has entered into some of the things (and more is not placed in this short account!). Why ?

The case from the evidence is not one of gradual ascent! The situation in fact is one of consistent, accumulated evidence: and it is this. Even if slanted geological ideas (not verified ones, or logically acceptable ones, but still fairly popular ) of dating were accepted, then we would have modern man at the start of the matter.

This flatly contradicts what evolution would require, and starkly attests what creation demands. Even at that, such dating methods are, as Professor Andrews so clearly indicates, not objectively acceptable. Barry Setterfield (et al., p. 242 infra) also has long protested there is prima facie evidence of a declining velocity of light, which would change the dates again, to match the other dating evidences such as the spiral still left in our galaxy, the shallow layer of moon dust in terms of a theory once confidently asserted (cf. p. 86 supra), the earth's declining magnetic field and the rate of that decline, the earth's rate of heat loss, the mineral concentration in the ocean and so on. Meanwhile, Dr Russel Humphreys (q.v. Supplement) has proposed further models, variously tested and testable, some aspects verified: one case wholly transforming the time elements, using General Relativity. Such events illustrate the presumption of presuppositional dating, rarely far distant. Many of these items not only involve recent events and measurements, observations, but do so in stark contrast to what mere imagination - the ultimate procedure of radiometric dating, is often used to suggest. (Cf. pp. 235-252C infra.)

If evidence is put first, the creation is soundly attested wherever we look. The theory of evolution was always ridiculous, as Dr Michael Denton so well shows in his mathematical, industrial, chemical, linguistic intricacies, marvelling at what is built into even one human cell - without considering the integration of circuitry of some 75,000,000,000,000 of them, with which, reader, we are told you are blessed!

20 See his pp. 32-34. With his sensitive sardonism is destructive deftness:

Life-Force philosophy, or Creative Evolution, or Emergent Evolution... People who hold this view say that the small variations by which life on this planet 'evolved'... were not due to chance but to the 'striving' or 'purposiveness' of a Life-Force. When people say this we must ask them whether by Life-Force they mean something with a mind or not. If they do, then 'a mind bringing life into existence and leading it to perfection' is really a God... If they do not, then what is the sense of saying that something without a mind 'strives' or has 'purposes'? ... One reason why many people find Creative Evolution so attractive is that it gives one much of the emotional comfort of believing in God and none of the less pleasant consequences. When you are feeling fit and the sun is shining and you do not want to believe... it is nice to be able to think of this great mysterious Force rolling on through the centuries and carrying you on its crest. If on the other hand, you want to do something rather shabby, the Life-Force, being only a blind force, with no morals and no mind, will never interfere... The Life-Force is a sort of tame God. You can switch it on when you want, but it will not bother you. All the thrills of religion and none of the cost.
Page 208 continued in the next section

Go to:

Previous Section | Contents Page | Next Section