HomeMenu of Articles.Two questions evolution can't answer.Interview with the writer.Offer to church groups.Contact information.Christian links.BONUS LINK - What really happens to the unsaved?
Evolution.jpg

Evolution and "humans are just animals".

".

 

This article is somewhat different than other Creation Corner articles. It is more of an overview with four objectives:

1) To show some major flaws with evolution dogma.

2) To show how evolution and creation are directly opposed to each other.

3) To show how evolution thinking is a root cause of many of today's social problems.

4) To show the importance of creation believers standing up for creation.


How is Christianity different than other religions?

What is the major difference between Christianity and all other religions? Although some other religions (12) acknowledge a creator, Christianity is the only one where the creator claims to be communicating with his creation - man.

 

Obviously, evolution, which says all living things happened by mindless accident, is the direct opposite to an intelligent, purposeful creator. This article is in three parts as follows:

Part I - A short history of evolution and some flaws as revealed by modern science.

Part II - The harm caused by evolution thinking.

Part III - A comparison of the two religions - Evolution and Christianity.


Part I

A short history - enter what many had been looking for

Evolution gained major support in 1859 with the publication of Charles Darwin's book, "Origin of the Species". Interestingly enough, Darwin's book reveals his own doubts and significant disclaimers. Nevertheless the disclaimers were overlooked.

 

Why? Darwin's book was eagerly accepted and widely acclaimed by many because it was just what they had been looking for. After all, if you can get rid of a Creator, if "humans are just animals", then humans can do whatever feels good to them. There are no more rules, no absolutes, no more right and wrong. And aren't we hearing those very things widely proclaimed today?

 

Scientific knowledge that tends to disprove Darwin's theory

The theory of evolution should have died a natural death after 1859 as new scientific discoveries came on the scene. Why say that? Consider these that came after "Origin of the Species" in 1859.

 

1) Life comes only from life.

Scientists of 1859 believed that living fruit flies came from dead matter. Pasteur proved them wrong by keeping fruit in a vacuum. Guess what? There were no flies. Pasteur proved the flies came through the air, only from other live flies. A massive lightning bolt doesn't produce life. Only living things can produce living things.

 

2) Laws of heredity and genetics.

Scientists of 1859 thought many traits were passed on to offspring in a random chance way. Mendel's studies, however, changed that thinking as his experiments proved the characteristics of the parents are passed to their offspring according to precise mathematical ratios - not randomly or from chance..

 

3) Cells are not simple after all.

In 1859 scientists believed a cell was the simplest of the simple. They believed complexity increased only as size increased. However, with modern instruments and technology scientists were able to examine cells, atoms, and even tinier bits of matter. Scientists now know that not only cells, but also the atoms making up cells, are themselves extremely complex. Each one is itself a miniature universe and is intricately organized. The first cell that evolution says emerged dripping wet from the ocean slime, far from being 1859 simple, was already incredibly complex, marvelously designed, and enormously efficient. (13)

 

How efficient? Source (4) gives one answer. "Of the liver cell's many functions, over five hundred at latest count..." Imagine that, five hundred functions being done by a single liver cell.

 

Widely acclaimed evolution author Richard Dawkins(8) informs us about cell efficiency, "Each one [cell] can be thought of us a chemical factory which, in the course of delivering its primary product of usable energy, processes more than 700 different chemical substances, in long, interweaving assembly-lines strung out along the surface of its intricately folded internal membranes." You may want to read that again..

 

4) Mathematical laws of probability.

Since 1859, science has learned how mathematically impossible are the odds of accidental life and of the complexity found throughout nature. Source (1) gives us some perspective on these odds, "The probability of the chance formation of a hypothetical "simple" cell, given all the ingredients, is acknowledged to be worse than 1 in a number followed by 57,800 zeros. It would take 11 full pages of magazine type just to print this number." Many other sources confirm similar mind-boggling statistics.

 

5) A trillion independent, complete-within-themselves, cells have to band together.

Look again at the odds for one cell to evolve itself. What then do you think the odds must be of more than a trillion cells banding themselves together to form a living, perfectly functioning together-as-one-unit human being; or indeed any other perfectly functioning animal or plant unit?

 

6) Cells quit evolving!

Although incomplete, some knowledge of cells was present in Darwin's day. Source (3) informs us some significant information about cells was known prior to 1859, "...published papers in 1838 and 1839, respectively, that clearly stated cells are the structural units of life. This statement has come to be known as the cell theory. Another German scientist, Rudolf Virchow, extended the cell theory in 1855 by stating that all cells come from preexisting cells. That is, cells divide to give rise to new cells."

 

But..... 31 years after Darwin's book, "In 1880 August Weismann pointed out that, since cells come from preexisting cells, all cells today can trace to their origins back to ancient cells"

 

Evolution supporter source (9) writes, "Cells, whether they are single individuals or part of a multicellular organism, now arise only from other cells."

 

Which leads to some questions. Since new cells are no longer evolving, did cells develop one at a time, or all together at the same time? If one at a time, why stop? Wouldn't logic indicate if they evolved separately one at a time, they would still be evolving? What is it then that is stopping new cells from continuing to "evolve"? Who or what has said, "this many cells and no more"?

 

7) Irreducible complexity

Irreducible complexity

is a new term developed to describe the inter-dependence of all parts of a single cell. Once it was learned single cells are not simple at all, but miniature complex chemical factories; it was realized that a cell is a perfectly functioning whole, made up of a multitude of parts. The book explains,

 

"When early biologists examined living cells under a microscope,...the cell's interiors appeared to be a jelly-like fluid..... With the invention of the electron microscope...the interiors...became visible. Each eukaryotic cell is like a tiny state; it possesses a control center, power plants, factories that make products, packaging and transport systems, a communication system, and a waste removal* system."

 

Wow! I can't make up stuff as powerful as that.

 

The book has a diagram of a single cell. It is interesting to note the diagram identifies 19 working cell parts.

 

The point is - these parts all depend on each other, no part can function alone. They either all function together, or none function. Logic seems to say the parts had to have come together, perfectly operating, at the same time. The theory that a cell can evolve a molecule at a time seems disproved by this late knowledge of the extreme "Irreducible Complexity" of cells.

 

There is a comment in the book, "Botany for Gardeners"(6)...and that the cells of plants and animals are essentially the same. A world of cells!"


8) Matter is energy.
Fifty-six years after Darwin's book, Einstein published his famous Theory of Relativity and the equation that proved matter is energy. Something not even imagined in Darwin's day. Einstein's proof provided enormous credibiliity to a God who says He is composed of energy (light, spirit) and that He used some of that energy to create matter.

To sum up Part I

Each one of the above scientific discoveries since 1859 diminishes evolution's credibility. But weighed ‘en masse' they should have discredited it completely.

 

Nevertheless evolution still marches on with the fervor of a religion. So, we too, will trudge on.

 

9. A bonus point - Where are the needed changeover fossils?

Darwin himself knew that vital to his theory was the finding of "change" fossils for millions and millions of end species. In 1859 he was confident later geologists would find them.

But none have been found in the nearly one hundred fifty years since 1859. As source (5) puts it, " ...only that the fossil record does not support evolution. This is true for every class of animal...Today we have innumerable fossils from the Earth's most ancient rocks...Yet there are no transitional fossils linking microorganisms and complex invertebrates." (Consult the book for detailed support.)

 

There have been a few fraudulent "fossils". Eagerly embraced for years until the fraud was exposed and reluctantly acknowledged. But those few frauds are the extent of history's changeover fossils.

 

Another "Creation Corner" article cited scientists' estimates there are fifteen million species of just insects. Add to that millions of other species scientists agree are on the earth.

 

Now consider this - none of these millions and millions of different species are changing!

- none of these millions and millions of different species are changing!

 

Ants are not trying to become beetles, bees are not trying to become a new termite specie, birds are not trying to become lizards, dogs are not trying to fly, humans are not growing three arms or three legs, there are no half insect and half animal new creatures, there are no half bird and half fish creatures, and you can carry out the analogies as far as you want.

 

It...is...just...not...happening.

 

And yet, what is absolutely vital for evolution to be true?

 

Why it's change is it not? Change that never stops - as each evolved creature becomes 1) better and better and 2) changes into new creatures. Constant change, unrelenting change, change all over the place. Evolution says change went on for millions and millions of years - and by its own scenario can never stop.

 

It is put very simply in the massive 3½ pound book "Evolution-The Triumph of an Idea"(7),

"Evolution is change, nothing more or less."

 

But instead of change, change, change, what do see?

 

Instead we seem to see all around us an unchangingchanging, finished creation!

 

Not only can evolutionists not find their needed millions of changeover fossils to support what they claim happened in the past; there are no changeovers in millions and millions of species alive today.

 

As a side observation, consider also how each specie appears happy and content. Nowhere whatsoever do we see a desperate specie frantically trying to become something else.

 

The finished creation that we see all around us today has to be one of the strongest and most compelling logical arguments against evolution. Indeed it might be said it is the only one we need.

 

Nevertheless evolution supporters hang on and battle anew with a religious fervor.

Part II

The end result of evolution thinking

I knew evolution and creation were opposed to each other, but had not realized the far-reaching and actually harmful effects of evolution thinking.

 

Until I learned about "Eugenics" that is.

 

I was seventy years old and in all my reading of thousands of books and magazines I had never even seen the term "Eugenics". Then, just a few months ago, I learned about it for the first time - twice in the same day. What a remarkable coincidence! A few weeks later, I ran across eugenics yet a third time. (2007 note, since then I have read it dozens of time. Strange, it is now being talked about again.)

 

At 70 years of age, finding out about Eugenics was a real shock to me; maybe it will be to you too.

What is it?

Eugenics is the end result of believing in evolution and its dogma that having descended from apes, "humans are just animals". Eugenics is an evolutionist mind set that rationalizes:

1) Just like animals, there are superior strains in humans and inferior strains.

2) The superior strains are entitled to exploit and rule over the inferior ones.

 

The History of Eugenics

Author Margaret Canavon(2) quotes an explanation by the well-known writer G. K. Chesterton, ..."the system of thought which began in Evolution and has ended in Eugenics."

 

She explains in more detail, "In the late nineteenth century, in the wake of Darwin and Mendel, there was intense interest in evolution and genetics. In view of the 1) prestige of science, and 2) the decline of Christianity among the educated, it was natural that the idea of applying science to improvement of human society should be popular. The "science" of Eugenics was developed initially by Francis Galton (1822-1911) and followers."

 

"A basic principle of eugenics was that animals and human beings are the same and should be treated the same. Canavon writes, "Good care and feeding enable any particular cow or pig to develop to the limit of its potential, but farmers are well aware that the best way to get good cattle is to improve the strain by selective breeding.... The deliberate breeding practiced by the farmer is less haphazard (in animal nature, the weaker strains die off) and more humane".

 

"According to the Eugenists, precisely the same considerations must be applied to human beings. Central to that idea, remember, is to improve the strain by selective breeding.... The problem - civilization protects the inferior strains.... Humanitarian social policies prevented the unfit from being weeded out, and indeed encouraged them to propagate themselves and to swamp the race with inferior genes."

 

"Galton himself wrote that the first objective of eugenics was to "check the birth rate of the unfit.... The second objective of the improvement of the race by furthering the productivity of the fit by early marriages and healthful rearing of their children."

 

Canavon provides more history. "There was a fear among the British upper classes in the first forty years of the twentieth century that the British stock was declining."

 

Thus it seems eugenics has a lot to do with breeding; with superior vs. inferior strains.

 

"Karl Pearson, Galton's disciple, and Professor of Eugenics at London University, declared in 1912, "The death-rate is selective, and if we check Nature's effective, but roughshod methods of race betterment, we must take her task into our own hands and see to it that the mentally and physically inferior had not a dominant fertility."

A whole state arises based on eugenic thinking

Canavon continues with a shocking, but very revealing quote, "Another Eugenics advocate, Charles Armstrong, declared that "the nation which first breeds for efficiency - denying the right of the scum to beget millions of their kind...is the nation destined to rule the earth."

 

What twentieth century state arose with this thinking at its core?

 

What was the objective of Nazi Germany? Wasn't it the "Third Reich", which was to rule the world for a thousand years?

 

What was the Nazi battle cry? Wasn't it that they were the Master Race? Didn't they have the right - no the duty - to rid the world of the "inferior" Jews, Poles, gypsies, the mentally ill, and similar, as they saw it, "inferior" stock wherever they determined it was? After all, they reasoned, don't good farmers do the same to breed superior strains of animals?

 

In Nazi Germany wasn't it the duty of the pure Aryan woman to practice free sex and produce as many babies as possible, fathered by carefully selected pure Aryan males? And wasn't it the duty of the State to school the master race children?

 

As an American youngster living during the reign of Nazism, I tell you the answers are yes, yes, yes, yes to all of those questions!

 

What, then, was fundamentally wrong with Nazism? Doesn't it seem to be evolution thinking carried to its end result of eugenics?

 

Marxism and Communism in both Russia and China also murdered millions. A study of their philosophies reveals they too have foundations in evolution carried to its end result of eugenics.

 

Eugenics and the welfare state

Can evolution possibly have anything to do with social welfare?

 

Canovan thought so as she wrote, "Eugenic considerations were interwoven with much of the legislation that lies at the foundation of the welfare state."

 

Her point was much of the welfare state is not compassion as we are led to believe. It is more a matter of control of the "inferior" classes. Having read this quote, I gained new understanding of today's liberals.

 

As Chesterton pointed out, according to Canovan, in one respect the poor under the welfare state are worse off than the serfs were under the feudal system. At least the serfs had a little plot of ground that was theirs to have a garden, maybe a cow or two, etc.

 

Is eugenic thinking around today?

Oh, with the defeat of Nazi Germany, it's true the term "eugenics" went into disfavor. But could it be eugenic thinking is still very much present - just the formal title is now omitted?

 

Eugenics says there are upper classes and lower classes, superior strains and inferior ones. Do we see such thinking today?

 

Consider a mindset that thinks most parents are inferior and only the state or "village" should raise the child. Consider a ruling elite that is more and more taking over local school systems. (Obviously only the intellectual elite at the top can better handle local education.) Consider the mind set where the ruling and intellectual elite send their children to private schools, but the masses have to send theirs to what are openly admitted to be inferior schools - rife with many educational and discipline problems. A school situation so bad that it is even reported in some school districts one half of the teachers turn their backs on free state education and pay to give their own children an education at private schools.

 

Understanding, as I did, eugenic thinking for the first time, is it possible today's social structure really has a lot to do with Eugenics, but without the title?

 

Compare today's society with what was revealed to us about eugenic thinking and goals:

1) The breakdown of the family. (Especially notable are black families - (11)from 82% both parents in the 30's to 30% today.)

2) The removal of God from schools, textbooks, and public buildings.

3) The breakdown of education for the "lower" classes. A number of studies that measured today's test results in poorer schools vs. tests at the same schools in the past reveal this breakdown.

4) The dogma that just like "the other animals" humans should practice free sex and be promiscuous.

5) The consequences of no family unit and free sex are taken care of by the state in public funded abortion clinics.

6) The development of a citizen class that depends on monthly state checks and programs.

 

Considering the above accomplishments, can we see some eugenic goals carried out, including that of control of the so-called "lower" classes; so they placidly accept their lot, remaining docile and subservient to the "superior" classes?

 

More eugenic thinking today?

How about a year 2000 article that appeared in prestigious Time magazine. The thrust of the article was that because some apes and other animals kill their young, why we should not be surprised when a girl takes time out from the prom to have a baby in the rest room, promptly throws the newborn in the dumpster, and then merrily goes back to finish dancing at the prom! No, according to the article, this behavior should be accepted because, after all, other animals from time to time kill their young.

 

Right now, today, there are sociologists busily studying animal "family" behavior so they can apply what they learn to human families! An especially rewarding part of their study would probably be finding animals that kill their young from time to time.

 

Could such thinking be eugenics, but without the title?

Part III

Has Evolution Become a Religion?

Has evolution progressed from theory in 1859, to eugenics in 1900, to being a religion in 2000?

 

Consider. The evolution theory is taught today in our schools as proven fact. The creation alternative is not even allowed to be presented. The various media also treat evolution as fact.

 

Today's evolution does seem much like a religion, and a controlling one at that. One that requires an enormous amount of religious faith from its followers. A book I thought excellent on exposing evolution's religious aspects as well as refuting its doctrines, was "Darwin's Leap of Faith", sub-titled "Exposing the False Religion of Evolution" by John Ankerberg and John Weldon.

 

The two religions compared

I think readers will find an actual comparison of the two religions revealing. Consider:

 

Evolution says: :Man, descended from apes, is "just another animal".

:Man, descended from apes, is "just another animal".

Christianity says: Man is made in the image of the creator God.

Man is made in the image of the creator God.

 

Evolution says: Just like animals, humans have a superior strain and an inferior one. The superior is entitled to rule, The inferiors should be subservient and accept control by their superiors.

Just like animals, humans have a superior strain and an inferior one. The superior is entitled to rule, The inferiors should be subservient and accept control by their superiors.

Christianity says: Each human being is created equal and have equal rights. We are all brothers and sisters.

Each human being is created equal and have equal rights. We are all brothers and sisters.

 

Evolution says: It's survival of the fittest. The strong deserve to suppress, rule, and exploit the weak.

It's survival of the fittest. The strong deserve to suppress, rule, and exploit the weak.

Christianity says: The strong should help the weak. We should treat others as we want to be treated.

The strong should help the weak. We should treat others as we want to be treated.

 

Evolution says: Individual lives are subordinate to the survival of the species. The group is what is important.

Individual lives are subordinate to the survival of the species. The group is what is important.

Christianity says: Each human life is equally important. Each human life is sacrosanct.

Each human life is equally important. Each human life is sacrosanct.

 

Evolution says: Since all has happened by accident, there is no moral code. There are no absolutes. There is no right or wrong.

Since all has happened by accident, there is no moral code. There are no absolutes. There is no right or wrong.

Christianity says: Man should live by a moral code. There are absolutes, there is right and wrong.

Man should live by a moral code. There are absolutes, there is right and wrong.

 

Evolution says: Since all is by pure accident, and death is the end, humans should just do what feels good to them.

Since all is by pure accident, and death is the end, humans should just do what feels good to them.

Christianity says: We are not here by accident, but by purpose. With a life after death, man has obligations and responsibilities.

We are not here by accident, but by purpose. With a life after death, man has obligations and responsibilities.

 

Evolution says: Because "humans are just animal" , they are not really responsible for their actions, but instead are victims of their genes, environment, etc. (We can certainly see this thinking all around us today!)

Because "humans are just animal" , they are not really responsible for their actions, but instead are victims of their genes, environment, etc. (We can certainly see this thinking all around us today!)

Christianity says: Each person is responsible for his or her own actions and outcomes.

Each person is responsible for his or her own actions and outcomes.

 

Seeing the two religions compared side by side makes it easy to see how much they are directly opposed to each other.

 

In Summary.

I think the ramifications of evolution thinking reach further and with more harmful consequences than most of us have realized. What this writer learned just recently about eugenics was for him a shocking eye opener.

 

How important is the evolution vs. creation issue? I am starting to think it is very important indeed! How has evolution and eugenic thinking changed our beloved country? I am starting to think is has changed it very much indeed!

 

It is hoped this article will be a wake up call to Christians who believe in the Creator God. It is also hoped this article might spark a desire for Christians to prove the Creator to themselves even more fully than in the past. And for evolution believers looking at the alternative, perhaps this article might cause you to look closer at the consequences of evolution doctrine. Are those consequences what any of us really want?

 

There is an ongoing battle taking place. Unfortunately the creation side is losing; evolution is gaining more and more prominence and control.

 

We should be defending and promoting creation at every opportunity.

 

C. Frazier Spencer

 

References and footnotes:

Note: some quotes may have underlining, boldface, or italics added for emphasis.

(1) Creation Ex Hihilo magazine, March-May, 1995.

(2) "G.K. Chesterton Radical Populist" by Margaret Canovan, published 197 by Bruce Jovanovich Company, NY.

(3) "Introductary Botany" by Linda R. Berg, Ph D, published 1997 by Saunders College Publishing.

(4) "Quantum Healing" by Deepak Chopra, published 1989 by Bantam Books, NY.

(5) "Tornado in a Junk Yard" by James Perloff, published 2001 by Refuge Books, Arlington, Mass.

(6) "Botany for Gardeners" By Harold Wm. Rickett, published 1957 The MacMillan Company, NY

(7) "Evolution-The Triumph of an Idea" published 2001 by Harper Collins Publishing, Inc., NY 10022

(8) "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins, published 1996 by W.W. Norton & Company, NY 1010

(9) "Sex and the Origins of Death" by William R. Clark, published 1996 by Oxford University Press, New York.

10) For more, see the article, "Did the first cell evolve?"

11) Figures from Bob Woodson, prominent black advocate for return to family values.

(12) For more on a creator in other cultures, see "How important is creation for today's Christian?"

(13) For more on cells, see the article, The first cell - evolved or created?