sense of the word. It leads, in the final analysis, to a rank form of humanism; which is merely the glorification of man himself, and the complete elimination of God from man’s thinking. So-called “ theistic evolution” is simply a weak attempt on the part of some Bible-disbelieving theolo gians to compromise and to try to harmonize their particular views of the Bible with the theories of the scientist. It is neither scientific, nor is it scriptural. Thank God, there is a great body of believers who may be found both within the denomi nations and without who take their stand upon the Word of God and who repudiate all of the theories of men’s imagination and who firmly believe the statements as they are found in the Word of God, “ In the beginning, God created.” Further more this great body of believers triumphantly reads from the reve lation of God Himself to man, the majestic statement that all of life was created “ after its kind.” The logical conclusion of an orderly creation is that there must be a Creator. The Word of God never proves that there was a Creator, it simply states the fact, “ In the be ginning, God created.” Indeed the Word of God does not seek to prove anything. One of the great unique features of the Holy Bible is that a statement found therein is sufficient to make it a fact so that it does not need further proof for its authority. It is the Word of God which has been believed by men and women of past generations, which has fed and bred spiritual giants and which has created a holy nobility of men and women who lived victoriously by its principles and who died tri umphantly in the glorious assur ances which were found on its pages. The theory of evolution can never satisfy the longings of the human heart. It leaves a great void in the thinking of men when they seek to discover the whence, the whither and the why of their exist ence. Men reach a far higher nobil ity of thought when they revel in the great truths of the Word of God than when they wallow around in the slime and muck of primordial matter out of which they attempt to pull themselves over the unchar tered millions of years of bygone history. END.
and the findings of other so-called experts. Of course it would be ne cessary, in order to justify a cred ible theory, to obtain a series of facts sufficiently numerous to estab lish a norm. These facts must also be significant, that is, of such a na ture that proper conclusions may he drawn from them. The uncertainty which the Life article admits takes it. altogether out of the rank of a demonstration of fact; indeed it takes it out of the realm of theory or hypothesis and leaves it com pletely in the realm of man’s idle dreams concerning the origin of modern man which it' assays to explain. Development Within the Species The article itself is very disap pointing as far as its contribution to the geheral knowledge of man is concerned. Nothing new whatever is presented and the old theory that has been the hallmark of the hu manistic scientist for many years is simply dressed up with pictures and data most of which has been unverified and is unverifiable. The theory of evolution would not be seriously considered were it not for the fact that it has so completely colored the philosophy and, indeed, the theology of so many leaders in these respective fields of human thought. It must be understood, of course, that there is a vast distinction to be kept in mind between what scien tists call “ evolution,” and “ develop ment w i t h i n spec i es . ” No one denies the latter. The former is admittedly unproven and after all of the years spent in the vain and futile effort to prove it, it is per fectly safe to say that the theory of evolution is evidently unprov- able. Anyone can see development within the species at work, even in one’s own lifetime. And certainly fossil remains that can be identi fied and which do not have to be “ restored” reveal the fact that there is a great deal of development within the species. We find new breeds of dogs emerging from pre vious greeds and the same is true in all members of the animal and vegetable kingdoms. But this is not to he confused in any way whatever with the theory of evolution. Evolution in its es sence is definitely anti-God, anti- scriptural, anti-Christian in every
tists and institutions to which ac knowledgement was made for in formation provided in connection with the entire article. It certainly does not enhance the scientific stature of any of those who are thus named to be identified with an arti cle so completely filled with mere imagination and unverified state ments. The Pseudo-Scientific Method The utterly hypothetical nature of the whole evolutionary theory is well expressed in the quotation “ piecing together the evolutionary sequence through which Homo Sapiens Sapiens came into his great inheritance, anthropologists postu late that both man and apes are descended from a common primate ancestor which lived about 30 mil lion years ago toward the end of the Oligocene epoch. Al though the remains of this creature have not been discovered, it is thought that he must have resembled the mon key-like animal , Limnopithecus, whose remains were found in East Africa.” The article then proceeded to enumerate an extended listing of ape-men whose skeletal fragments had been discovered in quite re mote regions of the world and who are supposed to be in the line of descent from “ this creature” which has not as yet been discovered. This is an example of the pseudo-scien tific method which is used through out the article, and which takes it out of the realm of true science. The skulls and skeletons which have been used as a starting point for the advancement of the theory of evolution are rarely discovered in complete form. Not only is their relative age a matter of pure spec ulation, but they themselves are often fabricated from very doubtful fragments. This work of forming a pre-historic apelike man or man like ape, as the case may be, is known as “ restoration” and many experts admit its lack of scientific certainty. But to the evolutionist these “ restorations” comprise a lengthy chain. Each link in the chain, however, has its own oppor tunities for error, and many other wise trustworthy invest igators whose facts have been generally accepted have been slightly less than convincing when they began to generalize on their own findings
13
F E B R U A R Y , 1 9 5 6
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker