|
THE MYTH COLLAPSES: THE THEORY OF
EVOLUTION
In the West,
the theory of evolution continues to be promoted as if it were
a proven fact or a secure, testable and tested law - something
that no-one in their right minds questions any more. This
presentation implies that there is no room, let alone any
need, for discussion. The most common media cliche is that the
evolutionary chain has been confirmed yet again by yet another
discovery of the missing link proving human ancestry from
apes. Faced with this kind of promotion and presentation, and
the sheer pervasiveness of it, it is no surprise if
non-specialists come to accept that the theory must be true,
and that it must be accepted by all the specialists, the whole
scientific community, with no serious doubters. However, that
perception is far from the reality. In the first place, the
theory lacks completeness on two major counts and there is no
likelihood of these deficiencies ever being made up. In the
second, there are major voices of dissent from within the
scientific community, alongside alternative theoretical
explanations which demonstrate a far superior conformity with
observed or experimentally obtained data.
The origin of life
To have any
enduring claim to viability the theory of evolution must
explain the origin of life in its own terms. It must be able
to answer the question, “How did life evolve from non-living
forms?’ It needs also to explain how the notion of “selection
for survival” operates before life exists, to explain how
“life” is the best way for non-living forms to exist longer.
Just as the theory tells us that, because rhinoceroses with
the thickest skin did best in battles with other rhinoceroses,
over aeons of time rhinoceroses evolved skins as thick as
skins can possibly get while still functioning as skins ñ so
too, it needs to tell us how life is an adaptation. If it is,
what is it an adaptation to? Moreover, if life is an
adaptation, why is it the same across the whole range of
living forms (animal or plant or in-between)? We have
innumerable varieties of living forms (adapted, we are told,
to different conditions of climate and competition for food
resources) but we do not have different varieties of being
alive. Is that what we should expect? Should we not expect
that the creatures who lived longest (and had offspring the
least often) would have out-survived all competition, until
eventually they lived so long it was for ever? Or, vice-versa
that those who lived the shortest lives (and therefore had
more offspring more often) eventually fell back, after aeons
of trial and proof, into hardly being alive at all
individually, but merely replicating themselves? In fact, of
course, the same climate and conditions of competition for
food resources support both relatively long- and relatively
short-lived forms at every level of complexity and thoroughly
intermingled within even the same individual
life-form.
Life rests
upon an infinitely precarious equilibrium among the proteins,
the building blocks of life, found in the simplest to the most
complex of living forms. Denying the existence of a conscious
Creator, the theory of evolution cannot explain how this
equilibrium was established and protected. The theory proposes
chance and coincidence as the only scientific way to think
about the question. But a scientific way of looking at a
problem must have at least some likelihood of being true, if
we are to expend energy fruitfully on verifying or falsifying
it. In other words, a hypothesis must be reasonable to start
with so that we can test and judge it. It must not be
irrational: the appeal to chance and random coincidences is
nothing if not an abandonment of reason. A protein is made up
of the combination of on average 1000-1500 amino acids in 20
different types in a certain sequence. Even a single error in
that sequence renders the protein useless. There is zero
probability of this happening by chance, not even if the
universe is billions of light-years wide and long. One of the
foremost advocates of evolution, the Russian scientist A.I.
Oparin confesses this impossibility in his book The Origin of
Life (pp.132-133). Even the simplest of these materials
(proteins), consisting of thousands of carbon, hydrogen,
oxygen and nitrogen atoms, each with a unique design presents
highly sophisticated structure. For those who study the
structure of the proteins, it is as hopeless for these
proteins to have formed by chance as the for the Aeneid (the
long Latin epic by Virgil) to have been composed by random
association of the letters of the Latin alphabet.
Another
evolutionist scientist has offered a different analogy with
the same conclusion. The probability of a chance formation of
only one of the proteins required for life (Cytochrome-C) may
be likened to the probability of a monkey writing out the
history of humanity by randomly pushing the keys of a
typewriter.
What
evolution theory defends is exactly this nonsensical
assertion. Yet, the examples above are only the probability
calculations for the chance formation of a single protein.
However, millions of similar impossible coincidences should
have been realized consecutively in order for the evolution of
life to be effected.
The
probability of chance formation of a Cytochrome-C sequence is
as low as zero. If life requires that certain sequence, it is
likely to be realized only once in the whole life-time and
space of the universe. Now it could be proposed that some
metaphysical power(s) beyond our definition consciously
enabled its formation. But to entertain such a proposition is,
apparently, not appropriate for the modern enterprise of
science. Therefore we have to fall back on the first
hypothesis as the best we have at present.
If, as it
appears, the theory of evolution is not justified by the
information we have, how does it survive? Has questioning it
become, among the specialists, a taboo which they violate at
the risk of their reputation and their careers? If so, why? We
will return to this question.
The problem of transitional forms
Another of
many difficulties with the theory of evolution is that the
theory requires there to exist or have existed in the past
transitional forms. For example, if the theory claims, as it
does, that life originated in the sea and then sea creatures
were driven (by some force, let us say, a climatic change like
a fall in sea-level) to move on to dry land, the theory must
produce evidence (or at least convincing argument) of the
transitional forms between the sea-creatures and the
land-creatures they evolved into. Our present experience of,
for example, fish, is that if they come out of the water, they
very quickly die. We have no reason to believe that fish were
so radically different aeons ago from what they are now. If
anything, the evidence is all the other way: that fish as fish
were the same then as now. So how could enough of them have
lived long enough in shallow-water or no-water to establish in
their gene pool the skill to evolve gills into lungs? Nobody
can say that maybe some of these fish happened to acquire a
lung at the end of the four-millionth year while they were in
the throes of death. It is entirely nonsensical. But this
nonsense is exactly what the evolutionists assert. The same
problem arises when we look for transitional forms between
land-bound reptiles and flying birds.
Some
allegedly extinct intermediate transitional forms have turned
out to exemplify only the temptations of forgery and
distortion in the service of falsehood into which some
scientists have allowed themselves to fall. For instance, the
fish Coelacanth (Rhipitistian Crossopterigian) presented by
evolutionists as a transitional form between marine and land
creatures ,and supposedly extinct about 70 million years ago,
was found alive and well in 1939 near Madagascar, and has been
caught about 50 times since in the open seas. Furthermore, the
organs that prompted the evolutionists to present the
coelacanth as the transitional intermediate form (inner ear
alcoves, head typed backbone and swimming bag), do not have
these properties at all. The same is true for other fossils
presented as transitional intermediate forms. The well-known
nature scientist A.H. Clark acknowledges that, since we have
no single evidence indicating a transition between fossils and
living groups, we must accept that such transitional forms
never existed.
A well-known
genetic and evolutionist, Richard B. Goldschimdt admits that
there is no such a thing as the transitional intermediate
form. He explains the differences in species by sudden leaps.
Now to say that a species originated all of a sudden is
tantamount to saying that it was consciously originated or
“created”. Although the evolutionists are embarrassed on
scientific platforms, they do not have a hard time deceiving
the ordinary person in the street, because the theory is so
well-packaged. You draw an imaginary schema representing
transition from water from land, you invent Latin words for
the animal in water, and for its descendant on land, and you
draw sketches of both (both wholly imaginary constructs), and
the package is completed or, as we should rather say,
fabricated. “Eusthenopteron transformed into first
Rhipitistian Crossoptergian, then Ichthyostega in a long
evolution process.” If you put these words in the mouth of a
scientist with thick glasses and a white apron, you are half
way to convincing most people. For the great many people who
see reality through the media packaging of it, this kind of
presentation is good enough to be truth: it is easy to
believe, it makes no demand on consciousness, or reason, or
conscience: we are all here by chance, we are not here by the
will of a Creator to Whom we are answerable.
The most
common package is, inevitably, the one that relates to human
beings. A central feature is the string of related sketches
(all imaginary constructions) of an all-ape,
three-quarters-ape, half-ape/half-man figure, gradually ending
in a drawing that looks more or less like a European male of
average build an features. This is offered as our story, our
beginning long ago, our present being now. This string of
sketches will be found on virtually every classroom wall, from
primary schools to secondary schools and in every popular
textbook or encyclopedia which touches upon the subject, and
in the form of stuffed exhibits in every science museum in the
West.
In these
drawings, half-ape half-human creatures are seen as a family.
Having a hairy body, a slightly bent walking posture, and a
face in between a man and an ape, these creatures are
supposedly drawn from the fossils found by the evolutionist
scientists. But the fossils found give information only about
the bone structure and skeleton, and examination of the teeth
will reveal information about the probable range of diet. The
fossils tell us nothing at all about how hairy the body was
that hung upon those bones, nor what kind of nose, ears, lips
or hair would once have rested upon the particular skull. But
the evolutionists’ sketches picture do, almost always, show
the organs like nose, lips and ears, and these are drawn (to
fit the theory) and do indeed show something half-man,
half-ape. This is not science, it is fiction or, more
precisely, it is myth. Another support for this fiction, and
another proof that it is fiction, is that the same bundle of
bones can give be made to give rise to quite different
re-constructions, depending upon the particular theorist’s
preference: for example, the three totally unlike
re-constructions of the fossil called Australopithecus
Robustus (Zinjanthropus). There is certainly a power behind
these presentations of the theory, but it is not the power of
reason disciplined by facts and evidence, but the power of
myth-making imagination inspired by a particular
ideology.
The ideological background to the
theory
In order to
understand why the evolution theory is promoted and defended
so insistently, we need to look to the historical background
behind it. Until the modern period, the intellectual life of
Europe was basically subject to the authority of the Church.
Starting from the 16th century, the order justified and
underpinned by the authority of religious beliefs and
principles started to conflict with the interests of certain
social groups. Acquiring great wealth through commerce but
having no political power, these groups began a long struggle
to limit the authority of the Church. They did so not only on
the political and social fronts but also on the philosophical
front: religious beliefs and the authority of religion had to
be weakened before the social-political system underpinned by
religion could be radically reformed. Almost all the 18th
century “enlightenment” intellectuals and 19th century
positivists came from these secularizing groups and were
funded and supported by them. (The French Revolution was the
biggest single social transformation realized by their
machinations.)
The space
opened by the weakening or elimination of religious beliefs
was filled by new ideologies generated by the same social
groups. The first ideology was liberalism, followed by
socialism which developed as a reaction to it. Later came
fascism meddled with racism. Despite containing some opposing
ideas, these ideologies were all by-products of the new
secular system and stood on the same anti-religionist ground.
None of them spoke of the man’s responsibility before his
Creator or the obligation to organize personal and collective
life according to His guidance. Conversely, the principles
that necessitated belief in religion were harmful to the new
ideologies. One of the most important of these principles is
that man was created, as the Church had always held (following
the same belief in Judaism), by God in His own image, for the
purpose of doing His will and worshipping Him.
It was very
noteworthy that socialism, the most radical and outspokenly
anti-religious of the modern ideologies, showed a particular
zeal for the theory of evolution. Karl Marx wrote of Darwin’s
Origin of Species in a letter to his comrade Friedrich Engels
(dated December 18, 1860) that this book presented the
natural-historical basis for their critique of capitalism
(Marx and Engels Letters, vol. 2, p.426).
Darwinism
laid the basis for fascism which is one of the by-products of
the new secular order. Holding some human races superior to
the others, this notion proposed that some races were in
advance of others in the evolutionary process. This trend
called Social Darwinism inspired many racists from Arthur de
Gobineau to Adolf Hitler. Darwin himself prepared the ground
for racism by proposing that the white man was more advanced
in evolutionary terms.
Besides
socialism and fascism, the capitalist ideology dominant in the
Western world and now in nearly the whole world, needs people
to believe in evolution. To undermine people’s commitment to
religion and moral principles, to reduce their aspirations and
relationships to merely economic ones, it was necessary to
convince them that man was not created by God as a morally
responsible being. It is very noteworthy that major capitalist
dynasties like Rockefeller and Carnegie come first among those
who have granted funds and other support to the flourishing of
Darwinism in the U.S.A. Michael A. Cremo and Richard L.
Thompson, in their book The Hidden History of the Human Race,
explain how the Carnegie Institution was virtually aiming for
the victory of the scientific cosmological vision over the old
religious cosmologies. The Rockefeller Foundation supports the
same materialist cosmology and serves the mission of “modern
civilization’, aiming to confine the concepts of God and
spirit to the mythology museum. The evolution propaganda
promoted in the distinguished media organs of the West, and
reputable science journals is a consequence of this
ideological requirement.
Conclusion
No
ideological program, whatever the illusions of its supporters,
and whatever their means of promoting and packaging their
untruths, can survive for ever. Precisely because man is God’s
creature, made for nobility of being and action, he must and
will seek truth, albeit temporarily deviated.
All the
information revealed by modern biology shows that the origin
of life, especially the molecular structure of living
creatures, cannot be explained by coincidence in any way. The
transcendent consciousness ruling over the whole universe is
the ultimate evidence of God’s existence. As a matter of fact,
some eminent names in microbiology have come to the point
where they cannot defend evolution any longer. Instead,
another theory has begun to get a long overdue hearing among
these scientists: the theory of conscious design. The
scientists defending it remark that it is very evident that
life has been created by a conscious
designer. |
|
