Here are some more web extracts/articles which might be of interest. Again,
some of these may require a free registration, at the site's home page.
1) A Last Ditch Defense of Natural Selection?
Contra Mundum No. 6 Winter 1993 "Paradigm Shift The Rise of a New
Biology" by T.E. Wilder. Headings: A Last Ditch Defense of Natural
Selection; The Burgess Shale; New Age Evolution; The End of Unified Life
Science; A Science of Life
"Theories purporting to be science cannot avoid either being colored by the
spirit of the age or impacted by the invasive presence of the facts. Evolution
has been hammered by evidence from fossils and field biology and subjected to
the solvent of major cultural change. The result has been several attempts to
recast evolution in a less Darwinian form which better accommodates
postmodern attitudes or New Age sensibilities. These new theories of
evolution are also claimed to be better science."
(http://www.wavefront.com/~contra_m/cm/columns/cm06_shift.html) [The
article mentions Robert Wesson's "Beyond Natural Selection," MIT Press:
Cambridge, Mass., 1991. I have just started reading it and it looks *very*
interesting. Has anyone else read it?]
2) Exobiology-the science which has yet to demonstrate that its subject matter
actually exists (Yockey), is apparently now (like Darwinian macroevolution), a
fact which does not require any actual evidence:
"Scientists make plans for seeking life beyond Earth July 21, 1998. Webposted
at 11:12 AM EDT MOUNTAIN VIEW, California (AP) -- Scientific
discussion of extraterrestrial life has moved beyond the question of whether it
exists to where and how we should look for it."
(http://customnews.cnn.com/cnews/pna.show_story?p_art_id=2761252&p_se
ction_name=Sci-Tech&p_art_type=433527) 3) More on Ice Hole in Antarctic.
"Antarctic waters breathe life into world's oceans July 21, 1998 Webposted
2:15 PM EDT By Environmental News Network staff "A group of
oceanographers, glaciologists, meteorologists and biologists are currently on a
mid-winter expedition to the Antarctic to further pursue the mysteries of the
Adelie polynya. (ENN) -- Australia's scientific agency has been doing a lot of
research in the Antarctic during this Year of the Ocean, and one of their recent
discoveries is a source of dense, oxygen-rich Antarctic Bottom Water which
breathes life into the world's oceans."
http://customnews.cnn.com/cnews/pna.show_story?p_art_id=2762563&p_sect
ion_name=Sci-Tech&p_art_type=433527) [There is a nice diagram attached
to the web page]
4) Two articles on the origin of the genetic code: I am intrigued by the
comment that "the modern code is the product of evolution because it is so
error-proof". I thought the evolutionist argument was that "the imperfection of
nature reveals evolution" (Gould S.J., "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Hen's
Teeth and Horse's Toes," 1984, p258). Heads evolution wins, tails creation
loses!
a) "EVOLUTION: Tracking the History of the Genetic Code Gretchen Vogel
VANCOUVER--At the annual meeting of the Society for the Study of
Evolution held here last month, two speakers presented evidence suggesting
that forces other than chance shaped the origin and history of the genetic code.
Experiments with RNA have shown that chemical attractions between the
genetic material and the components of proteins may have helped shape the
original code, reported one speaker. Another researcher, using powerful
computer analyses, suggested that the modern code is the product of evolution
because it is so error-proof: Only one in a million other possible codes is better
at producing a workable protein even when the DNA carries mistakes.
b) EVOLUTION: The First Codon and Its Descendants Elizabeth Pennisi
NEW YORK--A biophysicist looked for common features in messenger RNA
molecules to determine which of the genetic code's "words," or codons--the
triplets of bases that code for amino acids--came first. He concludes that the
first word was GCU (guanine, cytosine, and uracil) and calculates how GCU
might have evolved into the current set of 61 codons that specify the 20 amino
acids.
(http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol281/issue5375/newssummaries.shtml)
5) On-line book: Chapter 1. Introduction: The Impact of Charles Darwin by
Timothy R. Stout
"Abstract: The impact of Charles Darwin. Nature testifies of an eternal
Creator. The Bible declares the testimony to be clear enough to make a person
who suppresses it to be without excuse. Standards of proof are given."
http://www.pacinter.net/users/chawman/Proof1.htm
6) William Jennings Bryan's views on evolution (full text):
"Writing under his own byline in POPULAR SCIENCE August 1923, William
Jennings Bryan argued that science itself, as well as the Bible, condemns the
theory of evolution. Three times unsuccessful Republican candidate for
president, Bryan was also the prosecuting attorney in the 1925 trial accusing
teacher John Scopes of teaching Darwinian theory.
My Views about Evolution By William Jennings Bryan
Religion has no quarrel with science and cannot have because real science is
classified knowledge. Nothing, therefore, can be scientific that is not true. All
truth is of God, whether found in the book of nature or in the Book of Books;
but guesses are not science; hypotheses, such as the hypothesis of evolution,
are not truths.
There is a wide difference of opinion as to what evolution really means. Most
of those who declare that they favor it think it means growth, like the growth
of the chicken from the egg; or development from without, like the
improvement of the automobile. They are mistaken. Evolution is the word
used by scientists to describe the hypothesis which links all life together and
assumes that all species are developed from one or a few germs of life by the
operation of resident forces working from within.
My purpose here is to show that science, as well as the Bible, condemns
evolution. If science is classified knowledge, then we are justified in rejecting
as unscientific anything which is not established as true. On this ground
evolution should be rejected.
Idea Older than Darwin
The hypothesis has its place, whether it requires four syllables to express it or
is expressed in one syllable--by the word guess. But the hypothesis is nothing
more than a hypothesis until it is proven true.
The prospector uses the hypothesis; he guesses that there is more at a certain
point on a mountainside, and digs a pit to prove it; but the pit is not a mine
until he finds the precious metals.
So with the lawyer; he tries his case upon the hypothesis; but the decisions of
the court show that at least half of these hypotheses are wrong. So with the
scientist. It is part of his business--guessing is his middle name. He formulates
an hypothesis and then tries to prove it; but most of the hypotheses advanced
by scientists in the name of science have been proven erroneous.
Take evolution, for instance. It did not originate with Darwin nor with his
grandfather. People have been guessing as to the origin of man as far back as
there have been means of recording guesses. There is enough physical
similarity between man and the brutes about him--although they are separated
by infinite distance--to suggest to some ancients the possibility of a common
ancestry. Darwin's connection with this hypothesis is due not to origination of
the idea, but to reasons which he advanced in support of the hypothesis.
Darwin imagined that species came by slow and gradual change, one from
another, and suggested two so-called laws or explanations which he deemed
sufficient to account for the origin of and change in species. These two laws or
explanations were defined as "sexual selection" and "natural selection."
Whatever he could not explain by one he tried to explain by the other. Sexual
selection has been laughed out of the classroom, and natural selection is being
discredited as its insufficiently is being more and more disclosed. John
Burroughs, the great naturalist, announced his dissent from this in an article
published just before his death.
The whole case in favor of evolution is based on physical resemblances. Those
who believe in the evolutionary hypothesis reject the Mosaic account of man's
creation by separate act of the Almighty and give him jungle ancestry, but they
offer only circumstantial evidence in support of their speculation. Most
scientists now reject Darwin's monkey-gorilla-ape line of descent and argue
that man came by some other imaginary limb of the imaginary tree to which
evolutionists attempt to trace all living things. The new limb to which they are
trying to attach man's ancestry has disappeared entirely; not a fragment
remains, so far as they have been able to discover, between man and the
imaginary tree.
The trouble with circumstantial evidence is that one fact will overthrow any
amount of it.
Holds Evidence Circumstantial
The evolutionists have attempted to prove by circumstantial evidence
(resemblances) that man is descended from the brute. No one will deny that
they have labored industriously. Men who would not cross the street to save a
soul have traveled around the world in search of skeletons. If they find a stray
tooth in a gravel pit they hold a conclave and fashion a creature such as they
suppose the possessor of the tooth to have been, and they shout derisively at
Moses. If they find a skull, or even a piece of a skull, they summon the
geologists, the biologists, the anthropologists, the fossilologists, the
paleontologists, the archeologists, the psychologists, and all the other experts
whom they regard as authorities and hold a post mortem examination. Sitting
as a coroner's jury, they solemnly declare that the Bible account of man's
creation is a lie.
All of these resemblances and all this circumstantial evidence are overthrown
by one single, indisputable fact--namely that no species has ever been traced to
another species. With more than a million species (Darwin estimated the
number at between two and three million) to furnish proof, if there were any
proof, they have so far failed to find one instance in which they can establish a
descent from one species to another. If the hypothesis were true, evidence of
its truth could be found on every square foot of the earth's surface. Being
untrue, evidence can not be found anywhere. Evolution still rests upon
imagination--upon a presumption--an unproven hypothesis--a mere guess. But
the case against evolution is even stronger. Chemistry, the science with which
man is best acquainted and from which he has drawn the largest practical
benefit, presents what seems to be conclusive evidence against evolution.
Chemistry deals with the original elements, some ninety-two of which have
been found on the Earth. Its business is to separate these elements one from
the other, to analyze them, and to reveal their differences and relationships. If
the evolutionary hypothesis is true anywhere, it must be true everywhere. It
cannot be isolated like a germ and confined to some particular portion of the
universe. If it explains the heavenly bodies, the strata of rock, vegetable life,
animal life, and man, linking each to every other by indissoluble ties, then
surely it must exert a controlling influence over every atom of matter (and over
the 1,740 electrons which make up the atom), and over every larger unit of
matter, wherever it is found and whatever it is doing.
Chemistry has not discovered any law of evolution. It has registered the
various gases and diagrammed the movements of the molecules, but it has
discovered no pushing force at work in the original elements of which all
things animate and inanimate are composed. Chemistry is an exact science; it
mocks the atheist and brings confusion to the evolutionist.
Water Cited as Example
Let us take, for instance, the best known thing with which man deal--water. It
is the daily need of every living thing. Without it, there could be neither plant
nor animal life. It was, therefore, on the Earth before either plant or animal life
appeared. It is the largest single element in man's body. Water is composed of
hydrogen and oxygen, H20. Is it conceivable that two such gases as oxygen
and hydrogen should just happen: And yet according to Professor Leuba of
Bryn Mawr University, in his book "Belief in God and Immortality," more than
half the prominent scientists of the United States do not believe in a personal
God.
But even if it were conceivable that chance could bring into existence oxygen
and hydrogen, could chance unite them at a certain fixed ratio, so that a drop
of water is always and ever the same wherever found, whether in the clouds, in
the ocean, or in the veins of the Earth? Oxygen and hydrogen are inflammable
when separated, but when they are united in water they put out fire. If the
evolutionary hypothesis, which assumes constant progress in everything is
true, water must have developed from something. What was water before it
became water, and what will it be when it ceases to be water? Or was the law
of change suspended when the two gases united in the formation of water?
Everything that man eats, wears, or uses, will serve as an illustration of exact
and permanent relationship between various forms of matter. Chemistry has
taught us the properties of matter and the way to utilize them, but they are
now stationary. We can collect nitrogen from the air but, as Dr. Edward
Slossen says, "We are dreadfully clumsy about it." He adds that man, "takes a
thousand-horsepower engine and electric furnaces at several thousand degrees
to get carbon into combination with hydrogen, while the little green leaf in
summer time does it quietly without getting hot about it." And yet some
scientists who know all about hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon seem to know
nothing about God; they even deny His existence.
The natural and logical tendency of evolution is to produce agnosticism, and
agnosticism is merely a way station on the road to atheism. It furnishes an
excuse for the indolent man; it is the laziest excuse ever invented to justify
inaction.
If a man believes in evolution, he can go to the zoological garden on Sunday
morning and standing in front of a cage of animals, speculate on how far he
has come, on his superiority over his ancestors. There are some people who
would rather boast of what their forefathers have done than do anything
themselves.
If, however, one is a Christian, he feels that he should attend church and seek
to know how far he has yet to go before he is "perfect, even as your Father
which is in Heaven is perfect."
The evolutionary hypothesis robs man's conscience of its compelling force.
What feeling of duty can man have or what sense of responsibility to God if it
must be strained through the blood of all animal life below man? Religion, on
the contrary, inspires to action. Christianity is not a lazy man's job. It presents
the highest ideal known.
Charges Against Evolution
Evolution is the doctrine of the fatalist--the plea of the invertebrate. If a man is
but a "bundle of tendencies inherited from the brute," why hold him
accountable if, following the instincts of his remote ancestry, he is brutish?
Evolution excuses the sensualist and encourages the worshipper of the god of
ease.
The great need of the world today is to get back to God--to a real belief in a
living God. Evolutionists either deny the existence of God or put Him so far
away that consciousness of His presence in the life is weakened, if not
destroyed. When they have eliminated all of the Bible that conflicts with
evolution, the Bible is no longer an authority, but merely a "scrap of paper."
The world needs the Christ of whom the Bible tells. Evolutionists rob the
Savior of the glory of a virgin birth, of the majesty of His deity, and of the
triumph of His resurrection. Such a Christ is impotent to save. The world
needs a full-statured Christ; not a man aspiring to be a God, but a God
condescending to be man. His blood has colored the stream of time; His
philosophy fits into every human need; His teachings furnish the only solution
of the problems that vex our hearts and perplex the world.
We do not ask that teachers paid by taxation shall teach the Christian religion
to students, but we do insist that they shall not teach, under the guise of either
science or philosophy, anything that undermines faith in God, impairs belief in
the Bible, or discredits Christ, the Son and Savior of the World.
Editor's Note--The material in this article was contained in an address recently
delivered by Mr. Bryan before the State Legislature at Charleston, West
Virginia, and is not copyrighted by POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY.
www.popsci.com - The official Web site of Popular Science Magazine.
Copyright (c) 1995 - 1997 Popular Science, a division of Times Mirror
Magazines."
(http://www.popsci.com/context/features/lookingback/bryan.html)
Steve
"Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented."
--- Dr. William Provine, Professor of History and Biology, Cornell University.
http://fp.bio.utk.edu/darwin/1998/slides_view/Slide_7.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------