True scientists today think they are building upon facts. But is it possible that the “facts” upon which the theory of evolution is built are merely the arbitrary conclusions of overly wishful observers. Evolution Creation and Science, Frank Lewis Marsh Ph.D 1944. Page 4
The following is an article by Dr George Wald, Biology Professor of Harvard University. Article in Scientific American, August 1954.
“We tell this story (of Pasteur’s work); to beginning students of biology as though it represents a triumph of reason over mysticism. In fact it is very nearly the opposite. The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation, (which Louis Pasteur disproved as a mechanism for the evolution of life forms – my quote). There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a ‘philosophical necessity.’ It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists have reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in a special creation, are left with nothing.”
(Why Professor Wald considers it a ‘reasonable view’ to believe in a process of evolution that has been disproven is not known, nevertheless he is honest enough to admit that science has no alternative but to believe in spontaneous generation or if they do not, they would have to believe in a divine creator.)
Later in the article he is quite frank when he admits: “One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task (that is the fitting together of complex organisms, molecule to molecule, which no chemist could replicate), to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible.” Yet, he goes on to say, “Here we are, as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.”
So science continues to promote the theory of spontaneous generation even though proven false. Surely this cannot be true science?
The Theory of Uniformity. Sir Charles Lyell, an English geologist stated: “The present is a measure of the past and all the past.” In other words, we can determine what has happened in the past by watching what is happening in the present. For example: if hills are being eroded away by the action of water and swampy places are being raised above the level of the waters by the deposit of silt, there is, says the uniformitarian geologist, a small-scale exhibit of what has happened in the dim past in the changing of great masses of the earth and the depositing of various strata.
If one is to believe in this theory, then one must believe in large amounts of endless time for changes to occur to living matter. There can be no place for a giant catastrophic event (such as the Biblical flood) happening in the past to account for any major geological changes to the earth. It was Charles Darwin, who transferred the discussion of evolution from the realm of philosophy to that of science through his book, ‘The Origin of the Species’. In 1859, Darwin accredited Charles Lyell as the main influence in writing his book.
Time is the Hero of Evolution. Time is the substitute for the miraculous. Given enough time, the impossible becomes possible; yet is it not much easier to believe the miracles of the Bible than to believe the kind of ‘miracles’ that the evolutionist demands. God & Evolution by Francis D Nichol, Review & Herald 1957, Page 14
Death of a Living Organism. According to the evolutionist all the correct elements must combine to create life. They cannot, however, explain how it is that when a living organism dies, it still consists of all the right elements for life, but there is no life in it?
The Evolutionists Dilemma. The evolutionist has to assume as true what has to be proven. I’ll rephrase that: Evolutionists have to assume something is true before it is proven. Contrary to all their belief that life evolved from a primeval swamp, they are fully aware that it remains a hypothesis.
In 1925, Louis Trenchard More, Dean of the Graduate School, University of Cincinnati, delivered a series of lectures at Princeton University. He comes to the general conclusion:
“The more one studies palaeontology, the more certain one can be that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion. The changes that are noted as time progresses show no orderly and no consecutive evolutionary chain and, above all, they give us no clue whatever as to the cause of variations. Evolutionists would have us believe that they have photographed the succession of fauna and flora, and have arranged them on a vast moving picture film. Its slow unrolling takes millions of years. A few pictures, mostly vague, defaced and tattered, occasionally attract our attention. Between these memorials of the past are enormous lengths of films containing no pictures at all? And we cannot tell whether these parts are blanks or whether the impression has faded from sight. Is the scenario a continuous changing show or is it a succession of static events? The evidence from palaeontology is for discontinuity; only by faith and imagination is there continuity of variation.” The Dogma of Evolution, pp.1 60,160 (Princeton, N.J.): Princeton University Press, 1925.
Dean Trenchard declared: “I accept the general doctrine of the evolution of organisms as a deductive theory.” _Ibid. p163. Consequently, he did not lack the faith on which he confessed evolution is based. He simply exercised his faith in behalf of the theory of evolution instead of creationism, as do all those who believe in evolution.
A Miracle of Life over Time. Ultimately evolutionists must believe in a miracle that living organisms sprang from non-living matter and time performed the miracle of life. How logical is that? Is that not an act of philosophical faith? Scientists who believe in evolution do so, not because they can prove the theory, but because they have no alternative. Rather than admit they are wrong, they vociferously vilify and are aggressively intolerant of anyone who disagrees with their theories. Is it science to say it is true because of ‘the law of probability’? No, it is speculation and assumption wrapped up in fancy words to fool the masses.
The attack on the Twin Towers in September 2001 was a turning point in this world, but it wasn’t the greatest tragedy to happen to humanity. The world changed after Darwin’s book gained worldwide popularity. Men began to reject a divine beginning in favour of a crawl from a slimy swamp. They deliberately rejected the plain word of scripture that long ago God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Pet 3:3-7
Not long after the theory of evolution gained popularity, a women gifted in prophecy by God, wrote the following:
“I have been warned that henceforth we shall have a constant contest. Science, so called, and religion will be placed in opposition to each other, because finite men do not comprehend the power and greatness of God. These words of Holy Writ were presented to me, ‘Of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.’” – E. G. White, Medical Ministry, p.98
Church Leaders Today. Time has proven her words to be true. Many leaders in our churches today have rejected the creation story in favour of the theory of evolution. As leaders of the flock, they will be the first to suffer God’s wrath. Jer 23:1,2.
In summary. The theory of evolution is the greatest modern lie that has invaded human thought. A masterstroke of cunning by a fallen angel who hates the government of God. With superstitions of the past giving way to ‘science’, what better way to lead men away from God than to fool them into thinking there is no God. By appealing to his modern human logic and academic intellect, the devil has flattered men of worldly influence into thinking themselves master of his own destiny, who have no need of a saviour. My question to them would be, “are we men who came from the hand of a divine God, created in perfection, or the offspring of monkey’s?” You decide what to believe, but I urge you to reason through the arguments for or against creation? Your eternal life depends on what and in whom you believe!