THE DAYTON DECPTION BY JOHN MORRIS
The Scopes Trial can only
be fully comprehended within a larger framework-the long war
against God. Only when we see the creation/evolution conflict
as the collision of two world views can we understand the utter
hatred toward Christianity on display at the Scopes Trial.
Even though John Scopes was "convicted" of teaching
evolution, in many ways the anti-creationists won a major victory,
since "to the victor belongs the spoils." During the
trial, Christians were depicted as ignorant, foolish, anti-intellectuals.
And this image was portrayed to the world by the media. Evolutionists
are still enjoying the incredible gains they made through the
Scopes Trial, in society, in the courts, in politics-even in religious
circles. Evolution has become known as "the central unifying
concept" for all rational discussion. Creation, and to a
large degree Christianity, have been ridiculed, ignored or legislated
out of the public arena.
A Look at the Two world Views
The main difference between the two world views is in the origin of life.
Creation, on its face, presupposes a supernatural
origin of all things, and a spiritual understanding of nature.
There is no such thing as creation without a Creator. Acts of
creation cannot be observed today, but by observing those things
which do exist, creationists conclude life could not have come
about by natural processes, but only by supernatural processes.
Evolution, at its core, is an attempt to understand all
things as natural phenomena-the random, chance results of natural
processes. Most evolutionists admit that evolution, in any meaningful
sense, goes too slowly to observe, if it still occurs at all.
Thus, it too is an idea about the nature of the unobserved past.
This view colors every observation and reconstruction of history.
Only natural processes are allowed, and the supernatural is excluded.
Obviously, both naturalism
and supernaturalism are religious faith positions. The question,
then, becomes: Which religious bias is the correct one? Since
neither can be observed, the best we can do is to see which view
of history fits the observable facts best, and that is the one
that is more likely correct.
Let us briefly look at some major scientific observations. Consider
the unimaginable complexity in living things. The complexity of
even the simplest single-celled organism dwarfs that of the largest
man-made computer.
Evolutionists think simple life originated one day from nonliving chemicals-all by chance.
Yet this life is far too complex
for man to understand, let alone duplicate. If computers do not
happen by chance, is it really credible to think that life,
which is profoundly more complex, could generate spontaneously
by chance?
When organisms reproduce today, their offspring look like their
parents. No evidence exists to suggest that these organisms change
into something else. Darwin proposed that the process of natural
selection accomplished evolutionary changes. Later on, mutations
were thought to produce the genetic material. But surprisingly,
not one new and different species has ever been produced by natural
selection, as far as observational science knows.
Natural selection works, but it just does not produce anything new. It works to conserve what already exists, and weed out any misfits. No mutation-not one truly beneficial or positive mutations ever been observed. While a few mutations have produced a trait in a plant or animal that was preferred by man, these changes have been harmful to the organism itself in a natural sense. Mutations should rightly be called birth defects. They will not produce positive evolutionary changes.
Today biologists speak of
beneficial recombination of genes ;
some other factor, but at best all that is produced is a variety
of, living type. The ultimate question is: How did the organism
itself arise?
Better yet, from where did the original genetic code arise, and who coded it to contain such a wealth of information?
Leaders in evolutionary thought now argue that they are still searching for the mechanism of evolution, because all ideas proposed in the past have been shown to be impossible. A theory that claims to be responsible for everything that exists, and does not even have a mechanism, is weak indeed.
The weakest link in the evolutionary
chain is the origin of life from nonlife.
If anything is impossible, this is it.
The problem here is so serious
that some evolutionists have adopted the concept of "panspermia."
Since life could not have arisen here on earth, it must have happened
somewhere else, they say, out in outer space where the conditions
were different and perhaps natural laws were different, coming
here perhaps on a meteoroid. Some hold to this ridiculous idea,
and yet claim that the origin of life could never have been the
result of a supernatural Creator.
Fossils:
Surely if evolution occurred over billions of years it would be recorded in the fossil record. We should see evidence that some basic types of organism have changed into others. Such transitions may have taken millions of years, and we should be able to find some of the transitional, or in-between forms. Darwin was frustrated by the lack of clear examples in his day, but predicted that many would soon be found. However, as of today viable transitional fossil forms have not been uncovered. In the 1970's, evolutionists began to admit the lack of evolutionary transitions in the fossil record, and set about modifying the evolutionary theory to fit. Now, many teach that organisms remain the same for long periods of time, and then evolve so rapidly that they leave no fossils .
The two biggest gaps in the fossil record prove the point. Even if single-celled organisms did exist, how did they evolve into the vast array of ocean-bottom-dwelling invertebrates? This is called the Cambrian period-this explosion of life that has baffled evolutionists.
Clams, snails, brachiopods,
corals, starfish, jellyfish, trilobites, and many other organisms
appear in the fossil record with no ancestors at all.
The transition is
thought to have taken some 3 billion years, yet not one transitional
form has been found!
The next biggest gap in the
fossil record is from marine invertebrates to vertebrate
fish. Was a clam or a jellyfish the ancestor of fish? This transition
is thought to have taken tens of millions of years. Again, nothing
has been found which serves as a plausible ancestor for the fish.
If evolution cannot climb over these two hurdles, we can consider
it to be, pardon the pun, dead in the water.
Changes are seen. People in
America are taller on the average than they were 2000 years ago.
But that is not evolution; it is due to better nutrition and medical
care. Grasshopper populations grow resistant to DDT, but that
is not evolution. A small percentage of grasshoppers have always
been resistant to DDT, and the nonresistant ones have been killed
without leaving offspring. The predominantly light variety of
peppered moths in England was replaced by a darker variety during
the smoggy industrial revolution. But that is not evolution; it
was the same moth before and after, with differing proportions
of dark and light moths alive at the time. This might be natural
selection, but not evolution; nothing new was produced.
Small changes within a species
(which are observed) do not prove the big changes into new types
(which are not observed), no matter how often our evolutionary
colleagues insist that it does. All the changes that we observe
are variations within a species. There is no leaping from species
to species-all changes occur within it: boundaries of species.
Evolutionists should not just guess how evolution might have
occurred: they should show that it did occur, and was responsible
for life and its vast array of living forms.
In many ways, natural selection provides a barrier to evolution.
If the forelimb of a walking reptile transformed into the wing
of a bird, each evolutionary step would have to provide some advantage
over its predecessor and thus be "selected" by nature
(natural selection) for survival. But long before the forelimb
was a good wing, with feathers rather than scales, hollow bones
in place of solid, warm blooded instead of cold blooded, and so
on, it would be a terrible leg and eliminated by natural selection.
What benefit is half a wing?
To top it all off, even the basic laws of science forbid evolution.
In particular, the "Second Law of Science," which has
never been violated in all of observational science, shows that
in any process the disorder of a system tends to increase. We
know this to be true as we see things grow old, wear out, decay,
and die.
Everything goes downhill, but evolutionist insist things have
become more complex over time. They claim the law can be overcome
by providing extra energy from the sun. However, the more uncontrolled
energy added, the faster the system runs downhill. In order to
build up in complexity, there must be a way to convert the incoming
energy into useful forms. Solar energy, for example, is converted
by photosynthesis into a plant, and applied in specific ways,
through the DNA code in the plant seed. These features must preexist
the energy, or the plant will die. The growth which does result
is not evolution. No new genetic material was formed at all. Evolution
is against this basic law of science.
The Evidence in 1925
If evolution is not well supported now, consider its state at
the time of the Scopes Trial. Evolution had become rather popular
among intellectuals, as is also true today, but a look at the
scientific evidence presented reveals just how weak the case was.
The evidence had a particular slant. At stake was not just the
theory of evolution; it was that men had evolved from apelike
creatures. Almost all lines of evidence attempted to link man
with the animals. Very little evidence for evolution was presented,
but every possible argument for human evolution found its way
into the trial and the media coverage surrounding the trial.
As we look back on this evidence now, we recognize that every
argument presented for evolution at the Scopes Trial has been
disproved. Two arguments from biology were aired, and four
examples of supposed ape-men made their appearance. In each case,
the arguments are no longer valid. Let us look briefly at each
One.
Vestigial Organs
In the early 1900's, some scientists claimed that a number of
human body parts were nonfunctional-such as the appendix or the
tonsils-and they were thought to be useless leftovers from evolutionary
ancestors. Such organs may have had a use in the past, they reasoned,
but evolution had made them invalid. The useless leftovers were
labeled "vestigial."
But in reality, what does this show? Does this really mean that
the organs, muscles or glands have no function, or only that medical
science has not yet discovered the function? As it turns out,
the latter is correct. Uses for one after the other have been
found. The list has decreased from almost 200 useless organs to
zero.
It is true that some parts
may not be necessary, but does this mean they are useless? We
can live without a hand or a leg, but retaining them is preferable.
Many people have had their tonsils or appendix removed, and suffer
little. But it is now known that each plays a role in the body's
immune system. It is better to keep these organs, even though
one can live without them.
Some organs only contribute
under extreme circumstances which are seldom faced, but their
lack can prove deadly. A recent study in Japan showed that those
who had their appendix survived radiation poisoning at a much
higher rate than those without an appendix.
Some organs play an important role during infancy or even in the
womb, only to become rather inoperative later in life. Without
their early function, however, life would have ceased.
Today's scientists are following
a similar route. By studying life's genetic code, scientists have
observed that much of the DNA strand of coded information remains
idle. Ten years ago scientists came to regard this "junk
DNA" as from evolution leftovers. But now several functions
have been discovered; some operate as backup, replacing damaged
"working" parts; some provide a template to ensure accurate
copying during reproduction; other sections provide three-dimensional
spacing in the DNA coiled helix that is necessary for proper function;
many sections operate during fetal development but not afterwards;
and the functions for still others are just now being discovered.
God's design of the human body and its myriad interdependent parts
is exquisite.
Scientists need to learn humility from the lesson of vestigial organs. Only the height of arrogance would lead a fallible scientist, operating from lack of data and understanding, to pass judgment on God's design. How much better to acknowledge one's own inadequacies and adopt a wait-and-see attitude toward the mysteries which remain.
Embryonic Recapitulation
Once Darwin's book was published, it gathered a strange gallery
of followers, but none more dubious than Emst Haeckel. A German
biologist, he championed Darwin's theories on the European continent,
much as Huxley did in England. Ideas of naturalism, racism and
imperialism were already gaining in popularity in Germany, and
Darwin's views-survival of the fittest, might makes right, and
elimination of the less fit-provided the fertile seedbed for National
Socialism.
Haeckel hated Christianity, and rightly saw evolution as
incompatible with Christian doctrine. His teaching has come into
disrepute, for in his later years he was found guilty in a university
trial of fraudulently tampering with his data. Data he used with
great effectiveness to validate and teach evolution.
Haeckel was the main advocate of the concept of embryonic recapitulation,
that the human embryo recapitulates (or remembers) its evolutionary
past.
Superficial resemblances can
be seen between the embryos of various organisms. Obviously, even
the human embryo starts out as a single cell, resembling a single-celled
organism. According to Haeckel, as it develops, a sac is attached
to the embryo, is like the yolk sac of a bird. At one point, the
embryo has linear folds that he indicated look like "gill
slits" in a fish embryo. Soon the embryo develops a taillike
structure, which was a leftover from the animals. He even fudged
his drawings to make the embryos look more alike, and it was for
this he was tried and convicted.
We now know that in all cases
of comparison and similarity he was wrong. The "yolk sac"
supplies blood cells to the growing embryo, a very necessary function.
The "gill slits" in the human turn out to be neither
gills nor slits. Gills are used for breathing, but never do these
folds open into the throat or lungs. Rather, they develop into
essential parts of the human ear, and the parathyroid and thymus
glands. The folds are the not-yet-finished displays of vital human
parts. The "tail" develops into the human coccyx, or
"tail bone." Far from being a useless or leftover vestige,
the coccyx anchors the muscles of the hips and legs, attaching
them to the spinal column, without which human posture and movements
would be impossible.
In recent years, medical science
has developed ways to monitor the growing embryo, and has concluded
that every aspect of the human fetus, at every stage of its development,
is distinctly and uniquely human. Today, Haeckel's theory has
been totally discredited, however strongly it remains in the folklore
of evolution.
more proof: AnswersInGenesis