By RAYMOND DE SOUZA
Schoolteachers who believe in the pseudo-dogma of evolution and second-class scientists refuse to face the fact that there are quite a few difficulties with the general theory of evolution. These difficulties are generally hidden from the public eye, as they are considered “politically incorrect” among the trendies. A major reason behind this effort to hide those difficulties is the attitude of many evolutionists who regard any criticism — let alone rejection — of their theory as being “disloyal” to science.
Such homo sapiens who think they are the “sapiest” among mankind have created an atmosphere in which any unbiased judgment has become difficult. But they do not succeed all the time. In spite of their efforts to fool the common mortals, some competent scientists have produced works demonstrating that there are inadequacies — to put it charitably — in any theory of evolution.
Among more recent studies may be counted: The Intelligent Universe by Fred Hoyle; Evolution: a Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton; Darwin on Trial by Phillip E. Johnson; In the Beginning by Walt Brown; Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by Michael J. Behe. For the sake of brevity, I will mention only a few of their excellent arguments, while I recommend that Wanderer readers avail themselves of one or two of those book titles.
To begin to respond to the theories of Darwinism intelligently, we must first define our terms — something many scientists, untrained in philosophy and logic, do not do.
First of all, the word “evolution” can mean a number of things:
Evolution of certain characteristics and diversities within animal species, as we see in the variety of dogs and cats and pigeons;
Evolution of the human body from some ape-like animal, like the supposed transformation of a gorilla into an evolutionist scientist with a family problem;
Evolution, by natural processes, without divine intervention, of living cells from dead matter, of plants from living cells, of animals from plants, and finally of man from animals. This may be called the general theory of evolution.
Let us take these definitions one by one.
The first one, or the variety of changes within the same species, can be observed by everyone, not only among dogs and cats and pigeons, but also among humans. The variety of human races proves this ad nauseam, from the Australian aborigine to the Chinese villager, from the Swede to the Eskimo, from the African pygmy to the average American politician. But they are all humans, and all races can interbreed and produce offspring. The differences are not essential, only accidental.
All true Christians admit that all humans are descendants of one single couple, Adam and Eve, whereby we are all brethren. So the variety of accidental characteristics within the same species is not evolution: It is transformation, purely and simply. Thus we can ignore the first definition of the word “evolution,” as it is just an effort on the part of evolutionists to “prove” their theories.
But everyone can see that, regardless of the variety of external characteristics, dogs remain dogs and cats remain cats and pigeons remain pigeons and humans remain humans, in spite of the evolutionists’ participation in the human species. They do not change into apes, to the best of my knowledge.
Only racists refuse to admit to that oneness in the human race, and consequently believe in superior and inferior races, as the Nazis did.
The second meaning given to the word “evolution” is a historical and scientific question, as well as a religious one. The Church so far has not ruled it out as contrary to the teaching in the Book of Genesis. That is, whether or not God used the body of a pre-existing creature as the raw material to make Adam, it does not matter, as it is not evolution, but again transformation, caused by an outside force, God’s action. One can believe this if one wishes to, but it is not evolution as such.
The third meaning of “evolution” includes the second, and is a gigantic claim, never proved in the least, since the mere idea of life emerging from lifeless matter, all by itself and without any outside force causing it, has never, ever, been observed within nature — let alone achieved by science. The third meaning of “evolution” presupposes that the very substance of the being has changed into a superior life form, all by itself, without either God’s power or a magic wand of an evolutionist fairy godmother.
The name and theory of evolution became famous with the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859 by English scientist Charles Darwin (1809-1882). He followed that work up with The Descent of Man in 1871. The Darwiniac theory states that “evolution” has occurred by two processes:
First, survival of the fittest, also called natural selection, or the law of the jungle, where might makes right.
Second, transformation, i.e., a being changes into another, regardless of the chromosomes. Darwin imagined that life arose from lifeless matter, by a process nobody knows or understands but believes in anyway; this would then explain how basic cells like an amoeba evolved — all by itself — into the whole range of the plant world, like beetroots and sequoia trees, then into the animal kingdom like sharks and camels, then into humans, like Darwin himself. Darwin called this fairy tale “descent with modification.”
What could we say to this imaginative person, shortly after from laughing at him? In answer to survival of the fittest: The famous explanation turns out to be a tautology, the mere repetition of the same idea — without proving it in any way. Some scientists who believe in evolution have openly admitted this. Who are the fittest? Answer: Those who survive, of course. And who are those who survive? The fittest, of course. So, what does this explain? Nothing: It is merely the observation that, in particular regions, certain species survive and others don’t. That’s all. It does not explain why some survive and others don’t. It is a mere observation.
It only affirms that, within biological species, fluctuations occur of certain characteristics of certain animals. It does not mean that one species became another, like reptiles becoming birds, for example. Nobody has ever seen a lizard coming out of a fish egg or a bird from a lizard egg or a monkey giving birth to an evolutionist politician, in spite of similarities. It merely means the observation of the occurrence of “evolution” — read transformation — in the first sense given above: “Natural selection merely preserves or destroys something that already exists.” It explains nothing about how the species came to exist, and explains nothing about supposed mutations turning one species into another.
In short, “survival of the fittest” or “natural selection” is just a bluff.
This is a realization of a fundamental importance: There has never been any instance of a species becoming another. Extinction of species is observed frequently; production or appearance of new species, never. Just because birds appear after reptiles does not mean that they came from reptiles.
Baron Cuvier, a famous 19th-century Catholic scientist, showed that “successive creation” is what explains why more perfect species appeared after less perfect species. God created lifeless minerals in the first place; then created plants; then animals, then man. But there has never been any proof that just because some were created after another they necessarily came from the previous ones. Next article: More on this subject.
+ + +
(Raymond de Souza is an EWTN program host; regional coordinator for Portuguese-speaking countries for Human Life International [HLI]; president of the Sacred Heart Institute, and a member of the Sovereign, Military, and Hospitaller Order of the Knights of Malta. His website is: www.RaymonddeSouza.com.)