By RAYMOND DE SOUZA, KM
Part 23
Another fraudulent bluff of evolutionists (forgive the redundancy) was the “Nebraska Man,” but it was not a fraud but a bluff, or a joke, really. A tooth was found, and the imaginative scientists, drunk with their dreams of evolution, immediately claimed to have found the tooth of a primitive man. But when I say “imaginative,” I am not making fun of them. They managed to draw an entire man out of a tooth! That’s imagination! To make matters worse, the tooth was found not even human, either. It was the tooth of a wild pig, a peccary. . . .
Other “missing links” keep on missing, such as the Neanderthal Man, the “Australopithecines,” the Java Man, the Peking Man, that were once presented as wonderful scientific discoveries. They all had to be discarded or reclassified in the light of later and more detailed scrutiny. The “Java Man” was found in Java (Indonesia) in 1891, but it had a main problem: It was not a man at all. It was a good-sized ape, a Gibbon, as was later verified. His very “discoverer,” Eugene Dubois, admitted 40 years later that he had himself withheld parts of other thigh bones found in the same area. Why? Because the bones denied his conclusion.
Then came the “Peking Man,” which is now considered by many experts to be the remains of plain apes, not evolved humans. “Ramapithecus” was cited from 1961 to 1977 as an ape-like ancestor of man. The “ancestor” consisted of a mere handful of teeth and jaw fragments, and not even a portion of the skull. It is now agreed that it is from an ape.
Therefore, one cannot simply accept the reports of “findings” about evolution at face value. We have to verify the authenticity of the findings, because the series of neat drawings that so commonly appear in textbooks showing an ape slowly move upright and modify his shape and features until Homo sapiens (rational man) appears are nothing but imaginary drawings, since the so-called missing links are still missing!
Such drawings in books, and similar displays in museums, have had a powerful impact on the public imagination, but they are simply dishonest as depictions of known history. Even the very phrase “missing link” implies that we know that the link exists, only that we cannot find it.
In a decent scientific environment, it is reasonable that a scientist develops a theory from some of his observations. He may of course direct his investigations according to his theory, but he must always be open to modify it according to new finds. He may strengthen his theory, or he may abandon it, if the findings confirm or fail to help prove it.
Such is the way an intellectually honest scientist acts. But until the evidence is found, he must speak of his theory as theory, not fact.
In another area, a detective does not speak of a man under investigation as “the criminal,” but as “the suspect.” When the suspect is arrested, he becomes “the accused”; when he is held and tried, he is “the defendant,” uncertain of the outcome, but he is not “the convicted criminal” until the evidence has been presented and an affirmative judgment has been given.
At least this is the procedure in any civilized society. Communist dictatorships and many of today’s so-called democratic governments fail to behave in a civilized manner, but I digress.
In the same manner, evolution remains a theory of scientific investigators, a hypothesis directing their research, but they cannot call a theory a proven fact until the indisputable evidence, as opposed to imaginary drawings, is produced. But they have never found any.
Behind any theory about the origin of species is the basic question of the origin of life itself. The kind of evolution believed by Darwin, Lenin, or Hitler required that all the necessary elements of life were there on Earth since the very beginning of time. So there would be no need for God to do anything. Matter itself would have been perfect and clever.
But even if all the necessary chemical elements were there inside a primeval pond, this affirmation does not explain how life began! All the financing from nonprofit agnostic foundations that has been poured into scientific research to prove evolution has never been of any use. No scientist has ever produced life from lifeless matter.
But let us walk the extra mile and say that, even supposing that an extremely clever scientist managed to put together the exact amount of hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and whatever else is required to compose a living cell, it would be a marvelous hymn to creation! It would prove that God, who created man in His image, gave him incredible powers to modify nature to the extent of rebuilding its composition into a living cell — exactly what God did before! But without the mind of the scientist, working hard to modify the molecules, there would have never been life in his laboratory.
The scientist would have been the intelligent designer who rearranged nature and made a new being, just as God did in the several stages of creation.
Now back to reality: If the cleverest scientists, using the most advanced technologies and with plenty of funding, cannot produce the immense complexity of a living cell, how on Earth would the mindless elements of the Earth make it? To suppose so is a gross insult to any intellect — unless, of course, our worthy scientist believes in miracles.
To make a more down-to-earth example: Suppose that near an airplane factory there was a storeroom where all sorts of airplane parts were accumulated, enough to make a new plane if the CEO wanted it.
One day, at a board meeting, it was decided that, since there were too many spare parts in storeroom, they should have another 747 assembled.
Fortunately enough, a whirlwind appeared, that was so powerful, that blew through the storeroom and at the other side there was a fully formed 747, with all the electronic equipment, ready to fly.
Ridiculous, right? But to have a living cell organizing itself from lifeless matter by itself would be an immensely more difficult — nay, impossible — thing to happen! The 747 is lifeless matter, the cell is alive, able to feed and duplicate itself. Impressive how much faith it takes to believe in evolution!
How can anyone possibly believe that a protein or a gene, so incredibly complex beyond man’s creative capacity, a reality which is the very opposite, the antithesis of chance, which exceeds anything produced by the intelligence of man, could, by a random process, construct itself? (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, by Michael Denton, Burnett Books, Adler & Adler, 1985, pp. 327-329, 342).
Surely, to believe in evolution requires immensely more “faith” than to believe in the Holy Trinity!
Next article: Adam and Eve: Their gifts and their fall.
+ + +
(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.)
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress