Conclusion

WHY DO THEY DO IT?—ln view of such facts, why are evolutionists willing to go to such extremes to defend their beloved strata age theory?

They do it because they are desperate. The fossil-strata age dating theory is the bedrock foundation of evolution!

"Fossils provide the only historical, documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more and more complex forms."—*C.O. Dunbar, Historical Geology (1960), p. 47.

CLINGING TO A CRUMBLING ERROR— (*#22/4

The Geological Clock*) Reporting on a major evolutionary conference in late 1980, Newsweek magazine described some of the discussion as men argued among themselves to find some reason for holding on to the foolishness they inherited from Darwin:

"Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school . . The missing link between man and the apes . . is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures. In the fossil record, missing links are the rule . . The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated."—*Newsweek, November 3, 1980.

Is evolution beginning to look hopeless? It not only is hopeless. it is useless. When * Charles Darwin published his book, Origin of the Species, back in 1859, no one knew what discoveries would be made later. But in our day a vast wealth of knowledge has been amassed, and evolution stands condemned as meaningless and worthless.

SCIENTISTS ARE WAKING UP—Many scientists are becoming aware of the facts and are beginning to speak out more boldly,—but only among themselves or in their scientific journals. The general public continues to hear only the usual "the fossils prove evolution " claim.

Here is how a professor of zoology at Oxford University, puts it:

"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special cre-ation."—*MarkRidley, "Who Doubts Evolution? " in New Scientist, June 25, 1981, p. 831.

*Colin Patterson spent a lifetime, first searching for fossils and later managing the fossil (paleontology) department of one of the largest fossil museums in the world, the British Museum of Natural History. Eventually, he admitted to himself that he had been self-deceived all his life. During a 1981 keynote address at a convention of fossil experts at the American Museum of Natural History, in New York City, he said this:

"One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, or let's call it a non-evolutionary view, was last year I had a sudden realization for over twenty years I had thought I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be misled so long. Either there was something wrong with me or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory. Naturally, I knew there was nothing wrong with me, so for the last few years I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people.

"Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History [in Chicago], and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time; and eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing—that it ought not to be taught in high school.' "—*Colin Patterson, address at American Museum of Natural History, November 5, 1981.

Philip Johnson, a Berkeley professor, later wrote: "I discussed evolution with Patterson for several hours in London in 1988. He did not retract any of the specific skeptical statements he has made."—Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial, 1991, p. 157.

THE EMPEROR'S NEW CLOTHES—Once upon a time, someone wrote a story about a proud king who was fooled by some fly-by-night tailors. They told him they could provide him with the finest of clothing, extremely delicate and sheer. He commissioned them to begin the task of preparing him a new outfit. Upon seeing it, he found it to be so sheer—he could not even see it! But since the king is never supposed to be second to any man in understanding of a matter, he dared say nothing.

Finally, the great day came and he paraded through town in his new clothes. Everyone stood silently as he passed in pride and great majesty on his noble steed, clad (according to two variations of the story) only in his long underwear, or less.

No one dared say anything, for surely the king ought to be able to see this delicate clothing better than they. Finally a child spoke up, and said to his mother, "But he has no clothes on!" At this the crowd awakened as from sleep, and word passed from mouth to mouth amid roars of understanding laughter.

We in the 20th century bow low before the theories of "science," little realizing that a small group maintains a strict control over what will be researched and concluded while the majority of scientists stand silently aside, fearful to speak lest they lose their jobs.

The emperor was told, "Anyone who is unfit for his position, will not be able to see this sheer clothing." Science students are today told in school that anyone who does not believe in evolution is unfit for a position as a scientist.

We are waiting for a loud voice to cry out: "The emperor has no clothes; evolution is a myth and not science."

To a great degree. that loud voice will have to come from the common people; for far too many scientists fear to say much.

"If we insist on maintaining and supporting the theory of evolution, we are then forced to eliminate and disavow mathematical probability concepts. If we are convinced that mathematics is correct, then we have to discard the present concepts of evolution. The two teachings do not seem to be compatible with each other.

"As objective scientists, which shall we support?

"Remember the story of the Emperor's New Clothes? Not a single vassal dared point out the obvious fact that the emperor was naked; instead they competed with each other to vociferously praise the wonderful tailoring of the new suit. They even described in detail the fine and exquisite stitching to be found in the lower left corner of the imaginary coat. They were all gratified—to their own satisfaction—to hear themselves describe the virtue and beauty of the coat.

"It was left to the simplistic mind of a naive child to exclaim: 'but this is not so—the Emperor is naked!' "

"Does this sound familiar? History has a way of repeating itself."—I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong—A Study in Probabilities (1984), pp. 217-218.

"It is indeed, a very curious state of affairs, I think, that paleontologists have been insisting that their record is consistent with slow, steady, gradual evolution where I think that privately, they've known for over a hundred years that such is not the case. I view stasis and the trumpeting of stasis to the whole world that the fossil record shows slow, steady, continuous change (as opposed to jerky patterns of change) as akin to the 'Emperor's new clothes.'

Paleontologists have known this for over a hundred years."—*Norman Eldredge, "Did Darwin Get it Wrong?" November 1, 1981, p. 6 [headpaleontologist, American Museum of Natural History, New York City].

"We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time that we cry: 'The emperor has no clothes! ' "—* Kenneth Hsu, "Darwin's Three Mistakes, " in Geology 14 (1986), p. 534.

SPECIAL NOTE—This chapter did not fully explain how the facts relating to strata and fossils apply to the Flood. That information will be given in chapter 13.

0 0

Post a comment