Retired Editorials

Editorial #2 - February 15, 2003

Readers: Mid February.
The question most vital to our human future!
This editorial is based on a request to reply to a letter from an evolutionist in touch with
main-stream thinking. Because understanding of our origins is the base for intelligent human behaviour I pick out relevant paragraphs of his letter. To date, no response.

Quote: "… Wallace does not however, represent modern knowledge, being unaware of the mass of fossil evidence accumulated since his time, the stop/start nature of evolution, and, in particular, the DNA evidence that tells us unequivocally that all life (including us) is related to all other life on the planet. Indeed we share common DNA with plants as well as animals. … Different DNA in each life-form produces species specific variations in common designs of things like tubes, bones, legs, hearts etc. - e.g., all mammals have four chambered hearts, four limbs, suckle their young etc., but all species are distinct, one from the others. EQ.

Reply: The fossil evidence had nothing to offer evolutionists at the 1980 Chicago Conference and if any great breakthrough had occurred since that time no doubt we would have heard of it with huge fanfare. However, as pointed out on site, (*1) change does not indicate the origin or force of creation; only reflects its achievement. Evolution theory persists in putting cart before horse.

The fact that DNA evidence is unequivocal in that all life is related does not seem a good argument for chance evolution. Creation by chance and selection would be expected to produce alternatives. The DNA evidence is however a good argument for intelligent creation. To go about creating life in any but its most logical and practical way would not be intelligent. Intelligence is its own advocate.

Before the first meaningful life-form (even these are very complex) there were no genes available for chance, the natural destroyer of order, to damage. Natural selection had nothing to select FOR or FROM. Without intelligence there could be no selection to create anything of complex order. If life could be created by chance then we would expect a variety of basic designs to appear and disappear because they would not have the alternative genes ready for environmental change

• Don't tell me about monkeys and typewriters creating books because, by chance, they cannot. Chance selects equally and books, like life, require unnatural selections.

This is important because it is a matter of principle. Also, as you say and is proclaimed in the evolution tapes being repeated on TV, (*2) very early life forms already had the (difficult to "design for" essentials) heart, eyes, legs, heads, tails etc., designs solved. The impossible chance creation of these over huge lengths of time without reason was never needed.

Evolutionists also omit to say that early life needed, from its beginning, not only potential for change to suit the changes that would take place in the form and environment of the planet earth but also to influence changes to this environment so as to achieve intellectually desired ends. Natural selection cannot foresee, or design for, a future purpose.

Chance and natural selection know nothing at all! But the creative intelligence would have to know and formulate a design to survive, adapt to and change, coming environments so as to serve its end purpose. For chance, (a destructive force) to create life would be a miracle. To believe chance can foresee needs and create a structure of life able to adapt to, and create environmental changes in such a way as to achieve intellectual ends, we need more than blind religious faith.

But you say that 99.9% of all life that lived on earth is now extinct. How do you explain that to yourself? Are you saying that chance IS constantly creating new forms of life from scratch or that clever chance just refers back to a 'patents' office for suitable designs? But no, you will claim that life, by natural selection, adapts to changing environments; but changing environments have already killed 99.9% of those that have lived because they could not adapt. Very self-contradictory!

• Life-forms of today are still based on the early designs. Those that became extinct are those specialised by chance and selection to take advantage of passing environments; the specialising forces of chance and selection can be initially beneficial but lead to extinction because they are genetically destructive. Evolutionists have no evidence of new genes being created by chance but massive evidence of chance destruction. Chance evolution argument is totally contrary to hard scientific fact. A chance design could not give selection opportunities to create what we have today and the evidence is irrefutable that chance and natural selection lead, by nature, to extinction.

Evolutionists want it both ways: a chance evolution with intelligence to both create and destroy species by use of the same mechanism at the same time. To be factually flexible must be ego-pleasing. Has scientific truth, by chance, become extinct? Can we now claim scientific truth for our every desire? We may escape responsibility for a time but we cannot escape truth.

• Life is planned! It may appear opportunistic but early design allowed for the creation of substances the "planned for" creation would later need. Life, and our world, are not the designs of mindless chance. "By intelligence" is the only theory of creation not destroyed by science and logic. Early life prepared the way for life today. Our creator gave us the intelligence to understand, create and further develop life as human life matures. Challenge for our discipline and development is also provided; only a creative intelligence would have known our future needs.

But then you tell us: quote: "The only unresolved question is whether it all happened by chance, or through 'intelligent creation'. Here I seek my answers in looking at the human status in the grand scheme of things. This look tells me that we are not, as our ancestors believed, the centre of the universe and of life on earth." EQ.

Reply: Well, big deal, our ancestors (as we) had a lot to learn. They, as you suggest, knew little about modern science; so how scientific is it to call on them? Your letter also exposes the ignorance of religions but I do not think you can call that scientific evidence for evolution either. Evolutionists seek emotional arguments to support their partisan attitude. Why do they not look, without bias, for alternatives and seek more logical understanding of scientific evidence?

You say; quote: "The universe is made of the same stuff everywhere (mostly hydrogen and lesser amounts of helium) and obeys the same rules everywhere to run itself without any guiding hand. There is, however, an apparent trend toward order and complexity - in the beginning there was only hydrogen (and some very rapidly formed helium), which had been fused and refused in generations of stars to form the modern elements of today. (This means that although we are only decades old, the stuff we are made of was once all hydrogen and is as old as the universe, as old as time itself-a fact I find a bit mind boggling, but for which there is overwhelming proof.") EQ.

Reply: I like that, but you forgot to say where this hydrogen came from! As I understand, hydrogen is destructible as well as transformable. It has ending so therefore must have beginning. Does not science say that the universe is running down; that order is descending into chaos. A law of thermodynamics? Suns will burn out! One day all (by chance) will return back to the original formless (neutral) 'waters' where neither chance nor selection can exist. But mind is not excluded!

Yes the created order of the universe is full of chances and chances are destructive of that order! The only thing creative of order is intelligence. So, although I cannot prove it to you if you refuse to prove it to yourself, I do hope that the intelligence that created the universe, and life, and gave us the capacity to advance in intelligence, keeps on the job. If so, then one day I may be able to help keep the intelligent formations of creation ahead of the mindless destruction of chance.

Basic evolution argument is emotional persuasion unrelated to creative force. It uses outdated beliefs and primitive desires to side-track us from better explanation of scientific evidence. It comes from the animal desires of mankind for a god of magic to free us from the disciplines of intelligence.

Finding truth is truly our most exciting and rewarding adventure!
END OF DIRECT REPLY TO LETTER

I am happy to debate evolutionists within my time and space limits, however unless there is something new to debate, please do not repeat arguments already answered on this site where this subject, because of its absolutely vital importance to the human future, is well covered.

Theories, like life forms, may die of many causes. A break in the logical chain of an argument should end it. Evolutionists have looked at the creation and tried, for years, to explain events in terms of evolution. When they create some explanation satisfying to themselves they then count this as evidence that it happened in that way or for that reason. They look at the cart, see the wheels revolve and theorise that this drives the cart and, through various harnesses, push the horse along.

Evolutionists should start by asking themselves if "chance and natural selection" can be proven more creative than destructive. This should be the end of it because all not completely 'bamboozled' by glamour, pride, fears, peer group pressures and desires to avoid responsibilities, can see that chance is destructive. Chance will destroy anything it creates long before it attains the complexity of life.

An archaeologist believing in chance evolution and finding a piece of stone chipped in the shape of an arrowhead will conclude it was shaped by intelligence even though it, imaginably, could be shaped by chance. Chance is too remote; even chance damaged artefacts are easily recognised.

• The world today is descending into chaos. Almost all troubles begin as a result of fitting life to a false idea of creation. We start in a wrong direction and get further and further from our true nature and the satisfaction of our true potential. To survive we must stop, accept our own true nature and the force of our creation, then head as intelligence directs.

Few evolutionists, without pressure, admit that both Darwin and Wallace, after years of maturing a deep understanding of their theory, began to see that they were on the wrong track. Their theory did not jell! Or as another thinker suggests: 'On the right track things soon begin to fall into place, but on the wrong track every step becomes a struggle to force a fit. Chance creation is an attempt to escape human responsibilities. We are given chances, let us use our intelligence to see that the one we have now is not lost. Though few may see it now "by chance or intelligence" is a question of extreme importance to human survival in a world of growing tumult.

Editor.

Notes: *1: Of TRUTH: Part 6. Also Human Manipulation: Chapter 10
*2: Of TRUTH: Part 8.
Download books at: 'Service Files: Fast downloads' for future reference; these may have small improvements later than the on-site reader versions.