Creation Vs Evolution (print friendly) by John Godwin

EVOLUTION

Countless people have asked and speculated on how the world was created. Many people believe in the theory of evolution which says that life began as two simple cells uniting and forming more cells. Somehow, random mutations took place. These mutant cells united and formed more complex organisms that in turn had mutants that united, and they formed even more complex organisms. In this way the world evolved from simple bacteria and algae or amoebas to plants and animals and finally man from ape-like creatures.

CREATION

This is not how the earth was created. God created the world in an evolutionary manner by creating in a normal progression of simple to complex. From God's energy, particles were formed. From particles, atoms were formed which in turn formed molecules. Molecules form minerals, and minerals serve plants, plants serve animals, and animals serve mankind. A fundamental question has been whether it is spiritual and right to kill and eat animals. Ethical vegetarians are wrong. God made animals,birds and fish for us to use and enjoy.

DIVINE GUIDANCE

We have to include divine guidance to the theory of evolution. God created the world by plan, not blind chance. God created each organism specially. He created the first amoeba, the first fish, the first deer, the first ape, the first man.

Darwin's Origin of Species

Charles Darwin wrote one of the most influential books in history in the late 19th century called The Origin of Species. It was a best seller that shook the foundation of many people's faith. Unfortunately, most scientists today believe Darwin was basically correct and reject the idea that the universe was planned by a creator and that He has guided the history of the world. One encyclopedia says, "Darwin's theory states that all species evolved from a few common ancestors by means of natural selection." Natural selection is also called "survival of the fittest." It also says, "human beings, chimpanzees, and gorillas evolved from a common ancestor that lived between 4 million and 10 million years ago."

This is false. Man is not descended from an ape-like creature. But Evolutionists are correct in that there have been changes within species. Examples of this are the many varieties of dogs and flowers. Human beings have differences in skin color.

An example of this would be that human beings have differences in skin color.

Those who oppose Darwin's theory are called Creationists who correctly "believe that each species has remained relatively unchanged since the Creation and that no species has evolved from another."

TRIAL OF THE CENTURY

SCOPES MONKEY TRIAL

In 1925 the Tennessee State legislature enacted a law that barred any public school teacher from teaching the theory of evolution. A high school teacher, John Scopes, was arrested for teaching evolution in a biology class.

The most famous trial lawyer in America, Clarence Darrow defended him. He wrote essays with such titles as "The Myth of the Soul" and "Why I am an Agnostic." On the other side was William Jennings Bryan, a legend in American politics and became "the most fervent voice in the nation against Darwin's theories. He saw 'apeism,' as he termed evolution theory, as an unparalleled threat to the sanctity of the human condition."

During that intensely hot summer in the small town of Dayton, one of the greatest trials in history took place. Many books have been written about this debate between a Darwinian evolutionist and a fundamental Christian Creationist. A famous play, Inherit the Wind, is often performed and has been made into several movies. Bryan is portrayed as a pathetic and stupid figure because he takes the Bible literally, but the truth is that he is more on the side of truth because he sees the universe as being created by design with man being specially made and not having an ape-like creature as his ancestor. During the trial he correctly said, "There is no more reason to believe that man descended from some inferior animal than there is to believe that a stately mansion has descended from a small cottage."

This debate is still raging on. Only when mankind accepts the Divine Principle will there be unity instead of the deep division there is now between people.

MISSING LINKS

If the theory of evolution were scientific fact then there would have to be "intermediates or transitional forms to bridge the enormous gaps which separate existing species" (Evolution -- A Theory In Crisis p. 58). Scientists have never found even one of these so called "missing links" and they never will. Our minds did not come from animals. Our minds came from our parent God. God created a first man and a first woman. We call them Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were not born the son and daughter of an amoeba or ape; they were the son and daughter of God.

ADAM & EVE ARE REAL PEOPLE

We all have parents -- a father and a mother. Our parents had parents. If we continue back in time we find the original parents of mankind were two people. Rev. Moon said in a speech, "There are hundreds of people here, including 10 or 20 nationalities, but only two kinds of people, really: man and woman. From whence does this polarity derive? It derives from our physical parents, who are two human beings. From how many people did each of your parents come? Two. If we trace our ancestry back, there is no exception: every time it is two. Each one of us comes from two. Therefore the original ancestors must have been two. And where did they come from? From an invisible or visible creator? Our ancestors must have come from that invisible God. Therefore, when we look at the creation, we conclude that God Himself must have original masculinity and original femininity. Then as human beings we inherit these plus and minus characteristics from God" ("True Parents' Completion of Responsibility in View of Providence" December 26, 1999).

Adam and Eve are real people. They are not fictitious or fairy tale creations. We are not descended from various sets of ancestors. If we were, then the various races might be of different quality or even be different species with different value. We all have one common origin -- a first man and a first woman. God always works from a central point. And by having the same original parents each of us is a brother and sister to each other living as one family on earth.

CREATIONISTS

The Bible, if read literally, shows Adam and Eve lived only a few thousand years ago. There are two views of when the earth was formed. Evolutionists say it was billions of years ago. Creationists read the Bible literally and believe the earth was formed just a few thousand years ago. The Creationists are wrong. God created man many thousands of years ago. The Creationists are right in that God was involved at every step of creation. Seven thousand years ago mankind had finally progressed to the point of creating the written word. Since then mankind has progressively grown intellectually.

6,000 Years

In the seventeenth century a prominent Anglican Archbishop and theologian, James Ussher, compiled a chronology of events in the Bible which became famous because they were widely printed in the margin of the King James Version of the Bible for nearly three centuries. Archbishop Ussher placed the creation of the world at 4004 B.C.

These 4000 years are comprised of the 2000 years from Adam to Jacob and the 2000 years from Jacob to Jesus. Of course, there have been 2000 years since Jesus to today. So, if we take the Bible literally, God created Adam and Eve 6000 years ago. The Divine Principle explains that we should read these numbers symbolically, not literally. The first man and woman lived longer than 6000 years ago.

The Principle explains that when the Bible begins by saying the universe was created in six days, we should read these numbers symbolically. The universe was not created in six literal 24-hour days. Scientists are correct in determining that the earth is millions of years old. There is no conflict between God and science; God is the greatest scientist. The six days in Genesis are symbolic of six gradual periods of time. Second Peter 3:8 says that, "...with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." God always works through a growth period. The six days represent the six geological periods known as the Azoic, Archeozoic, Proterozoic, Paleozoic, Mesozoic and Cenozoic eras.

Recently, the world of science has made discoveries in genetic research that prove we have a common ancestor mother and a common ancestor father. Scientists are using the names Adam and Eve for the founding father and mother of mankind.

EVE

In a cover story on this breakthrough Newsweek magazine in 1988 wrote, "When scientists announced their discovery of Eve last year, they rekindled perhaps the oldest human debate: where did we come from?"

"The veteran excavator Richard Leakey declared in 1977: 'There is no single center where modern man was born.' But now geneticists are inclined to believe otherwise....'If it's correct, and I'd put money on it, this idea is tremendously important,' says Steven Jay Gould, the Harvard paleontologist and essayist. 'It makes us realize that all human beings, despite differences in external appearance, are members of a single entity that had a very recent origin in one place. There is a kind of biological brotherhood that's much more profound than we ever realized."

In 1997, Jonathan Wells, author of Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?, presented a paper at a science conference. He wrote that evolution is by design. He says that many biologists today, "Darwin's modern followers," do not see the hand of God in creation: "In 1967 paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson wrote: 'Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind' (The Meaning of Evolution, revised edition). In 1970, molecular biologist and Nobel laureate Jacques Monod announced that 'the mechanism of Darwinism is at last securely founded,' and thus 'man has to understand that he is a mere accident' (quoted in H.F. Judson's The Eighth Day of Creation, 1979). And in 1986, zoologist Richard Dawkins wrote a best-selling book titled The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design."

DARWIN IS WRONG

But Dawkins can't show any "evidence" even though he confidently writes in the book's opening chapter, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." Dr. Wells goes on to explain that Darwinism is wrong: "Evidence has been accumulating for decades, however, that Darwin's mechanism fails to account for major features of evolution. The fossil record (especially where it is most complete) lacks the innumerable transitional forms that Darwin's theory predicts; ... According to molecular biologist Michael Denton (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1986), not 'one single empirical discovery or scientific advance since 1859' has validated Darwin's theory that large-scale evolution is caused by natural selection acting on random variations."

Dr. Wells explains how the proper environment for humans took billions of years to evolve and each step was planned. He writes: "In other words, primitive organisms had to pave the way for the stable ecosystems we see today. A barren planet had to become a garden; soils containing organic nutrients for land plants had to be produced. To use current biological terminology, ecological niches were filled by organisms adapted to survive under local conditions. Those organisms then transformed their conditions and other living things took over."

"Producing a congenial environment with nutritious foods, while necessary, would not have been sufficient. Some people believe that the first human beings were created fully grown. But even if we ignore psychological considerations and restrict ourselves to physical ones, birth and growth are essential aspects of human beings as we know them. A creature that begins life without passing through birth and childhood would be so unlike us that we could not regard it as truly human, regardless of how great the superficial resemblance. And because human babies are totally dependent on other creatures for their survival during early development, animals capable of raising the first human babies must have been a necessary part of the original plan."

He explains that Adam and Eve were born in the womb of an ape-like creature that God had planned from the beginning: "Human babies need milk to survive and grow, so mammals had to exist before humans appeared. And not just any mammal. The first human baby presumably had to be nurtured by a creature very much like itself -- a humanlike primate. This creature, in turn, could only have been nurtured by a creature intermediate in some respects between it and a more primitive mammal. In other words, a plan for the emergence of human beings must have included something like the succession of prehistoric forms we find in the fossil record."

"Similar reasoning could be applied to earlier episodes in the history of life. For example, just as mammals were necessary predecessors of the first humans, mammallike reptiles were presumably needed to precede the first mammals, and so on. The emergence of humans thus depended on a progression of creatures that increasingly resembled us."

DESIGN THEORY

Dr. Wells explains that mankind is not related to the animals that birthed Adam and Eve. God gave them a soul. They were His children and had no connection to the creatures that birthed them: "Although this process is superficially similar to the Darwinian notion of common descent, design theory differs from the latter in maintaining that predecessors need not be biological ancestors but only providers of essential nourishment and protection. Successive organisms are 'related' in the sense that they represent planned stages in the history of life, but they are not genetically related as ancestors and descendants. A planned succession would not require the innumerable transitional forms that Darwin predicted. Design theory is thus more compatible than Darwinism with the discontinuities found in the fossil record." The answer to the question: "Did Adam have a navel?" is yes. To read the entire text of Dr. Well's paper, click here.

Sun Myung Moon and some Unificationists have made some statements about evolution. The following are a few comments from them I found at www.TParents.org. I hope you will read more:

Evolution Theory to a New Creation Theory -- Errors in Darwinism and a Proposal from Unification Thought written by some Unificationists

According to fundamentalist Christian doctrine, creation took place in the period of six days, six thousand years ago; and it happened instantaneously. And Adam and Eve were created from the dust of the ground, instantaneously, as adults without a navel.

In the Bible it is recorded that God first created Adam, and then Eve from a rib of Adam; however, the real meaning of this is not that God literally created Eve from Adam's rib, but rather that He created Eve according to a blueprint similar to that according to which He had created Adam.

Seen from the viewpoint of Unification Thought, male and female came into existence, not because of evolution, but because they were created in the likeness of the Creator. This means that man and woman, male and female, stamen and pistil, cation and anion, and so forth -- all of them came into being in that way because God, the Creator, possesses male and female characteristics. This point is expressed in Unification Thought in the following terms: "God is the united body (or harmonized body) or Yang and Yin."

Guidance for Heavenly Tradition by Young Whi Kim

The Source of Our Happiness

Then what about the earth? We say that the earth is our mother, everything we need comes from it. Then how old is the earth? Scientists say it is about 4.5 billion years old. And how old are Adam and Eve? We are directly connected to God, the universe, the earth and the first man and woman, so we should know their age as well, don't you think? Scientists have worked hard to find out when man came into existence. Of course there is no accurate record, but most scientists assume that a being similar to man existed about 2 million years ago and that modern man first came into existence about 30 thousand years ago. So Adam and Eve are about 30 thousand years old.

Can you imagine how much time passed before modern man was created? It took an incredibly long time. The first man and woman are at most 30 thousand years old and the universe is 12 billion years old. Thirty thousand years is like a fraction of a second compared to 12 billion. After many long years of preparation God finally created mankind. You won't find this in the Bible, but this is what science reveals. Now we can truly understand how hard God worked to prepare for man. His constant desire was to create man; to accomplish His desire He had to work for almost 12 billion years. He had to work so hard and wait such a long time for the coming of the first man and woman. Maybe now you can understand how precious mankind must be to God.

If something only took you an hour to make, you might not value it so much. But if you worked on it your whole life long, investing everything into it, you would want to keep it forever, wouldn't you? Then what about God? He worked for 12 billion years to create the cosmos, the earth and mankind. Would He have done this for a temporary purpose or for eternity? What do you think? For eternity. Yes, God would want His creation to last eternally. He invested so much time and effort that He cannot throw it away easily. Everything was created to exist for eternity.

The following are some quotes from some speeches of Sun Myung Moon:

LET US THANK GOD May 29, 1977

Why should creation stop at the level of man? Why haven't sudden total changes in species occurred recently? More and more complex animals appeared throughout the ages, but no creature has appeared which is more highly developed than man. Creation seems to have stopped with man. Do you think that happened because man shouted out, "We are perfectly happy, God. You can stop right here"? Since creation developed up to the level of man and then stopped, then we must conclude that there is a universal will and consciousness which preexisted man, and which had already planned the entire creation to conclude at the level of man.

LET US FIND OUR TRUE SELF December 4, 1994

We have eyes, [Father draws on the board] eyebrows, nose and mouth. (Laughter.) Before that eye came into being do you think the eye itself knew that there was an object for it to see? Do you think that eye knew that there would be air, sunlight, and dust? (Somebody knew.) Not somebody, the eye itself? The eye itself did not know these things. Why did the eye come into being? Eyes came into being in order to see things. Eyes are equipped to look at the sun. Even though the material eye is unaware, the creator behind that eye knows. Is that true? (Yes.) Did the somebody who knew come first or did the eye, not knowing, come first? (Somebody who knew.) That's right. Somebody knew that there would be dust and air and so the eyelashes were created, like a fine screen. Somebody knew that dust would exist. Also the eye is constantly bathed in liquid. Therefore, somebody knew that there would be heat that would dry the eye and that it would need constant bathing in its own liquid. The eye did not know this.

Now we come to the solution of this age-old question: did the chicken come before the egg or vice versa? (Laughter.) Which came first, the entity or the concept? (Concept.) Concept came first. We also have eyebrows to prevent sweat rolling into our eyes. Therefore it seems reasonable to conclude that somebody knew that there might be sweat on the face. Don't take everything for granted; every day when we wash our face let us give thanks to God. All the wondrous design of the human body God created. Remind yourself daily that God made everything with us and our comfort in mind.

THE ORIGINAL WORLD AND THE ENEMY WORLD February 1, 1983

There is no question but that love is the origin and the initiator. We can even answer the age-old question of which came first, the chicken or the egg? The egg came first!

THE PARENTS OF HEAVEN AND EARTH AND THE FAMILY OF ABSOLUTE UNITY August 4, 1996

The theory of evolution doesn't refer to love at all. No ownership. It is true that lower beings develop through the higher beings, but the difference between the evolution theory and Father's teaching is, there is always a so-called love gate for a lower being to be absorbed into a higher being.

There is no way to evolve without passing through the love gate. All the species created by God have the same attributes -- they are absolute, unique, unchanging and eternal. Always the higher being will absorb the lower being. The evolution theory ignores this love relationship in terms of progress. That is why the evolution theory is wrong. Without understanding the love concept, there is a misconception of the stronger eating the weaker. In the history of humanity, always the more powerful nations invaded the weaker nations and took over. Originally, the purpose of taking over anything was for the fulfillment of love. The act of absorbing should bring the lower level to the higher level and complete love.

THE REALM OF EXISTENCE February 8, 1981

One of the greatest historical questions has been answered this morning: is our world today the result of evolution or creation? Creation is actually the most logical answer.

Blessed Family June 20, 1982

When such mystery and beauty exists, how can atheists accept the idea that mankind came into being by accident or chance? Mystery exists not only in human life but everywhere. Sophisticated, intricate beauty can be found in the world of birds, fish, and throughout the creation. When you look at a newborn baby it is almost spontaneous to think, "How perfect is this little baby! God did not forget anything -- hair, eyes, ears, ten little fingers. How wonderful!"

Harun Yahya writes in Evolution Deceit, "There are two views that can be set forth regarding how living beings came into being on earth. The first is that all living beings were created by Allah in their present complex structure. The second is that life was formed by unconscious, random coincidences. The latter is the claim of the theory of evolution." In his Introduction he gives an excellent analysis of how the theory of evolution is tied to liberalism and communism:

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

INTRODUCTION: WHY THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION?

Some of the people who have heard of "the theory of evolution" or "Darwinism", may think that these concepts only concern the field of biology and that they have no significance in their everyday lives. This is a big misconception because far more than a biological concept, the theory of evolution constitutes the underpinnings of a dishonest philosophy that has held sway over a great number of people.

That philosophy is "materialism", which holds a number of bogus views about why and how we came into being. Materialism maintains that there is nothing but the matter and that matter is the essence of everything, be it organic or inorganic. Starting out from this premise, it denies the existence of a divine Creator, that is, Allah. Reducing everything to the level of matter, this notion transforms man into a creature that heeds only matter and turns away from moral values of whatever kind. This is the beginning of big disasters that will befall a man’s life.

The detriments of materialism are not only limited to individuals. Materialism also seeks to abolish the basic values on which the state and society rest and generate a soulless and insensitive society that pays attention only to matter. Since the members of such a society can never possess idealistic notions such as patriotism, love for one’s people, justice, loyalty, honesty, sacrifice, honour, or good morals, the social order established by these individuals is doomed to be shattered in a short while. For these reasons, materialism is one of the severest menaces to the basic values of the political and social order of a nation.

Another great evil of materialism is its underpinning of anarchist and divisive ideologies that take aim at the perpetuity of the state and the people. Communism, the foremost of these ideologies, is the natural political outcome of the materialist philosophy. Seeking to abolish such sacred notions as state and family, it constitutes the fundamental ideology of every form of separatist actions directed against the unitary structure of the state.

The theory of evolution constitutes the so-called scientific foundation of materialism that the communist ideology depends on. By taking the theory of evolution as a reference, communism seeks to justify itself and to present its ideology as sound and correct. This is why the founder of communism, Karl Marx, wrote for Darwin’s book, The Origin of Species which laid the basis for the theory of evolution as "this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view".

Karl Marx made it clear that Darwin’s theory provided a solid ground for materialism and thus also for communism. He also showed his sympathy to Darwin by dedicating Das Kapital, which is considered as his greatest work, to him. In the German edition of the book, he wrote: "From a devoted admirer to Charles Darwin".

In point of fact, materialist notions of every kind, Marx’s ideas being foremost among them, have utterly collapsed for the reason that the theory of evolution, which is in fact a 19th century dogma on which materialism rests, has been absolutely invalidated by the findings of modern science. Science has disproved and continues to disprove the materialist hypothesis that recognizes the existence of nothing but matter and it demonstrates that all beings are the products of creation by a superior being.

The purpose of this book is to reveal the scientific facts that refute the theory of evolution in all fields and to inform people about the ulterior, underlying, and real purpose of this so-called "science", which is in fact a fraud.

http://www.harunyahya.org/Eng/EvolDec/e1.html

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

CAIN AND ABEL

Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace presented their ideas of natural selection at the very same time. Darwin wrote that he was amazed at the "coincidence" that both men came to the same conclusion at the exact same time. It was not a coincidence. 'Their coming together was itself a random event that neither anticipated." Darwin wrote to Russel saying "I never saw a more striking coincidence." God wanted Wallace to be the focus instead of Darwin because Wallace believed in a creator. Darwin was in the Cain position and Wallace in the Abel position because Wallace believed that there was a Creator at work while Darwin saw only the material world.

EISELEY

Loren Eiseley wrote in his book Darwin's Century: Evolution and the Men Who Discovered It "One of Darwin's opposition, the Duke of Argyll, in his volume Primeval Man published in 1869, had raised a very legitimate question. He had called attention to the fact that in comparison with many mammals man is physically weak, and, except for this brain, has no really specialized survival mechanism. How then, contended the Duke, could the human ancestor according to the demands of natural selection 'have been modified in the direction of greater weakness without inevitable destruction, until first by the gift of reason and of mental capacities of contrivance, there had been established an adequate preparation for the change.'"

Wallace wrote that "the role of the human brain as a totally new factor in the history of life. ... For the first time there was offered to a complex living creature the possibility of escape from the endless paleontological story of a generalized animal becoming increasingly specialized until the destruction of its ecological niche foretells its own extinction. Man now has the possibilities within him of remaining in the body he now inhabits while whole faunas rise and change and pass away."

Eiseley writes, "Wallace, in other words, conceived of man's body, even though he made allowance for certain continuing minor selective parts, as having reached a kind of timeless aspect in the midst of universal change."

"The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of his views,.... His general theory, that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe" (Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 77).

Wallace "ended by disturbing Darwin and drawing upon his own head accusations of mysticism."

In the Origin Darwin wrote, "Natural selection tends only to make each organic being as perfect as, or slightly more perfect than, the other inhabitants of the same country with which it had to struggle for existence. Natural selection will not produce absolute perfection."

"It was just this reservation when applied to the problem of the rise of the human brain which led Wallace to break with the views of his distinguished colleague. In 1869, much to the dismay of Darwin, he came to the conclusion that natural selection and its purely utilitarian approach to life would not account for many aspects and capacities of the human brain.

"Surveying such aspects of man's mental characters having no apparent relation to his material progress, his curious hairlessness, the structure of his larynx, his adept hand, Wallace was inclined to the belief that 'some higher intelligence may have directed the process by which the human race was developed" (Natural Selection and Tropical Nature).

Darwin wrote to this friend saying, "I differ grievously from you, and am very sorry for it. I hope you have not murdered too completely your own and my child,' sighed Darwin tolerantly, though he could never endure 'miraculous additions at any one stage of ascent.' ... But the current of the times was running against mysticism and toward a ... scientific approach."

In Tropical Nature, "[Darwin] has taken care to impress upon us that natural selection has no power to produce absolute perfection, no power to advance any being much beyond them as to enable it to survive them in the struggle for existence."

We are evolving toward perfection -- to be Lords of Creation. The brain is a miracle. There was supernatural intervention not just for the brain but also at each stage of creation. Evolutionists try to present their ideology as emotional joy in the beauty of the universe, but it is an empty philosophy that ultimately sees this universe as meaningless. as Russel Kirk has said. God is intimately involved and knows each evolutionist and loves them even though they do not love Him or even acknowledge Him. The love Evolutionists have for their children comes from the love God has for them.

WALLACE

Wallace said, "it does not seem an improbable conclusion that all force may be will-force; and thus, that the whole universe, is not merely dependent on, but actually is, the WILL of higher intelligences or of one Supreme Intelligence."

Wallace was deeply interested in Spiritualism. He said, "On the spiritual theory, man consists essentially of a spiritual nature or mind intimately associated with a spiritual body or soul, both of which are developed in and by means of a material organism. Thus, the whole raison d'etre of the material universe -- with all its marvelous changes and adaptations, the infinite complexity of matter and of the ethereal forces which pervade and vivify it, the vast wealth of nature in the vegetable and animal kingdoms -- is to serve the grand purpose of developing human spirits in human bodies (from a reprint of the 1885 article 'Are the Phenomena of Spiritualism in Harmony With Science?' in The Christian Register, 4 March 1886: 132).

'It is therefore quite possible that all the evil in the world is directly due to man, not to God" (from My Life, Wallace 1905, Volume 2, pages 254-256).

"that some higher intelligence may have directed the process by which the human race was developed."

Wallace wrote in Man's Place in the Universe (1903): "The development of man as a spiritual being with all his intellectual powers and moral possibilities is certainly a great end in itself, so great and so noble that if a universe of matter and ether as large as that of which we have now obtained some definite knowledge were required for the work, why should it not be used? Of course I am taking the view of those who believe in some Intelligent Cause at the back of this universe, some Creator or creators, Designer or designers. For those who take the other view, that matter and ether, with all the laws and forces without which they could not exist for a moment, are in their essential nature eternal and self-existent, no such objection is tenable. For the production of life and of man then becomes merely a question of chance -- of the right and exact combination of matter and its complex forces occurring after an almost infinite number of combinations that led to nothing. On this view the argument as to our unique position, derived from the discoveries of the New Astronomy, is even more forcible, tho hardly so satisfactory, because it also teaches us that if man is a product of blind forces and unconscious laws acting upon non-living matter, then, as he has been produced by physical law, so he will die out by the continued operation of the same laws, against which there is no appeal."

He is right in rejecting the idea that mankind will "die out."

GREAT CHAIN OF BEING

Sir Thomas Moore said correctly that "Nature is the art of God." "There is in this Universe a Stair rising not disorderly, or in confusion, but with a comely method and proportion." Before Darwin all scientists believed there was a Great Chain of Being. After Darwin most scientists do not see a hierarchy in creation leading up to man even though common sense shows there is. Fallen man thinks so little of themselves because of the ideology of Darwin that teaches the false belief that man is an accident and can very well pass away.

ORIGIN OF GOD

Spirit world is not a finite world like ours. It is limitless and eternal. Carl Sagan made a popular television series called "Cosmos." He says, that "Creationism doesn't explain how God was created. So, I opt for the agnostic view of things. Perhaps someone else is responsible for life on earth, such as aliens." He is wrong. Just because we do not know how God was created doesn't negate the logic of first cause. God intervened with the Israelites such as Moses, Jesus and many Christians throughout history such as George Washington who was in the position of David against Goliath. Paul Davies wrote in God and the New Physics, "When giving lectures on cosmology, I am often asked what happened before the big bang. The answer, that there was no 'before,' because the big bang represented the appearance of time itself, is regarded with suspicion -- 'Something must have caused it'. But cause and effect are temporal concepts, and cannot be applied to a state in which time does not exist; the question is meaningless. If time really did have a beginning, any attempt to explain it in terms of cause must apply to a wider of cause than that familiar to us in daily life." God transcends time.

One person says it this way, "Who Then Made God? God (like space) has neither beginning nor end. He created time and subjected man to it and because we are subject to time, logic demands that everything must have a beginning and an end. However, God dwells outside of time, in 'eternity.'" (http://www.sbea.mtu.edu/users/slstonge/evolution.html)

God knows each person and works to change this world.

"It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe."— Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Richard Dawkins. the author of The Blind Watchmaker says there is "blind, pitiless indifference" in the universe.

LOVE VS. INDIFFERENCE

The most famous evolutionist of the 20th century is Stephen Jay Gould who paints the idea of God and religion as childish delusion: "I think that notion that we are in God's embracing love is -- look, it's a tough life and if you delude yourself into thinking that there's some warm and fuzzy meaning to it all, its enormously comforting. But I do think it's just a story we tell ourselves" (quote from Kenneth Miller Finding Darwin's God). Jacques Monod in Chance and Necessity says, "Man at last knows that he is alone in the unfeeling immensity of the universe."

GOD DID HIS HOMEWORK

Paul Davies in God and the New Physics says, "It is hard to resist the impression that the universe ... has been clearly thought out." "... the seemingly miraculous concurrence of numerical values that nature has assigned to her fundamental constraints must remain the most compelling evidence for an element of cosmic design."

The truth is Sir John Eccles saying that "Each self is a divine creation."

Russel Kirk said it well: "Darwinism is a belief in the meaninglessness of existence"("The Rediscovery of Creation," in National Review, May 27, 1983, p. 6410).

Gertrude Himmelfarb said, "[Darwin could] summon up enough general, vague and conjectural reasons to account for this fact, and if these were not taken seriously, he could come up with a different, but equally general, vague and conjectural set of reasons"(Darwin and Darwinian Revolution (1968), p. 319).

DEISM

Those evolutionists who believe in Deism are wrong. God did not set the wheels in motion and then became distant and uninvolved. Deism is correct in seeing God as a designer who gave this world great design. But they are wrong in rejecting the revelations God has given some people. This is not superstition, irrational fear and childishness. There are holy books such as the Bible. It is a cold universe if God created us and then abandoned us. William Dembski is correct in his book Mere Creation when he says that "God is not an absentee landlord." Parents should be involved in the life of their children their whole lives. God does. To question all authority is arrogance. It is true that religions have often encouraged people to do terrible things that defy reason and common sense. There are teachings such as that of Jesus being born of a woman who had no father as being a fairy tale, but deists like Thomas Paine throw the baby out with the bathwater.

THOMAS PAINE

Thomas Paine wrote his views on religion in his book The Age of Reason. He says, "There is a happiness in Deism, when rightly understood, that is not to be found in any other system of religion. All other systems have something in them that either shock our reason, or are repugnant to it, and man, if he thinks at all, must stifle his reason in order to force himself to believe them." There cannot be full happiness if we omit our Creator from our lives.

Paine wrongly rejects Jesus when he says, "Except in the first article in the Christian creed, that of believing in God, there is not an article in it but fills the mind with doubt as to the truth of it, the instant man begins to think. The truth of the first article is proved by God Himself, and is universal; for the creation is of itself demonstration of the existence of a Creator. But the second article, that of God's begetting a son, is not proved in like manner, and stands on no other authority than that of a tale. When we see a watch, we have as positive evidence of the existence of a watchmaker, as if we saw him; and in like manner the creation is evidence to our reason and our senses of the existence of a Creator. But there is nothing in the works of God that is evidence that He begat a son, nor anything in the system of creation that corroborates such an idea, and, therefore, we are not authorized in believing it."

He is right in pointing out some of the ridiculous beliefs in Christianity but he goes too far and doesn't see the role of Jesus and the good values the Bible teaches: "But there are times when men have serious thoughts, and it is at such times, when they begin to think, that they begin to doubt the truth of the Christian religion; and well they may, for it is too fanciful and too full of conjecture, inconsistency, improbability and irrationality, to afford consolation to the thoughtful man. His reason revolts against his creed. He sees that none of its articles are proved, or can be proved." "Deism is superior to the Christian Religion. It is free from all those invented and torturing articles that shock our reason." "The Church tells us that the books of the Old and New Testament are divine revelation, and without this revelation we could not have true ideas of God." He is wrong.

AGNOSTIC

Agnosticism is another wishy-washy belief that says it is impossible for anyone to know if there is a God or not. It is just another rationalization for not humbling ourselves to God's messengers who give us truth to live by. A famous agnostic is Clarence Darrow who wrote essays with such titles as "The Myth of the Soul" and "Why I am an Agnostic."

CARL SAGAN

"Carl Sagan believes that chance accounts for much of the evolutionary process. Random chance, Sagan maintains, determines which traits are passed from generation to generation." "Sagan sees chance at work in evolution, as Darwin did. He says, 'Were the Earth to be started over again with all its physical features identical, it is extremely unlikely that anything closely resembling a human being would ever again emerge. There is a powerful random character to the evolutionary process. ... Perhaps if one less dragonfly had drowned in the Carboniferous swamps, the intelligent organisms on our planet today would have feathers and teach their young in rookeries" (Evolution: Opposing Viewpoints Marilyn Bailey).

ACCIDENT

In Cosmos he writes, "The secrets of evolution are death and time -- the deaths of enormous numbers of life forms that were imperfectly adapted to their environment; and time for a long succession of small mutations that were by accident adaptive, time for the slow accumulation of patterns of favorable mutations."

"Creationists are not alone, though, in thinking that a Creator was involved. Alfred Russel Wallace, whose theory was made public when Darwin's was, believed that humans are a special creation. He believed that the human form evolved by natural selection, as other animals forms did. But he felt the scope and power of people's intellectual and moral nature suggests that 'some other influence, law, or agency is required to account for them.' He thought that a 'superior intelligence had guided the development of man for a special purpose.' He felt it was 'utterly inconceivable that people's development as spiritual beings' resulted from natural selection. (Evolution: Opposing Viewpoints Marilyn Bailey).

In Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, molecular biologist Dr. Michael Denton writes: "The intuitive feeling that pure chance could never have achieved the degree of complexity and ingenuity so ubiquitous in nature has been a continuing source of skepticism ever since the publication of the Origin of Species . . . It is the sheer universality of perfection, the fact that everywhere we look, to whatever depth we look, we find an elegance and ingenuity of an absolutely transcending quality, which so mitigates against the idea of chance. Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which - a functional protein or gene -- is complex beyond our creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?"

Gordon Taylor is the Chief Science Advisor for BBC television. In his book The Great Evolution Mystery he says, "Darwin's ideas caused a furor when they were first announced because they presented the living world as a world of chance, determined by material forces, in place of a world determined by a divine plan. They substituted chance for purpose." He makes some great statements about evolution in his book such as: "... perhaps the most serious weakness of Darwinism is the failure of paleontologists to find convincing phylogenies or sequences of organisms demonstrating major evolutionary change." He quotes L. von Bertalanffy: "... the fact that a theory so vague, so insufficiently verifiable ... has become dogma can only be explained on sociological grounds."

"Wallace believed 'the unseen universe of Spirit' accounted for human intellect and moral aspects."

Ashley Montagu ends his book The Human Revolution saying, "It is the fittest, not the fit, who are in danger of extinction. This is the situation which man faces today, and unless he learns in time to understand what the consequences are of the rise in intelligence at the cost of a declining humanity, he may yet perish from the earth."

ADAM WAS NOT WHITE

Loren Eiseley writes in The Immense Journey that the first people were not white: "He lived in Africa."

He says people could continue to evolve and our bodies look different over time. He says modern man has changed from the ape in that our heads have changed: "Imagine this trend continuing in modern man. Imagine our general average cranial capacity rising by two hundred cubic centimeters while the face continued to reduce proportionally.

LOGIC

It is more logic to think that there is a creator than to think there is not. We know a building has a blueprint even though we do not see it. We live in a world of design so there must be a designer.

One person gives the following logic:

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Faith the Facts

You can't prove evolution. It is something you have to accept by "faith." You have believed what you have heard. Charles Darwin (the founding father of the faith) said: "I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion out of them!" They still do. Their language is language of faith. They use words like "believe, assume, surmise, suspect, speculate, perhaps, probably, possibly . . ." Evolution can only be accepted on blind faith . . . because it cannot be proven.

On the other hand, you can prove God's existence. A building is proof that there was a builder. A painting is absolute proof that there was a painter. You don't need to see him to believe he exists. His painting is all the evidence you need. It wouldn't be there if he didn't exist. Creation proves absolutely that there is a Creator. There wouldn't be a creation if there wasn't a Creator. A child can understand that.

"Dogs don't have kittens, cows don't have lambs, and pigs don't produce rabbits. Birds produce birds. Fish produce fish. Each species brings forth after its own kind. That's no theory. That's a fact. Why then should we believe that man originates from another species?"

Evolution of the Sexes

Notice that almost all forms of complex life have both male and female -- horses, cats, dogs, humans, moths, monkeys, fish, elephants, etc. The male needs the female to reproduce, and female needs the male to reproduce. One cannot carry on life without the other. Which then came first according to the evolutionary theory? If the males came before the females, how did the males of each species appear without the females? If you believe that perhaps, maybe, probably, possibly, male and female evolved over a long period of time, what then made evolution change its initial plan and require the necessity of male and female?

There is another little problem for evolutionists. Did the first fish that crawled onto dry land millions of years ago have lungs or gills? If he had gills, he would have gasped and died the moment he crawled onto dry land. If he had lungs, why did he evolve them while he was in the ocean? Also, he had to find a female (to carry on the species) who had also crawled onto the land, and she would have had to have evolved lungs also.

DESIGNER

If it is designed, there must be a designer. The alternative, that it happened by chance or accident, is to move into an intellectual free zone.

George Gallup, the famous statistician, said, "I could prove God statistically; take the human body alone; the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen, is a statistical monstrosity."

Albert Einstein said, "Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe;a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of which our modest powers must feel humble."

EYE

Charles Darwin's wrote: "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." Darwin continues, "Yet reason tells me..."

Darwin goes on to explain in the Origin of Species that he believed he could justify the idea of the eye forming through natural selection by reason. Ask yourself if it is really reasonable for an eye with 40,000,000 nerve endings, focusing muscles that move an estimated 100,000 times a day, and a retina that contains 137,000,000 light sensitive cells to form without a designer. You decide.

http://www.sbea.mtu.edu/users/slstonge/evolution.html

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

NAKED APE?

Desmond Morris in The Naked Ape says mankind is basically apes who try to control their "raw animal nature." Civilization is hanging by a thread: "our suppressed biological urges" could "build up and up until the dam bursts and the whole of our elaborate existence" could be "swept away in the flood." "We should" and "We must somehow improve in quality rather than in sheer quantity." "There are one hundred and ninety-three living species of monkeys and apes. One hundred and ninety-two of them are covered with hair. The exception is a naked ape self-named Homo sapiens." We are not glorified apes. Evolutionists have ridiculous low-level ideas of man's importance and can offer no way out of their bleak view of man and towards a bright future.

DINOSAURS

Evolutionists argue that there is no order in the universe from God because God, they say, would not create the world in such a messy way. But this is arrogance on their part to define God. God is a master scientist but he is also a master painter. He is creative. I suspect that the many extinct creations of the past may have been some experiments of God. And how can dinosaurs co-exist with man? They had to go. To create is to be messy.

OVERPOPULATION

There is great fear of overpopulation with many evolutionists. The earth is finite and so at some point there has to be a finite number of people that the earth can handle. We are far from that point. When that time comes mankind will naturally limit its growth so Thomas Malthus ideas is partially right in his book An Essay on Principle of Population. Reverend Moon has encouraged women who are able to have children to have as many as possible. Mathematically if they had more children than other groups then the Unification Movement would eventually dominate the planet by sheer demographics. When the earth reaches it peak in numbers of people everyone will naturally know this and then produce two children per family and keep the number static from then on.

FUTURE OF MAN -- CHANGE?

Evolutionists think it is possible that mankind could evolve and change into some totally different looking organism. H.G. Wells wrote of this in his fictional book The Time Machine. Eiseley says, "those pathetic, childlike people Wells pictures as haunting earth's autumnal cities in the far future of the dying planet." It is the story of man who travels 800,000 years into the future and finds that the human race has evolved into different kinds, the Morlocks and the Eloi. The Eloi look likes us today and the Morlocks are hairy ape-like creatures who rule over them much like the popular movies Planet of the Apes. This is not mankind's future. The problems of pollution and the threat of extinction of many life forms can only be solved when mankind unites by accepting the Divine Principle and living as a harmonious family of man.

STAR TREK

Some evolutionists say that mankind will continue to evolve and may change into forms that we can not even imagine. They are wrong. Strange creatures like those in movies such as Spock in Star Trek, E.T., Planet of the Apes and the ugly creatures in the bar scene in Star Wars are not the future look of mankind. Adam and Eve looked liked us and people a trillion years from now will look like us. Mankind will eventually make minor changes in that they will intermarry between the races and nations and ultimately there will be no different types of people that we see today in race and color. We will even speak one language. To evolutionists tt doesn't make sense that God is actively involved with our world, but God loves us and is constantly working to guide us to a future that is perfectly harmonious. The ideal world is our destiny. God has not only intervened and guided the formation of plants and animals but He is also involved in guiding us. His primary way of helping us to achieve the goal of harmony with each other and with nature has been to inspire leaders or central figures who receive revelations and teach God's truth. The Divine Principle is the history of God's providence -- His dispensation.

LIFE ON OTHER PLANETS?

Many people have asked if there are people who have eternal souls on other planets in our vast universe. The answer is no. There is no extraterrestrial life -- no intelligent alien civilizations. Reverend Moon was asked this question by students at his seminary in New York, the Unification Theological Seminary (website www.UTS.edu) and he answered, "We're it." Mankind is God's only children and the universe is for us to explore and enjoy forever. There are other creatures and different kinds of plants on some other planets for us to marvel at but none of them have spirit bodies that will live forever. Carl Sagan was one of the most famous scientists of the 20th century and pushed the idea of alien life in the universe. Those who believe they have seen UFOs may have seen spirit world for a second. Those who are convinced they met aliens may have seen someone in spirit world.

Jonathan Wells, in his book, Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong, demolishes the main arguments of evolutionists that we are only animals and came to exist by mere accident. He critiques the claim of evolutionists that there are no missing links as shown in fossils and the story of the light-colored peppered moth turning into a dark-colored one that is prominently shown as proof of evolution in most school textbooks. To read more about a critique of evolutionists false theories visit his website www.iconsofevolution.net.

PEPPERED MOTH

Harun Yahya says the following in his book Evolution Deceit:

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Natural selection holds that those living things that are more suited to the natural conditions of their habitats will prevail by having offspring that will survive, whereas those that are unfit will disappear. For example, in a deer herd under the threat of wild animals, naturally those that can run faster will survive. That is true. But no matter how long this process goes on, it will not transform those deer into another living species. The deer will always remain deer.

When we look at the few incidents the evolutionists have put forth as observed examples of natural selection, we see that these are nothing but a simple attempt to hoodwink.

Butterflies of the Industrial Revolution

The example of the butterflies of the Industrial Revolution is advanced as the greatest evidence for evolution by natural selection. However, evolution is out of the question in this example, as no new butterfly species is formed. On the left are trees and butterflies of the pre-Industrial Revolution era, and on the right are those of the post-Industrial Revolution era.

In 1986 Douglas Futuyma published a book, The Biology of Evolution, which is accepted as one of the sources explaining the theory of evolution by natural selection in the most explicit way. The most famous of his examples on this subject is about the colour of the butterfly population, which appeared to darken during the Industrial Revolution in England. According to the account, around the outset of the Industrial Revolution in England, the colour of the tree barks around Manchester was quite light. Because of this, dark-coloured butterflies resting on those trees could easily be noticed by the birds that fed on them and therefore they had very little chance of survival. Fifty years later, as a result of pollution, the barks of the trees had darkened, and this time the light-coloured butterflies became the most hunted. As a result, the number of light-coloured butterflies decreased whereas that of the dark-coloured ones increased since the latter were not easily noticed. Evolutionists use this as a great evidence to their theory. Evolutionists, on the other hand, take refuge and solace in window-dressing by showing how light-coloured butterflies "evolved" into dark-coloured ones. However, it should be quite clear that this situation can in no way be used as evidence for the theory of evolution, for natural selection did not give rise to a new form that had not existed before. Dark coloured butterflies existed in the butterfly population before the Industrial Revolution. Only the relative proportions of the existing butterfly species in the population changed. The butterflies had not acquired a new trait or an organ, which would cause a "change in species". In order to have a butterfly turn into another living species, a bird for example, new additions would have had to be made to the genes. That is, an entirely separate genetic program would have had to be loaded so as to include information about the physical traits of the bird.

Briefly, natural selection does not have the capability to add a new organ to a living organism, remove one, or change the organism into another species-quite contrary to the image that evolutionists conjure up. The "greatest" evidence put forward since Darwin has been able to go no further than butterflies in England.

(http://www.harunyahya.org/Eng/EvolDec/e4.html)

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Phyllis Schlafly wrote in a newspaper column (February 6, 2002):

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Many science textbooks show diagrams or illustrations to reinforce the claim that all modern animals, as well as man, diverged from a common ancestor. Most textbooks ignore the evidence from the Cambrian explosion, in which major groups of animals suddenly appeared in the fossil record without any evidence of common ancestry.

The picture of the peppered moths is a favorite in science textbooks to try to demonstrate natural selection in the wild. We now know that the picture is a fake (moths were glued on tree trunks for a photo-op).

The 19th-century drawings of vertebrate embryos showing humans evolved from a fish-like ancestor have also been shown to have been faked. This was even admitted by The New York Times.

In the face of such dishonesty (now becoming widely known because of the Internet), the Darwinian-only majority of academics has been steadily retreating. Because Darwin's theory has not stood the test of time (it pre-dates the Civil War), respectable scientists have been developing alternate theories of life's origins by presenting evidence of what is called intelligent design.

Darwin himself relied on the expected discovery of transitional fossils, but Dr. Colin Patterson, former senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, admitted that there are none.

Professor Louis Bounoure, former director of research at the French National Center of Scientific Research, concluded, "Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups." Are we going to teach our young people to develop an inquiring mind and to be open to new discoveries, or are we going to teach them that science is static, that everything about the origins of life has already been determined and there are no possible deviations from what the establishment has dictated?

"I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has." -Malcolm Muggeridge (world famous journalist and philosopher

What inclines me now to think you may be right in regarding [evolution] as the central and radical lie in the whole web of falsehood that now governs our lives is not so much your arguments against it as the fanatical and twisted attitudes of its defenders." -Dr. C.S. Lewis, in letter to Capt. Bernard Acworth of the Evolution Protest Movement, 1951.

"...as I became exposed to the law and order of the universe, I was literally humbled by its unerring perfection. I became convinced that there must be a divine intent behind it all... My experiences with science led me to God. They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun?" -Dr. Wernher von Braun

"Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species."

-Dr. Etheridge, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, cited in Dr. Scott Huse, The Collapse of Evolution.

"I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science." -Dr. Soren Lovtrup, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (New York: Croom Helm, 1987), p. 422. (Note: Lovtrup is an evolutionist, albeit not an "orthodox" one.)

"It is not difficult for me to have this faith, for it is incontrovertible that where there is a plan there is intelligence - an orderly, unfolding universe testifies to the truth of the most majestic statement ever uttered - 'In the beginning, God.'" -Dr. Arthur H. Compton, Nobel Laureate (Physics).

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The following are a few quotes on evolution:

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

-Dr. Etheridge, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, cited in Dr. Scott Huse, The Collapse of Evolution.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

GEORGE GAYLORD SIMPSON

Let's look at one of the most famous evolutionists of the 20th century, George Gaylord Simpson. In his book The Meaning of Evolution he writes that mankind is "terrifyingly far from the self-control necessary to avoid" becoming extinct.

There are many aspects to the debate over evolution versus creation. The basic argument against evolutionists is that they see a world without a creator and therefore a world without a goal. The world view of evolutionists is a sad and terrifying world without meaning. Human beings could become extinct or evolve into some other kind of creature. One of the most respected evolutionists is George Gaylord Simpson. In his book, The Meaning of Evolution, he ends by saying that mankind could be "wiped out."

Simpson writes, "It has also been shown that purpose and plan are not characteristic of organic evolution and are not a key to any of its operations. But purpose and plan are characteristic in the new evolution, because man has purposes and he makes plans. Here purpose and plan do definitely enter into evolution, as a result and not as a cause of the processes seen in the long history of life. The purpose and plan are ours, not those of the universe, which displays convincing evidence of their absence."

"Man was certainly not the goal of evolution, which evidently had no goal. He was not planned, in an operation wholly planless. He is not the ultimate in a single constant trend toward higher things." "Is his place in nature, then, that of a mere accident, without significance?" "His rise was neither insignificant nor inevitable. Man did originate after a tremendously long sequence of events in which both chance and orientation played a part." Man has "a sense of values." "Man is a moral animal. With the exception of a few peculiar beings ... all men make judgments of good or bad in ethics and morals. All feel some compulsion to value and promote the good, to condemn an eliminate the bad. It requires no demonstration that a demand for ethical standards is deeply ingrained in human psychology." Psychology is not superior to theology and no matter how he tries to explain that mankind gives itself significance without God, he fails.

He says no "goal was set by God." "There is no real evidence whatever that evolution has had a goal, and there is overwhelming evidence that it has not." Common sense would say otherwise, but atheists cannot think clearly.

"The search for an absolute ethic has been a failure." We must reject "revelation" and "the absolute nature of any authority." He is wrong. There have been some revelations given men that have been from God and are eternal truths and absolute values such as those given to Sun Myung Moon, Jesus and men like those who founded America. He says there are no absolutes and then he proceeds to list some. It is the typical liberal belief when they say there are absolutely no absolutes. He is right when he says democracy is good, but he is wrong when he makes the absolute statement that "Laissez-faire capitalism ... is obviously wrong. ... Capitalism is perfectly consistent with authoritarianism or totalitarianism." He says that socialism is "ethically good." Simpson is wrong just like Dickens was wrong in his novel Hard Times that portrays capitalism as dangerous and evil at heart. The idea that government must regulate the free market with laws against child labor and the 40-hour week has effectively been demolished by such great men as Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman. Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations is inspired by God. It is not a coincidence that it was published in 1776. God is involved in the history of man. Smith is correct that there is an "invisible hand" that works in freedom. There is an invisible hand in evolution also. If we left education to the free market instead of the socialist schools we have today people would be better educated. Evolution would be taught as false instead of having millions of students being indoctrinated and brainwashed that Simpson is right.

He says in a chapter titled, "The Future of Man of Life" that "Evolution is clearly going on around us today. There is no obvious reason for its not continuing for many millions of years to come, as regards both man and the rest of the organic realm." "A finalist could perhaps believe that evolution had a single aim, such as the production of man, and that it has stopped, with the achievement of that aim. But evolution is not, in fact, finalistic." "It is, however, reasonably safe to assume that no animals able to compete with man in intelligence, socialization, and the other unique human characteristics will arise as long as man does exist in fact."

Why is he so confident that the future would be like H.G. Well's Time Machine where 800,000 years from now mankind has evolved into two beings -- one that look like us now and the other hairy beasts that dominate and even eat the other. The future is not going to be some nightmare like Planet of the Apes or that man will become extinct because we are children of God and will fulfill our role of being true Lords of Creation.

FINALISM

But Simpson can't help but find hope for a harmonious world. He says that mankind could also "introduce finalism into organic evolution, which has conspicuously lacked a true goal in the past." The Principle teaches that God has a goal for an ideal world. It is an optimistic view of life. Simpson says Man "is making rapid progress in "the "direction" of "self-extinction" if he doesn't change and do what is right. He is wrong. Mankind is not going to become extinct or evolve into some other kind of creature. And he cannot give anyone a plan to help mankind out of its predicament.

HOPE

Simpson thinks that "true values do, indeed, exist." He does not believe that we can ever find "ethics" that are totally "absolute", but he hopes mankind will bring some order out "the present chaotic stage of humanity." How can we do this? He says that the "chaos" we experience now can be changed into "order" if we use our innate sense of "personal responsibility" and use "responsible human knowledge." He says there is "hope" that mankind can do what is "good and right" because it is part of the "ethical need" that exists "within" us. Where does he think that "ethical need" comes from? It comes from our creator.

The future will be a world where there is perfect harmony with the environment and there will probably be no endangered species.

Without the Principle mankind has had a limited world view. God has revealed to Sun Myung Moon that we are destined to live in a world of absolute values -- an ideal world. Simpson is wrong in thinking that we can end the chaos of this world all by ourselves. We cannot accomplish this noble task without God who is the creator of ethics and true love. Evolutionists like Simpson and Stephen Jay Gould can't use or rarely use the word love in their books anymore than Communists can use the word. When we read the Bible and Sun Myung Moon we constantly see the word love. Love is what makes the world go round.

Simpson ends by saying that that mankind can advance if it gets the "ability to recognize these small mutations." This is ridiculous. "The immediate tasks are to work for continuance of our species, for avoiding early self-extinction, settling ideological battles, and progressing toward an ethically good world state." We must "control the future evolution of mankind." He does not say how we are going to resolve our differences. The answer is the Divine Principle -- the revelations of God to Sun Myung Moon.

Stephen Hawking wrote in A Brief History of Time, "If we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer so that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we then we would truly know the mind of God." The way to find the mind of God is for God to reveal who he is to His messengers. Sun Myung Moon gives the true essence of God's nature and so we can now know "the mind of God."

There was a preconceived plan of divine origin. In The Mind of God: The Scientific Basis for a Rational World Professor Davies writes: "I cannot believe that our existence in this universe is a mere quirk of fate, an accident of history, an incidental blip in the great cosmic drama. Our involvement is too intimate . . . Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor by product of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here."

Paul Davies writes in The Mind of God: "I belong to the group of scientists who do not subscribe to a conventional religion but nevertheless deny that the universe is a purposeless accident. Through my scientific work I have come to believe more and more strongly that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so astonishing that I cannot accept it merely as a brute fact." "Even hard-nosed atheists frequently have what has been called a sense of reverence for nature, a fascination and respect for its depth and beauty and subtlety, that is akin to religious awe."

"Four hundred years ago science came into conflict with religion because it seemed to threaten Mankind's cozy place within a purpose-built cosmos designed by God. The revolution begun by Copernicus and finished by Darwin had the effect of marginalizing, even trivializing, human beings. People were no longer cast at the center of the great scheme, but were relegated to an incidental and seemingly pointless role in an indifferent cosmic drama, like unscripted extras that have accidentally stumbled onto a vast movie set. This existentialist ethos -- that there is no significance in human life beyond what humans themselves invest in it -- has become the leitmotif of science."

"Religion flourishes even in our so-called scientific age." Einstein was right when he said, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Davies says that the universe shows a "thread of rationality and order." "... this cosmic order is underpinned by definite mathematical laws that interweave each other to form a subtle and harmonious unity. The laws are possessed of an elegant simplicity, and have often commended themselves to scientists on grounds of beauty alone. Yet these same simple laws permit matter and energy to self-organize into an enormous variety of complex states, including those that have the quality of consciousness."

The Divine Principle teaches the simple, common sense laws of the universe. When mankind lives by them, there will be one culture that will have tremendous creativity. One of those laws is that of laissez-faire capitalism that is a simple law but if followed encourages incredible growth and excitement."

Davies says, "'Cosmos' literally means 'order' and 'beauty'; the latter aspect survives in the modern word 'cosmetic.'"

THEISM

"In contrast to deism is 'theism,' belief in a God who is creator of the universe, but who also remains directly involved in the day-to-day running of the world, especially the affairs of human beings, with whom God maintains a continuing personal relationship and guiding role.

"Some people" believe "that science has robbed the universe of all mystery and purpose, and that the elaborate arrangement of the physical world is either a mindless accident or an inevitable consequence of mechanistic laws. 'The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless,' believes physicist Steven Weinberg. The biologist Jacques Monod echoes this dismal sentiment: 'The ancient covenant is in pieces: man at last knows that he is alone in the unfeeling immensity of the universe, out of which he has emerged only by chance. Neither his destiny nor his duty have been written down.' (from Chance and Necessity Jacques Monod).

"If the world's finest minds can unravel only with difficulty the deeper workings of nature, how could it be supposed that those workings are merely a mindless accident, a product of blind chance?" (Paul Davies, Superforce).

"The explosive vigour of the universe is thus matched with almost unbelievable accuracy to its gravitating power. The big bang was not evidently, any old bang, but an explosion of exquisitely arranged magnitude" (Paul Davies, Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature).

In God and the New Physics by Paul Davies the back of the book says, "The most deep, profound and age-old questions of existence -- for centuries the focus of religion and philosophy -- may soon be answered through the extraordinary advances of a field of science known as the new physics. In this illuminating work, Paul Davies, writes that the discoveries of 20th-century physics -- relativity and the quantum theory -- are now pointing the way to a new appreciation of man and his place in the universe."

"God and the New Physics is a fascinating look at the impact of science on what were formerly religious issues. Davies states in his book, "It may seem bizarre, but in my opinion science offers a surer path to God that religion'' He says "My motivation for writing this book is that I am convinced there is more to the world than meets the eye." It may be that computers will advance to the point they tune into the vibrations of spirit world so we can see it.

In The Fifth Miracle: The Search for the Origin and Meaning of Life Paul Davies says, "Many scientists insist that the origin of life was a freak accident of chemistry."

"Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God" (St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica).

Newton "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being" (The Principia : Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy Isaac Newton).

James Jeans in The Mysterious Universe says "the universe appears to have been designed by a pure mathematician." Einstein spoke of a "cosmic religious feeling."

Gordon Rattray Taylor writes in The Great Evolution Mystery, "... if avoiding identification is advantageous, why are there few green butterflies? Green pigment is plentifully available in the caterpillar stage. The elaborate painting of butterfly wings seems an invitation to predators, and the movement of these wings even when the creature is at rest on a plant makes it even more likely that a predator will spot it." Sun Myung Moon often speaks in a poetical manner and explains that the many delightful sights and sounds of nature are for us.

Taylor is wrong when he says there has been no "overall plan" because "There have been far too many false starts ... and changes of intention for that." "It is reckoned that at least 90 per cent of all the species which have ever existed have become extinct." "man is poorly designed." All artists go through trial and error and revisions before they finish their creating just like our creator does. The Divine Principle explains the nature of God and shows how much we are like God. We are His children. God is not distant and so different than us.

From Aristotle to the 18th century "man was the summit of evolutionary achievement." "Aristotle launched the idea of the Ladder of Nature." "Now, however, the attempt to present Darwinism as an established dogma, immune from criticism, is disintegrating."

"Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, which has stood as the one great biological law comparable with the laws of physics for more than a century, is crumbling under attack. Biologists are discovering more and more features which it does not seem able to explain, and are holding meetings at which tempers often run high to discuss problems, some new, others which were discovered decades ago but quietly ignored."

"While for some people it is more comforting to believe that everything is in the hands of a deity, a paternal figure who will see all is well provided we submit to him, others find this stultifying and very much prefer to think that we live in a world which we, by our own efforts, can alter. Thus the issue underlying any debate about Chance vs. Purpose is, or can be seen as a political one: Left vs. Right. At the same time, there is something repellent about the idea that we live in a meaningless, fortuitous world. Darwinism, therefore, has always aroused fierce feelings and has been attacked and defended with great ferocity."

Taylor writes, "... natural selection ... accounts brilliantly for the minor adaptations which living organisms make to meet the challenges of the environment but it is by no means clear that it explains the major changes in evolution: the change from spineless jellyfish to fish with brains and backbones, for example, or the change from fish to air-breathing, four-legged land animals, to name only the most obvious examples."

"While it is not difficult to believe that some small structural change, such as a change in the shape of a bird's bill, occurs by chance, it is very difficult to believe that a complex structure like the eye, which involves many coordinated changes, came about by chance, and especially as it did so several times. Darwin himself was flummoxed by this. 'When I think of the eye, I shudder,' he said."

"Professor T.H. Frazzetta of the University of Illinois, observes: 'With each passing year the once rather simplistic views on evolution continue to crumble.'"

"As we shall see, a great many eminent biologists have raised this question but such has been the confidence and aggressiveness of the Old Guard that their views have been swept under the carpet and ignored. There has been a tightly knit school of neo-Darwinians, headed by such important figures as Ernst Mayr of Harvard ... George Gaylord Simpson at Harvard, who have trenchantly defended the orthodoxy, often in the face of the facts."

BLUEPRINT

When we see a house we know that it had a detailed blueprint. Common sense says that God has a blueprint for this world. Hebrews 3:4 says, "Every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God."

Donald Chittick in The Controversy writes: "Darwin suggested that all the various forms of life we see on earth today descended from more primitive ancestors by slow gradual change over millions of years of time. Only natural processes were involved. ...

"If the Darwinian process really took place, remains of plants and animals (fossils) should show a gradual and continual change from one type of animal or plant into another. One of the things that worried Darwin in his day, as well as modern evolutionists, was that the fossil record did not supply these intermediate life forms.

DARWIN'S BELIEF SYSTEM

Darwin did not base his ideas on observation of scientific data. He did not begin with data. He began with a belief system and then looked for data to support his beliefs. Not only did he not see evidence of a slow, gradual change from his observation of the fossil record of the past, but he believed change of one species into another in living forms could not even be observed within the single lifetime of a scientist. In other words, evolution could not be observed in the present. Actual observation of evolutionary change was therefore not possible. ...

"How did Darwin get around the obvious discrepancy between his theory and factual observation? He did it by inventing additional postulates in an attempt to prop up his theory to fit the actual evidence. He postulated that the fossil record was incomplete. Rather than admit his theory was wrong, he blamed the fossil record for being imperfect.

NO IN-BETWEEN FOSSILS

"For more than one hundred years since Darwin's day scientists have continued to study the fossil record intensely. How has the situation changed? Of all the countless fossil remains which have been discovered and studied, in-between forms are still missing from the record. Even today, scientists still use the same excuse that Darwin used: the fossil record is incomplete; we just haven't found the in-between species yet. ...

"A direct look at the fossil record would lead one to conclude that animals reproduced after their kind as Genesis states. They did not change from one kind into another. The evidence now, as in Darwin's day, is in agreement with the Genesis record of direct creation. Animals and plants continue to reproduce after their kind. In fact, the conflict between paleontology (study of fossils) and Darwinism is so strong that some scientists are beginning to believe that the in-between forms will never be found."

EYE

"If one were to come across an optical instrument such as a telescope or a camera, one would immediately conclude that it had been designed. Evolutionists, however, in looking at an eye, which has many of the same features and even more perfection than most cameras, conclude that there is no designer. 'But most scientists today do not share Darwin's doubts; they are convinced that his history of evolution removes the need for a guiding hand in the Universe. The great evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson expressed a nearly universal opinion among scientists when he wrote that evolution 'achieves the aspect of purpose without the intervention of a purposer, and has produced a vast plan without the action of a planner' -- Niles Eldredge."

ABORTION

Life in the physical world in only a few years, but it is a very important few years. People can multiply and have children only on earth. People in spirit world cannot conceive children. Sun Myung Moon is also called Father. In the book The Tradition, Book One we read, "Father has often encouraged blessed couples not to eternally regret limiting their families but rather to view children as blessings from God." Father encourages couples to have many children. He and Mrs. Moon have 14 children.

A fundamental question about creation is: When does human life begin? The Tradition, Book One says, "while in the womb, the child does not have a spiritual body; God imparts the spirit with the first breath." Tyler Hendricks wrote in the Unification News, "Pro- choice sees the fetus as non-human. Pro-life see the fetus as fully human. For pro-choice, abortion is minor surgery; for pro-life it is murder. There the matter sits, a battleground, and society has no authority established which can decide the matter once and for all.

CULTURE WAR

"Many conservative religious and academic leaders view abortion as the frontline of the battle for America's soul, including Charles Colson, Richard Neuhaus, George Weigel and Jerry Falwell. Like it or not, it has become the watershed issue, the dividing line in the culture war. On one side array the profamily forces, on the other, everyone from the silent majority to the pro-choice activists.

FIRST BREATH

"Our book of church practices, entitled The Tradition, states that abortion is permissible in case of severe deformity. ... Prior to the first breath into the second stage of life, the human person is not eternal ... there is no eternal soul ... This teaching tells us that spirit and flesh do not join until the first breath."

Still, Rev. Moon speaks out strongly against abortion saying, (April 26, 1992), "Abortion is wrong. A fetus is more than just a few cells. It represents love, life and lineage and by killing it you will kill the parents. You must guard the fetus with your life. What if Father's mother had Father aborted? Impossible!"

In Search of the Origin of the Universe 1996

"If human beings are resultant, can monkeys be the being that caused us? Can monkeys be our progenitors? Don't even talk such nonsense. In order for life to have begun from an amoeba and reach the human form, it must pass through the gates of love on thousands of levels. Does life progress automatically? Absolutely not. It is the same with all animals. The division of species is very strict. Nobody can trespass the separation of species.

"If materialists who believe that monkeys are our ancestors crossbreed a human being and a monkey, do you think a new life form will emerge? It will fail no matter how many thousands of years they attempt it. Why will it not work? You must think about this."