|
Nice Kitty
Industry Role:
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The good old USA!!!
Posts: 21,053
|
Evolution At The Bar by Philip Mauro
Chapter III
Science Not An Authority
In this chapter we propose to examine the reasons usually advanced in support of the theory of Evolution. Those reasons relate entirely to Organic Evolution, or the Origin of Species and the "Descent of Man"; for there is (so far as we are aware), no pretence that any facts are known from which the theory of Cosmic Evolution could be inferred.
It should be pointed out, before entering upon this examination, that it is easy to impose upon the majority of people by an appeal to "Science" as an authority. Thus, we often hear it said, "Science has discovered this," or "Science tells us that," as if the matter were thereby conclusively settled. But it would be well to ask, who is "Science"? and where does he live? And how comes he to know these things? The fact is there is no "Science" in this sense. It is true that a few capable men have attempted to explore the field of Nature in various directions, and have ascertained a fact or two, to which they have added a thousand guesses. But they have left a million questions unanswered, without which no safe conclusions can be drawn. It is the commonest thing for "Science" to contradict one day what it most positively asserted the day previous; so that, in view of the existing state of complete scientific ignorance on the subject of origins, it would be absurd to accept as true any statement on that subject in the name of "Science."
A few years ago Mr. Thomas A. Edison, commenting upon the boasted progress of Science, said that if the same rate of progress were maintained for the next two thousand years, mankind might then be in a position to begin to draw conclusions.
Reasons Given In Support Of Evolution
In examining the reasons that are commonly given in support of the theory, we shall select those which are deemed, by its advocates, to be the strongest. These are (1) the changes which are observed to occur in the embryo of the human species from its first beginning to its full development, which changes are assumed to be, in their order and character, a recapitulation of the changes through which the species itself is supposed to have passed in the course of its development; (2) the succession of living forms in time; it having been ascertained from geological researches, that the more simple forms of life are, generally speaking, found in the lower strata of rocks, and those more complex higher up.
Embryology We put this argument first because (a) it is generally deemed the strongest, and (b) it is from out of the studies of changes in the embryo (embryology) that the idea of Evolution sprang. So we have now the opportunity to examine the theory at its point of origin.
The argument from embryology consists of two suppositions, for neither of which is there any proof whatever. First it is assumed that the human species did evolve by gradual changes, passing from a simple unicellular creature, such as the Amoeba, through successively higher species until it became Man; and second, it is assumed that the human embryo passes through the same changes in its prenatal history of about nine months. Manifestly we have here no proof of Evolution; for in this argument, Evolution is taken for granted. It cannot be possibly known whether the changes of the embryo are a resume of the history of development of the species, until it is known what that history was. Therefore we are thrown back upon the question, can Evolution be (certainly inferred from the changes of the embryo?
First let it be observed that there is no proved or necessary relationship between the growth of the embryo and the history of its species. If indeed the embryo does perform, in the short space of nine months, the stupendous feat of changing from Amoeba to Man, passing swiftly through all the intervening species, it would be a most miraculous and supernatural thing, whereof it were vain to seek an explanation in the sphere of nature. Evolution, however, is exceedingly slow. It demands millions of years to effect slight changes. It denies and excludes the miraculous from the sphere of nature. It cannot, therefore, assume a prodigious miracle in its own support. The supposed transformations of the embryo tend not in the slightest to prove the truth of the theory. Those changes, like all others in the history of a living creature, belong in the category of the mysteries of life, concerning which science has been able thus far to give no explanation whatever. "The way of the tree of life" (#Ge 3:24) has been effectually kept from all prying investigators.
But let us go deeper into the subject, and ask, what are the changes which take place in the human embryo? And do they really constitute an evolution V Upon pressing this inquiry we find first, that the likeness of the human embryo to that of other creatures at different stages of its growth is a mere superficial resemblance; for even the evolutionist would not pretend that there is any essential likeness between them; and second, that even in those superficial and transient resemblances the growth of the embryo does mot go through the stages of the supposed development of man. These objections are fatal.
(1) In a case of this sort, superficial resemblances count for nothing; for beneath them there are, in fact, vital differences. The human embryo is, at all stages of its growth, the human embryo.
It is at every stage, essentially different from that of the worm, the fish, and from that of every other mammal. Prof. Fairhurst says:
"It is evident that while all eggs, from that of the sponge to that of man, may seem to be alike in structure, they are really as far apart in their essential nature as are the fully developed sponge and the full-grown man. Taking the embryos of man and fish the argument of the evolutionist is as follows: The embryos of man and fish, at a certain stage of development, are closely alike in appearance; therefore, man and fish had a common ancestral origin. The conclusion which the evolutionist draws is based upon a mere seeming and very transient resemblance, while the fact that the two embryos are essentially unlike is shown by the vast distance apart at which they arrive by development. It is true that the embryos of vertebrates look much more alike than do the adults, and that the eggs are still nearer alike in appearance than are the embryos; but I insist again that the embryos are no nearer together in essential structure than the adults. The egg which can be developed into a man is just as different in nature from the egg of a fish, as the man is from the fish. The eggs are essentially unlike. The essential qualities of eggs are beyond the power of the microscope to reveal. The human embryo is produced by human beings only; and whatever may be its microscopic appearance, it is at every stage of its development strictly human. Embryology, as applied to Evolution, fails in that it deals only with the surface of things."
Thus the strongest argument of the evolutionist breaks down completely for the reason that the facts are the reverse of what his theory calls for.
(2) Furthermore, even the superficial changes of the human embryo do not represent anything like the complete line of the supposed human ancestry. Prof. Fairhurst says that the entire first half of the history of Evolution is not even hinted at in the epitome (Organic Evolution Considered, p. 147). Further he says:
"There are radical differences between the embryos of vertebrates and invertebrates. Worms and other articulates in embryo lie doubled backwards around the yolk, while all vertebrates are doubled in the opposite direction. According to the theory that the embryonic condition is a recapitulation of the stages of organic evolution, this fundamental fact of invertebrate embryology ought to have been preserved by the vertebrate. Evolution gives no account of this reversal of position by the vertebrates."
There are other gaps in the succession of changes through which the embryo passes; but it is needless to speak of them. Enough has been said to show that the argument from embryology is not only a far-fetched inference, but that the facts are the reverse of what the inference calls for.
It is of interest to note that Dr. Romanes, one of the most extreme of evolutionists, declared the facts of embryology to be "the most important of the lines of evidence" in support of Evolution. While holding those views he wrote strongly against the Bible doctrine of Creation, and against supernaturalism in general. "But later he changed his views entirely, and died in 1894, confessing his faith, not only in the providence of God, but in the deity of Christ." (Fairhurst: Theistic Evolution, p. 11.)
|