How did the theory of evolution gain such wide acceptance? Is the evidence for it all that sound? What has science discovered to back up the theory? Is there consensus among many scientists in support of this theory?
Almost 140 years have passed since Charles Darwin’s treatise on evolution, On the Origin of Species, appeared in 1859. Science has advanced greatly since those horse-and-buggy days. A vast amount of additional information is readily available.
Surprisingly enough, as we near the end of the 20th century, the controversy about evolution is increasing. Remarkably, much of this debate is taking place among scientists.
Heated Discussion on Evolution
Francis Hitching, a member of the Royal Archaeological Institute, gives a general view of the debate to date: “In April 1882, Charles Darwin died peacefully of a heart attack at his family home in Kent, England. His great theory, the basis of all modern biology teaching, had come to be accepted with a fervor close to reverence … Yet as 1982 approached, and with the centenary of his passing, change was in the wind. Feuds concerning the theory of evolution exploded rancorously in otherwise staid and decorous scientific journals.
“Entrenched positions, for and against, were established in high places, and insults lobbed like mortar bombs from either side. Meanwhile the doctrine of Divine creation, assumed by most scientists to have been relegated long ago to the pulpits of obscure fundamentalist sects, swept back into the classrooms of American schools. Darwinism is under assault on many fronts” ( The Neck of the Giraffe, 1982, p. 7).
Why the confusion and contention? Simply put, the increasing scientific evidence doesn’t fit the Darwinist model, and many evolutionists find themselves on the defensive.
How has this come about? It has happened mainly because the three primary supposed proofs of the theory have not held up to further discovery and scrutiny.
Darwinism Not the Same as Evolution
A word of caution on the use of the term evolution: It can mean different things to different people. The dictionary first defines evolution as a process of change from lower to a higher state and, second, as the theory Darwin advocated. But they are not the same. Evolution literally means simply the successive appearances of perfectly formed life without regard to how they got there. It does not have to refer to Darwinism, which is the doctrine that gradual change led to one species becoming another through the process of natural selection and random mutation.
A species is generally defined as a living thing that can reproduce only after its own kind. So, although most scientists mean Darwinism when they use the term evolution, the two definitions of the term are not synonymous and should be carefully defined by the context.
“Why is it,” asks physicist Alan Hayward, “that the terms ‘Darwinism’ and ‘evolution’ are so often used (wrongly) as if they meant the same thing? Simply because it was Darwin who put the old idea of evolution on its feet. Before Darwin, evolution was regarded by most people as a wild, unbelievable notion. After Darwin, evolution seemed such a reasonable idea that the general public soon took it for granted.
“Many people since Darwin’s day have tried to find an alternative explanation of evolution, but none has succeeded. Just as when he first proposed it, Darwin’s appears the only conceivable method of evolution. It still seems that Darwinism and evolution must stand or fall together” ( Creation and Evolution, 1985, p. 5).
This is a reason many Darwinists are so adamant about their theory. They know the implications if they fail: The alternative explanation of life on earth is a Creator God. Professor L.T. More has candidly admitted in his book The Dogma of Evolution: “Our faith in the doctrine of Evolution depends upon our reluctance to accept the antagonistic doctrine of special creation [creation by God]” (quoted by Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe, p. 109).
Three Supposed Proofs for Evolution
Darwinism is built on a foundation of three supposed proofs. If these are shown to be in error, the theory collapses.
The first and foremost supposed proof is the fossil record. Darwin and other proponents of his theory were sure they would find the transformation of species clearly demonstrated in the fossil strata.
Darwin was well aware of the importance of the fossil record to sustain his theory even though he was perplexed with the evidence discovered to date during his lifetime. He admitted the inadequate fossil evidence. “The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory” ( On the Origin of Species, 1909, pp. 319-320).
Darwin ultimately attributed this lack of evidence to “the extreme imperfection” of the fossil record as it was known in his time. He was confident that geologists and paleontologists would eventually find such transitional fossils and confirm his theory. Thomas Huxley, one of the great proponents of Darwinist theory, considered the fossil record to be the only direct proof of evolution. From its findings, he said, the theory would stand or fall.
The second supposed proof offered by Darwinists is natural selection, which they hoped biologists would confirm. “Just as the breeders selected those individuals best suited to the breeder’s needs to be the parents of the next generation,” explained British philosopher Tom Bethell, “so, Darwin argued, nature selected those organisms that were best fitted to survive the struggle for existence. In that way evolution would inevitably occur. And so there it was: a sort of improving machine inevitably at work in nature, ‘daily and hourly scrutinizing,’ Darwin wrote, ‘silently and insensibly working … at the improvement of each organic being.’ In this way, Darwin thought, one type of organism could be transformed into another—for instance, he suggested, bears into whales. So that was how we came to have horses and tigers and things—by natural selection” (Tom Bethell, “Darwin’s Mistake,” The Craft of Prose, 1977, p. 309 ).
Finally, the third supposed proof of the theory, which others added after Darwin’s death, is random mutation. Toward the end of his life, Darwin grew increasingly doubtful that natural selection alone could explain evolution. Yet, at the turn of the century, the laws of inheritance were discovered, and scientists viewed random mutation, combined with natural selection, as the means by which different species could arise. This theory was to be called neo-Darwinism.
These are still the three major proofs scientists offer in support of Darwinism. How have they held up? Let’s examine the facts.
The Fossil Evidence
With the passing of almost 140 years since the introduction of Darwin’s theory, what have the experts found in the fossil record? Certainly not the gradual links Darwin had predicted. After an immense worldwide search by geologists and paleontologists, the “missing links” Darwin predicted would be found to bolster his theory are still missing.
Says Newsweek magazine: “In 1972 [paleontologists Stephen Jay] Gould and Niles Eldredge collaborated on a paper intended at the time merely to resolve a professional embarrassment for paleontologist: their inability to find the fossils of transitional forms between species, the so-called ‘missing links.’ Darwin, and most of those whose followed him, believed that the work of evolution was slow, gradual and continuous and that a complete lineage of ancestors, shading imperceptibly one into the next, could in theory be reconstructed for all living animals … But a century of digging since then has only made their absence more glaring … It was Eldredge and Gould’s notion to call off the search and accept the evidence of the fossil record on its own terms” (“Enigmas of Evolution,” March 29, 1982, p. 39).
If the fossil record does not show clear evidence in support of Darwin’s theory, what does it show? It shows in the most primitive fossil strata, the Cambrian layer, a host of perfectly created sea creatures including octopi, starfish, sea urchins and trilobites. Below this strata the fossil record is virtually blank, with only a few traces of plant algae in evidence. Where are the primitive ancestors of these numerous and complex sea creatures? The fossil record, in a major blow to Darwin’s theory, offers no answers.
As we examine higher fossil layers, we find the same pattern repeated. The remains go from invertebrates directly into fish, then to amphibians, later to reptiles and finally to mammals. All these creatures, great and small, are perfectly formed without a fossil record of one species somehow evolving into another. The record also shows that many species, including insects, are the same throughout the entire geologic column.
Gaps Rather than Transitions
Hitching states about the fossil record: “The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren’t there … Fish jump into the fossil record seemingly from nowhere: mysteriously, suddenly, fully formed, and in a most un-Darwinian way. And before them are maddening, illogical gaps where their ancestors should be” ( The Neck of the Giraffe, pp. 19-20, emphasis added).
Evolutionists have desperately tried to find at least one such species in transition among the many millions of species discovered in the fossil record. They finally came up with one ostensible example: archaeopteryx, claimed to be a half-species between reptile and bird. However, further study has shown this not to be a transitional species at all but a bird with fully formed feathers and capable of flight.
The Darwinists’ view of the fossil record is intellectual sleight of hand. They point to the fossil record and its progression of species, citing it as proof of evolutionary change between species. The first point is true—there is a progression—but the second (evolutionary change) is an unfounded supposition. The fossil record shows a progression of perfectly formed species from simpler to more complex. But the second premise, which makes assumptions regarding how they evolved or gradually changed, is not demonstrated in the fossil strata.
Other Theories to Explain the Evidence
To explain a fossil record that doesn’t match the theory of evolution, some evolutionists have had to come up with alternative explanations. Some, like Gould and Eldredge, have proposed a “punctuated equilibrium” theory. They propose that evolution took place in short spurts, with long periods of inactivity in between.
This, they say, explains the sudden appearance of new species with no earlier transitional forms. But they have failed to show how this is biologically possible. “For all the excitement it has generated,” observes Newsweek, “punctuated equilibrium still smacks of heresy to many scientists. It does not explain what many regard as the crucial point: how and why a new species springs up” (“Enigmas of Evolution,” March 29, 1982, p. 39).
Those who admit the lack of transitional fossils are at a loss to explain how the newer forms of life appear. “Orthodox Darwinism,” comments Hayward, “offers a plausible biological explanation for what might have happened, but is in conflict with the evidence of geology. And the alternative theory accepts the geological record, but cannot explain how species could arise so suddenly” ( Creation and Evolution, p. 19).
Avoiding any acknowledgment of God, these scientists do not take into account the obvious conclusion the fossil record shows—that these creatures appeared as perfectly formed organisms in a progressive manner and without previous ancestors of the same kind. After surveying the fossil record, Hayward describes the situation bluntly: “In other words, Darwin has been let down by the rocks … Evolutionists rule out the obvious solution, of a great burst of activity by the Creator at the start of the Cambrian period. But they have no alternative explanation. The astonishing lack of Precambrian fossils is a major weakness in Darwinism” (pp. 42-43).
Of the fossil record of plants, botanist and evolutionist E.J. Corner of Cambridge admits, “I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation [creation by God]” ( Evolution, Royal Botanical Society, 1961, p. 97, emphasis added).
Rather than supporting Darwinism, the fossil record undermines the theory at every turn.
What About Natural Selection?
What about natural selection as a supposed proof of Darwin’s theory? How has this second major pillar of evolutionary theory fared? In truth, it has been quietly discarded by an increasing number of theorists among the scientific community.
Charles Darwin’s idea that the survival of the fittest would explain how species evolved has been relegated to a redundant, self-evident statement. Geneticist C.H. Waddington defines the fundamental problem of advocating natural selection as a proof of Darwinism: “Natural selection … turns out on closer inspection to be a tautology, a statement of an inevitable although previously unrecognized relation. It states that the fittest individuals in a population will leave more offspring” (Bethell, p. 310).
In other words, what are the fittest? Why, those that survive, of course. And what survives? Why, naturally, the fittest. The problem is that this observation is circular reasoning and is not an independent criterion to evaluate results.
Darwin cited an example of the way natural selection was supposed to work: A wolf that had inherited the ability to run especially fast was better equipped to survive. His advantage in outrunning others in the pack when food was scarce meant he could eat better and thus survive longer.
Yet, the very changes that enabled that wolf to run faster could easily become a hindrance if other modifications of the body did not accompany the increased speed. For example, the additional exertion required to run faster would naturally place an added strain on the animal’s heart, and eventually it could drop from a heart attack. The survival of the fittest would require that any biological or anatomical alterations would have to be in harmony and synchronized with other bodily modifications, or the changes would be of no benefit.
Natural Selection Doesn’t Change Species
Natural selection, scientists have found, deals only with the number of species, not the change of the species. It has to do with the survival and not the arrival of the species. “Natural selection,” said Conrad Waddington of Edinburgh University, “is that some things leave more offspring than others; and you ask, which leave more offspring than others? And it is those that leave more offspring; and there is nothing more to it than that. The whole guts of evolution—which is, how do you come to have horses and tigers and things—is outside the mathematical theory [of neo-Darwinism]” (Wistar Symposium, Moorehead and Kaplan, 1967, p. 14).
Tom Bethell gets to the heart of the problem with natural selection as the foundation of evolution: “This was no good at all. As T. H. Morgan [1933 Nobel Prize winner in medicine for his experiments with the Drosophila fruit fly] had remarked, with great clarity: ‘Selection, then, has not produced anything new, but only more of certain kinds of individual. Evolution, however, means producing new things, not more of what already exists.’”
Bethell concludes: “Darwin’s theory, I believe, is on the verge of collapse. In his famous book, Origin of Species, Darwin made a mistake sufficiently serious to undermine his theory. And that mistake has only recently been recognized as such. I have not been surprised to read … that in some of the latest evolutionary theories ‘natural selection plays no role at all.’ Darwin, I suggest, is in the process of being discarded … But perhaps in deference to the venerable old gentleman … it is being done as discreetly and gently as possible, with a minimum of publicity” (Tom Bethell, “Darwin’s Mistake,” The Craft of Prose , pp. 311, 314, emphasis added).
Sadly, the critical examination of natural selection has been undertaken so discreetly that most people are unaware of it, so the inexcusable deception that began nearly 140 years ago continues.
A Look at Random Mutation
If natural selection is not the answer, what about the third supposed proof: the reliance evolutionists place on random mutation as a cornerstone of evolution?
Curiously enough, Darwin himself was one of the first to discount beneficial effects from rare changes he noted in the species, to the point that he did not include them in his theory. “He did not consider them important,” says Maurice Caullery in his book Genetics and Heredity, “because they nearly always represented an obvious disadvantage from the point of view of the struggle for existence; consequently they would most likely be rapidly eliminated in the wild state by the operation of natural selection” (1964, p. 10, emphasis added).
Yet in Darwin’s lifetime the principles of genetics were not clearly understood. By the beginning of the 20th century these laws were finally decoded, first by Gregor Mendel, then by Hugo De Vries. Evolutionists quickly seized on these discoveries to support evolution. Sir Julian Huxley, one of the principal spokesmen for evolutionary theory in this century, commented on the unpredictability of mutations: “Mutation … provides the raw material of evolution; it is a random affair and takes place in all directions” (Evolution in Action, 1953, p. 38).
So, “shortly after the turn of the century, Darwin’s theory suddenly seemed plausible again,” writes Hitching. It was found that once in a while, absolutely at random (about once in ten million times during cell division, we now know) the genes make a copying mistake. These mistakes are known as mutations, and are mostly harmful. They lead to a weakened plant, or a sick or deformed creature. They do not persist within the species, because they are eliminated by natural selection …
“However, followers of Darwin have come to believe that it is the occasional beneficial mutation, rarely though it happens, which is what counts in evolution. They say these favorable mutations, together with sexual mixing, are sufficient to explain how the whole bewildering variety of life on Earth today originated from a common genetic source” (Hitching, p. 49, emphasis added).
Mutations: Liability, not Benefit
What has almost a century of research discovered? That mutations are pathological mistakes and not helpful changes in the genetic code. C.P. Martin of McGill University in Montreal wrote, “Mutation is a pathological process which has had little or nothing to do with evolution” (“A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution,” American Scientist, January 1953, p. 100). Professor Martin’s investigations revealed mutations are overwhelmingly negative and never creative. He observed that an apparently beneficial mutation was likely only a correction of a previously deleterious one, similar to punching a man with a dislocated shoulder and inadvertently putting it back into place.
We can be thankful that mutations are extremely rare. An average of one mistake per 10 million correct copies occurs in the genetic code. Whoever or whatever types 10 million letters with only one mistake would easily be the world’s best typist and probably would not be human. Yet this is the astounding accuracy of our supposedly blind genetic code when it replicates itself.
If, however, these copying errors were to accumulate, a species, instead of improving, would eventually degenerate and perish. But geneticists have discovered a self-correcting system.
“The genetic code in each living thing has its own built-in limitations,” says Hitching. “It seems designed to stop a plant or creature stepping too far away from the average … Every series of breeding experiments that has ever taken place has established a finite limit to breeding possibilities. Genes are a strong influence for conservatism, and allow only modest change. Left to their own devices, artificially bred species usually die out (because they are sterile or less robust) or quickly revert to the norm (Hitching, pp. 54-55).
We see these genetic limits at work in the world around us. Although genetic diversity has allowed us to enjoy the companionship of hundreds of breeds of dogs of all shapes, sizes, colors and other traits, they are still dogs. Specialized breeding to create varieties of dogs that increasingly deviate from the norm often leads to weakened animals with inherited problems that will ultimately lessen their odds for long-term survival.
Many scientists reluctantly concede that mutations do not explain Darwin’s proposed transition from one species to the next. Writing about eminent zoologist Pierre-Paul Grassé, Hayward says, “In 1973 he published a major book on evolution … First and foremost, the book aims to expose Darwinism as a theory that does not work, because it clashes with so many experimental findings.
“As Grassé says in his introduction: ‘Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution … Some people, owning to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs’ …
“Take mutation first. Grassé has studied this extensively, both inside his laboratory and in nature. In all sorts of living things, from bacteria to plants and animals, he has observed that mutations do not take succeeding generations further and further from their starting point. Instead, the changes are like the flight of a butterfly in a green house, which travels for miles without moving more that a few feet from its starting point. There are invisible but firmly fixed boundaries that mutations can never cross … He insists that mutations are only trivial changes; they are merely the result of slightly altered genes, whereas ‘creative evolution … demands the genesis of new ones’ ”(Hayward, p. 25).
Embarrassingly for evolutionists, mutation is also not the answer. If anything, the self-correcting system to eliminate mutations shows that a great intelligence was at work when the overall genetic system was designed so that random mutations would not destroy the beneficial genes. Ironically, mutation shows the opposite of what evolutionism teaches: In real life random mutation is the villain and not the hero.
This takes us to one last point on mutations: the inability of evolution to explain the appearance of simple life and intricate organs.
The Wondrous Cell
Cells are marvelous and incredibly complicated living things. They are self-sufficient and function like miniature chemical factories. The closer we look at cells, the more we realize just how incredibly complex they are.
For example, the cell wall is a wonder in itself. If it were too porous, harmful solutions would enter and cause the cell to burst. On the other hand, if the wall were too impervious, no nourishment could come in or waste products go out, and the cell would quickly die.
Biochemist Michael Behe, associate professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, summarizes one of the fundamental flaws of evolution as an explanation for any form of life. “Darwin’s theory encounters its greatest difficulties when it comes to explaining the development of the cell. Many cellular systems are what I term ‘irreducibly complex.’ That means the system needs several components before it can work properly.
“An everyday example of irreducible complexity is a mousetrap, built of several pieces (platform, hammer, spring and so on). Such a system probably cannot be put together in a Darwinian manner, gradually improving its function. You can’t catch a mouse with just the platform and then catch a few more by adding the spring. All the pieces have to be in place before you catch any mice.”
What Behe is saying is that a cell missing a tenth of its parts doesn’t function only one tenth less as well as a complete cell; it doesn’t function at all. He concludes: “The bottom line is that the cell—the very basis of life—is staggeringly complex. But doesn’t science already have answers, or partial answers, for how these systems originated? No” (“Darwin Under the Microscope,” The New York Times, Oct. 29, 1996, p. A25).
Sir James Gray, a Cambridge professor of zoology, stated: “Bacteria [are] far more complex than any inanimate system known to man. There is not a laboratory in the world which can compete with the biochemical activity of the smallest living organism” (Marshall and Sandra Hall, The Truth: God or Evolution?, 1974, p. 89).
Just how complex are the tiniest living things? Even the simplest cells must possess a staggering amount of genetic information to function. For instance, the bacterium R. coli is one of the tiniest unicellular creatures in nature. Scientists calculate it has some 2,000 genes, each with around 1,000 enzymes. An enzyme is made up of some one billion nucleotides, which amount to a letter in the chemical alphabet, comparable to a byte in computer language. These enzymes instruct the organism how to function and reproduce. The DNA information in just this single tiny cell is “the approximate equivalent of 100 million pages of the Encyclopaedia Britannica” (John Whitcomb, The Early Earth, 1972, p. 79).
What are the odds that the enzymes needed to produce the simplest living creature—with each enzyme performing a specific chemical function—could come together by chance? Mathematician and astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the odds at one chance in 1040,000 (that is, 10 to the 40,000th power: mathematical shorthand for a 10 followed by 40,000 zeros—a number long enough to fill about seven pages of this magazine). Note that a probability of less than 1 in 1050 is considered by mathematicians to be a complete impossibility (Hayward, p. 35-37).
By comparison, Sir Arthur Eddington, another mathematician, estimates there are no more than 1080 atoms in the universe! (Hitching, p. 70). It is clear evolutionists simply don’t have a real answer to how the first cells were formed. This is just one of their many problems in trying to explain a wondrous creation that they think came together by random chance.
One relatively simple process necessary for animal life is the ability for blood to clot to seal a wound and prevent an injured animal (or human) from bleeding to death. Yet the only way this intricate system works is when many complicated chemical substances interact. If only one ingredient is missing or doesn’t function in the right way, the process fails, and death results.
How can these complex substances appear at just the right time in the right proportions and mix properly to clot blood and prevent death? Either they function flawlessly or clotting doesn’t work at all.
At the same time, medical science is aware of clotting at the wrong time. Blood clots that cut off the flow of oxygen to the brain are a leading cause of strokes and often result in paralysis or death. With blood clotting, either everything works perfectly or the likely outcome is death.
For evolution to have led to this astounding ability, multiple mutations of just the right kind had to converge simultaneously or the mutations would be useless. Evolutionists can offer no realistic explanation how this is possible.
The apostle Paul’s comments about the philosophers of his day could also be said about Darwinists of our time:
“For all that can be known of God lies plain before their eyes; indeed God himself has disclosed it to them. Ever since the world began his invisible attributes, that is to say his everlasting power and deity, have been visible to the eye of reason, in the things he has made. Their conduct, therefore, is indefensible; knowing God, they have refused to honour him as God, or to render his thanks. Hence all their thinking has ended in futility, and their misguided minds are plunged in darkness. They boast of their wisdom, but they have made fools of themselves, exchanging the glory of the immortal God for an image shaped like mortal man, even for images like birds, beasts, and reptiles.
“For this reason God has given them up to their own vile desires, and the consequent degradation of their bodies. They have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and have offered reverence and worship to created things instead of to the Creator …” (Romans 1:19-25 Romans 1:19-25 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has showed it to them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things.
24 Why God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
American King James Version×, Revised English Bible, emphasis added).
Rampant unbelief and immorality have a great deal to do with denying and refusing to obey a Creator God. The third supposed proof supporting evolution also fails.
A Search for Alternatives to Creation
“It is obvious that Darwin’s theory no longer has the standing it had a few years ago,” adds Dr. Hayward. “A small but significant minority of biologists have rejected it entirely, and are looking for a better theory to put in its place. So far, though, they have failed to find one … On the other hand, the case for the existence of the Creator is stronger today that it has ever been. In every branch of science there is a growing body of evidence that the universe and its contents have been designed—that things just could not be the way they are as the result of chance.
“This evidence has so much weight that even some eminent scientists who are unbelievers have had the courage to face it … The most reasonable answer to the question: Creation? is surely: Yes—creation of some sort” (Hayward, p. 65, emphasis added).
Not surprisingly, conclusions such as these have not received much publicity. Most people are unaware of Darwinism’s many flaws and scientific findings and conclusions that undermine evolutionary theory.
The consequences of accepting Darwinist theory have been profound. Enormous moral and social damage has been done in classrooms and to society. The theory that led Darwin to discard the Bible and reject the existence of God has had a similar effect on millions of other people.
It is no coincidence that Karl Marx, the father of communism, asked Darwin if he could dedicate Das Kapital, his landmark book on communism, to his honor, or if he could write its introduction. After all, Marx believed Darwin had provided the scientific basis for communism. Darwin discreetly declined the offer.
Later, Adolf Hitler applied the Darwinist concept of the “survival of the fittest” to the human race and during World War II began systematically exterminating people whom he considered to be inferior. The Nazis justified their atrocities by explaining that they were actually doing mankind a service with “genetic cleansing” to improve the races.
As long as evolution—with its implications of amorality and the survival of the fittest mentality among “superior” and “inferior” races—is still accepted and believed, genocide, as the recent ethnic cleansings in Bosnia and Rwanda show, will have a scientific justification, even though most believers in Darwinist theory would object to this conclusion.
The Bible prophesies that, before Jesus Christ’s return, a worldwide commerce of human beings will be in place. This Babylonian system will include the trading of “bodies and souls of men” (Revelation 18:13 Revelation 18:13And cinnamon, and odors, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men.
American King James Version×). Could this be possible? One only has to remember the Nazi holocaust. Hundreds of thousands were pressed into slave labor. Those too weak, ill, young or old to work faced a merciless death.
Remember, such events happened barely 50 years ago in what were considered to be the most advanced and enlightened nations. Clearly it could happen again, especially in a world in which so many have adopted a belief in moral relativism and a survival-of-the-fittest outlook.
But, if the theory of evolution does not provide the answers to the existence of the abundance and variety of life, can the Bible explain the fossil record, an ancient earth and a divine creation at the same time? Our next article will deal with this intriguing question. GN