Jack777
January 25th 2005, 11:24 AM
Some arguments eventuate to absolute denial of one or another disposition as regards Evolution and Biblical Creation. The framework that the Theory of Evolution has provided to scientists has allowed conceptual models to develop so that natural phenomenon can be observed in a way to organize these observations so that accurate conclusions can be made that are meaningful in quantitatively and qualitatively. Being able to organize a body of knowledge requires structure that lends to repeatability of experiments based on hypotheses and observations. The ability to apply such knowledge gained can then be found to infer limits, establish variables and constants. Science has come to give meaning to natural phenomenon in terms of its chemistry, optical properties, physics, and mathematical qualities. The Theory of Evolution must be given credit for what it has allowed to be accomplished. Criticism of misapplication of the Theory of Evolution should not be taken as any proof that contravenes the reality of its usefulness. Someone who has gained useful results that have described reality accurately would see that immediately as unfair. Then again, the Theory of Evolution has been used as a criticism of the Bible as the Word of God and said to prove that God may not exist or does not exist. This is taken as unfair and a misapplication of it as well by people who describe themselves as Creationists. Arguments then, seem to be taken as attacks on evolution or creation in toto.
Part of the observation of Darwin and others is factually based and some of the conclusions reached are valid. It is useful to note the weaknesses of the Theory of Evolution. In fact, the Theory of Evolution did contribute to things such as Eugenics, getting rid of the “human weeds” in society. Explaining physical reality has resulted in justifying ignorance of what the Bible has to say about the universe and the beings that live on this planet. Explaining the Word of God has resulted in justifying ignorance of what science has to say about the universe and the beings that live on this planet. While attempts at finding common ground between the two worldviews represented by Creationists and Evolutionists are noble and well intentioned, they are fraught with hazards. History has shown that misunderstanding the limits and boundaries of what science can tell us has resulted in tragedy and death for millions. Evolution as science works well and is morally neutral, evolution as a philosophy and religion is hideous and could prove to be the death of us all. Evolution as a philosophy and religion dehumanizes mankind and allows the reduction of humans to the lowest common denominator that can be found.
Statements that do not recognize basic aspects of humanity that are true of people have become common. People liken humans to a mass of cells, a complex of chemicals, or the result of random chance. This is done on a regular basis and a priesthood of sorts is always ready to don scientific garb to deceive others for reasons of control and power. People are like this with religion as well. Donning the mantle of religion, Creationists often infer negative and hurtful motivations to innocent scientific observations made that are true. Sun Tzu pointed out in The Art of War some 2,500 years ago that if people want to know about the divine, they should go to someone expert in that. If we want to know how to calculate what we might need for provisioning for a certain length of time, we should consult a mathematician. I have read scientific textbooks that deride Moses and are written in a dismissive way that suggests to the reader Christians and Jews have it all wrong. The quantitative evidence as regards natural observations do not warrant the sniping and derisive attitude, but no matter, some feel comfortable as they think Evolution justifies it. Likewise, Christians flail arms and wave Bibles to condemn scientists that are studying their circles. It is as if it is done in eager anticipation of ensuing conflict that might disturb the circles.
“How germane is any of this today,” seems to be the question of some. As regards practicing science as a profession it influences bioethics. Terry Schiavo is a woman that is married to a man who is living with his lover and has several children by the lover. Terry was likely put in a condition where she has limited abilities by her husband and her husband has been pushing for her to be starved and dehydrated until dead. He stands to collect a large sum of insurance money and the advocates of assisted suicide as well as other ghouls are backing him. The catch phrase for some is the “right to die.” The Supreme Court refused to listen to the case put before it by Florida Governor Jeb Bush. Terry has been kept from being given rehabilitative therapy by her husband’s legal maneuverings, even though it is obvious that she is aware and sentient. It is illegal to starve or dehydrate animals, yet this is what the courts have decided Terry deserves. It is obvious that the husband merely wants to collect money and go on with his new life, initiated while Terry has been incapacitated. The lack of value assigned to humans is in part responsible for this. Greed and lust on the part of the husband may play a role in what is happening to Terry. The gain of power over others lurks in the wings, shadowy and menacing. If they can legally murder an adult who has the support of family, her church, friends, attorneys, and the Governor of Florida; they will be able to expand their horizons. Those who think people can be murdered by their method then will know that the application of their method can be more universally applied and get rid of undesirables in society. Of course, they will be allowed to define who deserves to live and who deserves to die.
It is harmful and wrong to underestimate evil. The religious and the non-religious can be taken over by evils very quickly. Our natural proclivities based on human nature leave us vulnerable and lacking. Some of the erosive effects of evil take place silently and without notice. It can take place as soon as we give it permission. Evil takes place as harm to people and animals alike without absolutes as to what is right and wrong. Corruption of the mind and deterioration of judgment occurs concurrently. My position taken as regards Theistic Evolution is one that recognizes the total efficacy of God and the limits of the concepts of mankind, which includes Evolution. There is the tendency to make the same mistake with Evolution that is made in other areas of human endeavor. People gain charge over others in a legitimate way and sooner or later realize they can wield power over people who trust in them or their doctrines. Science and religion have golden calves. God warns from the first in the Bible that religion is harmful under any aegis other than His. How to avoid the harm becomes the question in a significant way. Constructing doctrines of a religious or scientific nature based on the knowledge, understanding, and wisdom of mankind always leads to destruction in the absence of God. Humans are, well, human and we forget God easily, sometimes in church pews, sometimes while dealing with our own families.
One of the best ways to make sure people are destroyed and society is ruined and becomes vain and empty is to forget God. Using His Name to justify harm done and evil being perpetrated is a favorite that people use. Not noticing that knowledge of God comes from Him is a way we quickly degrade ourselves. Ignoring the Revelation of God as of singular importance leads to personal ruin for many. Looking at a cult leader on a constant basis leads to Jonestown and worse. Cult leaders always have a way of drawing attention to them on a constant basis and people are not allowed to look on God or even avert their eyes from the stare of the person who has gained power over them. That is the way we are. Experts of one sort or another sometimes are given the same deference that allows people to forget God. As soon as the Revelation of God to us is discounted we become vulnerable to others and to evil. The Bible gives repeated examples of this throughout of this on a personal, sibling, family, local community level, people group level, national, and global level. The global level examples are prophetic and have not occurred yet but God warns us of it.
Social Darwinism is a theory that people and societies compete for survival and, by extension, success in life. Despite the growing influence of the theory of evolution, most Evangelical Christians in the United States remained skeptical of it. After World War I, American Christian fundamentalists began a movement against the idea of evolution, partly because of the popular belief that German aggression expressed a Darwinian doctrine of survival of the fittest. 1 Christians believe that mankind has two natures, one the fleshly and the other the spiritual. We are hard-wired for survival on the planet and this has been recognized in the Bible. One of the great lessons of the Bible is that we are not to indulge that part of ourselves that is motivated by emotion in a way that evokes the resultant mix of emotion and intellect that produces things such as malice, lust, jealousy, envy, spite, holding grudges, violence, and greed. Obviously, our emotions are a gift and if properly applied in our lives can be life saving and beneficial in other ways. The Apostle Paul noted that living on the sarx, the flesh level leads to Death and living on the spiritual level leads to Life. The fundamentalist Christians recognized the application of survival of the fittest resident in society as a doctrine in the latter half of the 19th century and the early part of the 20th century.
Theism that denies the Revelation of the Bible is something many Christians recognize as leading to deterioration of society. In the 1950’s a major news magazine plastered the question on its cover, “Is God Dead?” In the 1960’s liberal neo-orthodoxy decided that the New Testament was sort of valid and the Old Testament was unnecessary and not valid. Millions of Bibles were published with only the New Testament. A watershed moment came in the mid-70’s where some of us noticed a marked deterioration of morality, an increase of drug abuse, as well as the occult and apostasy markedly being on the rise. I would place it at 1975. I wrote to the President of a conservative seminary who had taken part in a conference and contributed to a series of essays published in a book on the subject of the occult. I asked what he thought contributed significantly to this rise in the occult in the United States. He thought it was the disregard of the Old Testament and said that this always happens when it is no longer taught as God’s Word. In retrospect, I think I still agree in part with that assessment. I also think that with this is the introduction of non-biblical doctrines as valid to the Body of Christ that oppose the witness of Scripture.
The reduction of mankind to animals only, is eagerly embraced by some. Spirituality is held by some to consist of following after gods we have not known. God says this is forbidden for His people to do. I have assented to the fact that Evolution has a workable framework that is useful in science. Where I draw the line is where it conflicts with God’s Word as His Revelation to us. One result of the reduction of humans to animals only is that we devalue everything and leave ourselves open to the lower elements of the universe and become arrogant. Many of us live as though there is no God and we think we are the measure of all things. This is the essence of survival of the fittest in the animal kingdom. Peter Singer sees no difference between pigs and children and thinks it should be a right to kill children up to the age of three years old. In the time of the Roman Empire 2,000 years ago, a parent had the right to kill a child for any reason. Women in Corinth worked as temple prostitutes to perform ritual sex as worship to demons and then came home to their husbands. This was normative. In society today we define the mathematical normative values as normative in a moral sense. Kinsey did bogus science purposely and was nearly mad, yet he is being presented as normative and worthy of emulation. Man as an animal tends to be willful, selfish, and terribly destructive. I can see that this is something I would like to deny and I am not alone. This eagerness to abandon the Bible as the direct Revelation of God so we can live like animals has certain compromises that go along with it. People become property under the absence of biblical teaching. Women get reduced to slaves and used for procreation and men have sex with other men as sport as evidenced by history. Men of old would have sex with children and that was normative. Catemites were normative. The rape rooms in Iraq were normative. I know that the Children of Israel owned slaves. They were protected and there were biblical laws that outlined how they were to be treated, humanely. This is not quite the case under other cultures.
My argument is that mankind is capable of living under a different way than as a mere animal. The same argument was put forward by God. He did this by Revelation, something Evolution tends to undermine unfailingly.
The question is this— Is man an ape or an angel? My Lord, I am on the side of the angels. I repudiate with indignation and abhorrence these new fangled theories.
Benjamin Disraeli
Speech, November 25, 1864, Diocesan Conference, Oxford.2
Disraeli may be speaking for some people today that hold to the idea that we are the creation of God. We are created in His image. The Bible teaches this. Evolution denies it. The Bible clearly states that we were created by God. Evolution denies this. Most people who adopt the Theory of Evolution believe we are evolved from lower life forms.
Elohiym, created us, the same Creator who created the universe.
Jesus as fully man testified that God created the universe and agreed with the witness of Scripture from Genesis, then again He would know as God since it was He that planned, designed and created the universe as fully God. He says this in Mark 13:19
The Hebrew that means “created” applies to God creating. Mankind is only able to imitate creation and use available materials to imitate. Mankind fashions and does so imperfectly. Think of Dolly the sheep for instance. I would not wish her problems on a clone that is made with science.
It is denied that the Theory of Evolution has been used to make statements contrary to the Bible, except by irresponsible people. Is Thomas Huxley an example? He thought mankind is capable of learning only because we are machines. The Bible teaches that true knowledge, wisdom, and understanding can only come from God.
It is because the body is a machine that education is possible. Education is the formation of habits, a superinducing of an artificial organisation upon the natural organisation of the body.
Thomas Henry Huxley
Collected Essays 3
Thomas Huxley (1825–95), an English biologist, is best known for his active support of the theory of evolution developed by Charles Darwin. He was the foremost supporter in England of Darwin and was important in the acceptance of the Ttheory of Evolution by both scientists and the public.4 He concluded the body is a machine, reducing mankind to nothing more and nothing less than a collection of chemicals. He made the observation based upon his interpretation of Descartes’ ‘Discourse Touching the Method of Using One’s Reason Rightly and of Seeking Scientific Truth.’5 Thomas Huxley appropriated the arguments of Descartes as proof for Evolution, while there can be made the case that Descartes would have disagreed with Huxley’s analysis. This is in part due to divorcing oneself from the Bible as Revelation, not because Huxley was particularly on to anything other than gathering arguments to reduce mankind to the level of mechanistic determinism and evince favorable conclusions in regard to Evolution.
Julian Huxley was another champion of Darwinianism. He wrote glowingly of Darwin and spoke in glowing terms of its efficacy. He made Darwinian Evolution a matter of philosophy. He misappropriated the Theory of Evolution. He said:
“Why is The Origin of Species such a great book? First of all, because it convincingly demonstrated the fact of evolution: it provides a vast and well-chosen body of evidence showing that existing animals and plants cannot have been separately created in their present forms, but must have evolved from earlier forms by slow transformation.” 6
He says that evolution is a fact. As he defines it, it is not. He states that Evolution proves the witness of God by Revelation in the Bible as wrong. Some of us would say that God can do as He wishes. Some of us would say God always tells the truth. God says that He did create life forms including animals, plants, and people. In a rush to wed the Theory of Evolution to any theism, this is a significant consideration to a theologian, or should be.
Sir Julian Sorell Huxley (1887-1975), British biologist, writer, secretary of the Zoological Society of London, and the first director general of UNESCO7 was particularly interested in concepts of evolution and growth, dealing with them in light of the philosophic problems generated by contemporary scientific developments.8
References Cited
1, 4, 7 Encarta® 98 Desk Encyclopedia © & 1996-97 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
2, 3, 5 The Columbia Dictionary of Quotations is licensed from Columbia University Press. Copyright © 1993, 1995 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
8 Sir Julian Huxley, “Introduction,” in The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, Charles Darwin, NY, NY: The New American Library of World Literature, Inc., Mentor Edition, Copyright 1958, The New American Library of World Literature, Inc., 1963.
8Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.
Part of the observation of Darwin and others is factually based and some of the conclusions reached are valid. It is useful to note the weaknesses of the Theory of Evolution. In fact, the Theory of Evolution did contribute to things such as Eugenics, getting rid of the “human weeds” in society. Explaining physical reality has resulted in justifying ignorance of what the Bible has to say about the universe and the beings that live on this planet. Explaining the Word of God has resulted in justifying ignorance of what science has to say about the universe and the beings that live on this planet. While attempts at finding common ground between the two worldviews represented by Creationists and Evolutionists are noble and well intentioned, they are fraught with hazards. History has shown that misunderstanding the limits and boundaries of what science can tell us has resulted in tragedy and death for millions. Evolution as science works well and is morally neutral, evolution as a philosophy and religion is hideous and could prove to be the death of us all. Evolution as a philosophy and religion dehumanizes mankind and allows the reduction of humans to the lowest common denominator that can be found.
Statements that do not recognize basic aspects of humanity that are true of people have become common. People liken humans to a mass of cells, a complex of chemicals, or the result of random chance. This is done on a regular basis and a priesthood of sorts is always ready to don scientific garb to deceive others for reasons of control and power. People are like this with religion as well. Donning the mantle of religion, Creationists often infer negative and hurtful motivations to innocent scientific observations made that are true. Sun Tzu pointed out in The Art of War some 2,500 years ago that if people want to know about the divine, they should go to someone expert in that. If we want to know how to calculate what we might need for provisioning for a certain length of time, we should consult a mathematician. I have read scientific textbooks that deride Moses and are written in a dismissive way that suggests to the reader Christians and Jews have it all wrong. The quantitative evidence as regards natural observations do not warrant the sniping and derisive attitude, but no matter, some feel comfortable as they think Evolution justifies it. Likewise, Christians flail arms and wave Bibles to condemn scientists that are studying their circles. It is as if it is done in eager anticipation of ensuing conflict that might disturb the circles.
“How germane is any of this today,” seems to be the question of some. As regards practicing science as a profession it influences bioethics. Terry Schiavo is a woman that is married to a man who is living with his lover and has several children by the lover. Terry was likely put in a condition where she has limited abilities by her husband and her husband has been pushing for her to be starved and dehydrated until dead. He stands to collect a large sum of insurance money and the advocates of assisted suicide as well as other ghouls are backing him. The catch phrase for some is the “right to die.” The Supreme Court refused to listen to the case put before it by Florida Governor Jeb Bush. Terry has been kept from being given rehabilitative therapy by her husband’s legal maneuverings, even though it is obvious that she is aware and sentient. It is illegal to starve or dehydrate animals, yet this is what the courts have decided Terry deserves. It is obvious that the husband merely wants to collect money and go on with his new life, initiated while Terry has been incapacitated. The lack of value assigned to humans is in part responsible for this. Greed and lust on the part of the husband may play a role in what is happening to Terry. The gain of power over others lurks in the wings, shadowy and menacing. If they can legally murder an adult who has the support of family, her church, friends, attorneys, and the Governor of Florida; they will be able to expand their horizons. Those who think people can be murdered by their method then will know that the application of their method can be more universally applied and get rid of undesirables in society. Of course, they will be allowed to define who deserves to live and who deserves to die.
It is harmful and wrong to underestimate evil. The religious and the non-religious can be taken over by evils very quickly. Our natural proclivities based on human nature leave us vulnerable and lacking. Some of the erosive effects of evil take place silently and without notice. It can take place as soon as we give it permission. Evil takes place as harm to people and animals alike without absolutes as to what is right and wrong. Corruption of the mind and deterioration of judgment occurs concurrently. My position taken as regards Theistic Evolution is one that recognizes the total efficacy of God and the limits of the concepts of mankind, which includes Evolution. There is the tendency to make the same mistake with Evolution that is made in other areas of human endeavor. People gain charge over others in a legitimate way and sooner or later realize they can wield power over people who trust in them or their doctrines. Science and religion have golden calves. God warns from the first in the Bible that religion is harmful under any aegis other than His. How to avoid the harm becomes the question in a significant way. Constructing doctrines of a religious or scientific nature based on the knowledge, understanding, and wisdom of mankind always leads to destruction in the absence of God. Humans are, well, human and we forget God easily, sometimes in church pews, sometimes while dealing with our own families.
One of the best ways to make sure people are destroyed and society is ruined and becomes vain and empty is to forget God. Using His Name to justify harm done and evil being perpetrated is a favorite that people use. Not noticing that knowledge of God comes from Him is a way we quickly degrade ourselves. Ignoring the Revelation of God as of singular importance leads to personal ruin for many. Looking at a cult leader on a constant basis leads to Jonestown and worse. Cult leaders always have a way of drawing attention to them on a constant basis and people are not allowed to look on God or even avert their eyes from the stare of the person who has gained power over them. That is the way we are. Experts of one sort or another sometimes are given the same deference that allows people to forget God. As soon as the Revelation of God to us is discounted we become vulnerable to others and to evil. The Bible gives repeated examples of this throughout of this on a personal, sibling, family, local community level, people group level, national, and global level. The global level examples are prophetic and have not occurred yet but God warns us of it.
Social Darwinism is a theory that people and societies compete for survival and, by extension, success in life. Despite the growing influence of the theory of evolution, most Evangelical Christians in the United States remained skeptical of it. After World War I, American Christian fundamentalists began a movement against the idea of evolution, partly because of the popular belief that German aggression expressed a Darwinian doctrine of survival of the fittest. 1 Christians believe that mankind has two natures, one the fleshly and the other the spiritual. We are hard-wired for survival on the planet and this has been recognized in the Bible. One of the great lessons of the Bible is that we are not to indulge that part of ourselves that is motivated by emotion in a way that evokes the resultant mix of emotion and intellect that produces things such as malice, lust, jealousy, envy, spite, holding grudges, violence, and greed. Obviously, our emotions are a gift and if properly applied in our lives can be life saving and beneficial in other ways. The Apostle Paul noted that living on the sarx, the flesh level leads to Death and living on the spiritual level leads to Life. The fundamentalist Christians recognized the application of survival of the fittest resident in society as a doctrine in the latter half of the 19th century and the early part of the 20th century.
Theism that denies the Revelation of the Bible is something many Christians recognize as leading to deterioration of society. In the 1950’s a major news magazine plastered the question on its cover, “Is God Dead?” In the 1960’s liberal neo-orthodoxy decided that the New Testament was sort of valid and the Old Testament was unnecessary and not valid. Millions of Bibles were published with only the New Testament. A watershed moment came in the mid-70’s where some of us noticed a marked deterioration of morality, an increase of drug abuse, as well as the occult and apostasy markedly being on the rise. I would place it at 1975. I wrote to the President of a conservative seminary who had taken part in a conference and contributed to a series of essays published in a book on the subject of the occult. I asked what he thought contributed significantly to this rise in the occult in the United States. He thought it was the disregard of the Old Testament and said that this always happens when it is no longer taught as God’s Word. In retrospect, I think I still agree in part with that assessment. I also think that with this is the introduction of non-biblical doctrines as valid to the Body of Christ that oppose the witness of Scripture.
The reduction of mankind to animals only, is eagerly embraced by some. Spirituality is held by some to consist of following after gods we have not known. God says this is forbidden for His people to do. I have assented to the fact that Evolution has a workable framework that is useful in science. Where I draw the line is where it conflicts with God’s Word as His Revelation to us. One result of the reduction of humans to animals only is that we devalue everything and leave ourselves open to the lower elements of the universe and become arrogant. Many of us live as though there is no God and we think we are the measure of all things. This is the essence of survival of the fittest in the animal kingdom. Peter Singer sees no difference between pigs and children and thinks it should be a right to kill children up to the age of three years old. In the time of the Roman Empire 2,000 years ago, a parent had the right to kill a child for any reason. Women in Corinth worked as temple prostitutes to perform ritual sex as worship to demons and then came home to their husbands. This was normative. In society today we define the mathematical normative values as normative in a moral sense. Kinsey did bogus science purposely and was nearly mad, yet he is being presented as normative and worthy of emulation. Man as an animal tends to be willful, selfish, and terribly destructive. I can see that this is something I would like to deny and I am not alone. This eagerness to abandon the Bible as the direct Revelation of God so we can live like animals has certain compromises that go along with it. People become property under the absence of biblical teaching. Women get reduced to slaves and used for procreation and men have sex with other men as sport as evidenced by history. Men of old would have sex with children and that was normative. Catemites were normative. The rape rooms in Iraq were normative. I know that the Children of Israel owned slaves. They were protected and there were biblical laws that outlined how they were to be treated, humanely. This is not quite the case under other cultures.
My argument is that mankind is capable of living under a different way than as a mere animal. The same argument was put forward by God. He did this by Revelation, something Evolution tends to undermine unfailingly.
The question is this— Is man an ape or an angel? My Lord, I am on the side of the angels. I repudiate with indignation and abhorrence these new fangled theories.
Benjamin Disraeli
Speech, November 25, 1864, Diocesan Conference, Oxford.2
Disraeli may be speaking for some people today that hold to the idea that we are the creation of God. We are created in His image. The Bible teaches this. Evolution denies it. The Bible clearly states that we were created by God. Evolution denies this. Most people who adopt the Theory of Evolution believe we are evolved from lower life forms.
Elohiym, created us, the same Creator who created the universe.
Jesus as fully man testified that God created the universe and agreed with the witness of Scripture from Genesis, then again He would know as God since it was He that planned, designed and created the universe as fully God. He says this in Mark 13:19
The Hebrew that means “created” applies to God creating. Mankind is only able to imitate creation and use available materials to imitate. Mankind fashions and does so imperfectly. Think of Dolly the sheep for instance. I would not wish her problems on a clone that is made with science.
It is denied that the Theory of Evolution has been used to make statements contrary to the Bible, except by irresponsible people. Is Thomas Huxley an example? He thought mankind is capable of learning only because we are machines. The Bible teaches that true knowledge, wisdom, and understanding can only come from God.
It is because the body is a machine that education is possible. Education is the formation of habits, a superinducing of an artificial organisation upon the natural organisation of the body.
Thomas Henry Huxley
Collected Essays 3
Thomas Huxley (1825–95), an English biologist, is best known for his active support of the theory of evolution developed by Charles Darwin. He was the foremost supporter in England of Darwin and was important in the acceptance of the Ttheory of Evolution by both scientists and the public.4 He concluded the body is a machine, reducing mankind to nothing more and nothing less than a collection of chemicals. He made the observation based upon his interpretation of Descartes’ ‘Discourse Touching the Method of Using One’s Reason Rightly and of Seeking Scientific Truth.’5 Thomas Huxley appropriated the arguments of Descartes as proof for Evolution, while there can be made the case that Descartes would have disagreed with Huxley’s analysis. This is in part due to divorcing oneself from the Bible as Revelation, not because Huxley was particularly on to anything other than gathering arguments to reduce mankind to the level of mechanistic determinism and evince favorable conclusions in regard to Evolution.
Julian Huxley was another champion of Darwinianism. He wrote glowingly of Darwin and spoke in glowing terms of its efficacy. He made Darwinian Evolution a matter of philosophy. He misappropriated the Theory of Evolution. He said:
“Why is The Origin of Species such a great book? First of all, because it convincingly demonstrated the fact of evolution: it provides a vast and well-chosen body of evidence showing that existing animals and plants cannot have been separately created in their present forms, but must have evolved from earlier forms by slow transformation.” 6
He says that evolution is a fact. As he defines it, it is not. He states that Evolution proves the witness of God by Revelation in the Bible as wrong. Some of us would say that God can do as He wishes. Some of us would say God always tells the truth. God says that He did create life forms including animals, plants, and people. In a rush to wed the Theory of Evolution to any theism, this is a significant consideration to a theologian, or should be.
Sir Julian Sorell Huxley (1887-1975), British biologist, writer, secretary of the Zoological Society of London, and the first director general of UNESCO7 was particularly interested in concepts of evolution and growth, dealing with them in light of the philosophic problems generated by contemporary scientific developments.8
References Cited
1, 4, 7 Encarta® 98 Desk Encyclopedia © & 1996-97 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
2, 3, 5 The Columbia Dictionary of Quotations is licensed from Columbia University Press. Copyright © 1993, 1995 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
8 Sir Julian Huxley, “Introduction,” in The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, Charles Darwin, NY, NY: The New American Library of World Literature, Inc., Mentor Edition, Copyright 1958, The New American Library of World Literature, Inc., 1963.
8Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.