The Human Choice - 8
SATANIST THEOLOGY
THE MYTHS OF CHANCE EVOLUTION.
The importance of evolution theory to modern man is that it is a theory of creation - at the base of all motivation for human behaviour is creation belief. Creation belief represents man's link with his origins; it is the origin of his conviction of what he really is; his true nature; how he came to be. It is the foundation of his reasoning about the nature of life and man's purpose (or lack of purpose) in it.
Creation belief, in whatever form, is our religion. To change our creation belief we have, intellectually, to accept rebirth into a different world with a different value system. But though the pains of enlightenment may be great the rewards of turning from mythology to truth are far greater.
In this item of review we see how mankind has progressed in its efforts at misleading mankind; something made possible because mankind likes to think as desire tempts rather than as God (in His knowledge of the creation plan) thinks.
I do not want to go into the history of evolution theory or the conflict surrounding it before it became institutionalised and emotional barriers were raised against all who might fault its claims. Sufficient to point out that the theory was born and accepted at a time when the relevant sciences were mere hatchlings.
The theory of chance evolution is now taught in the world's most powerful countries in a manner which suggests it is beyond challenge. It claims to explain the creation of life as both spontaneous generation and gradual evolution from simple beginnings. It is taught as being more than just a scientific theory; it is taught as being the only intellectually acceptable theory.
That the theory is presented in this way is important to note because it puts students on the defensive; to question a theory that authority presents as beyond question would mark a young student as brash. However the adoption of such an authoritarian attitude leaves the suggestion that its advocates fear intelligent debate.
The heart of evolution theory - its fundamental principle of operation - is "survival of the fittest". The complementary mechanism that allows survival of the fittest to act is "random mutation". The first mechanism says that the fittest will survive and implies, as a matter of necessity, that the survivors will, by nature, be more genetically complex, more advanced, and better future survivors than their ancestors.
Random mutation is claimed to provide new potential from which selection of the fittest can take place.
Now, because of the general confusion and misuse of words and facts used in the presentation of this theory, it is necessary to discuss the meaning of the word 'evolution'.
The simplest meaning of the word evolution is "a natural or logical progression of events". From there it has been a sly step to suggest that biological change is creative evolution.
Example: if I sugar my tea and find it not sweet enough, I add a little more. This obviously is a logical progression or unfolding of events. A more meaningful example would appear if all children in a large group were each given a bag of marbles to play with. Over a period of time some of these marbles would become lost, some would become chipped or broken, some may even be thrown away in anger. The result would be a natural and progressive lessening of the number of marbles remaining with the group. This too is a legitimate meaning of the word evolution, although, you may note, that the progress described is degenerating rather than expanding. If the children played marbles "for keeps" there would be a constant interchange of marbles between the children. They would not only gain possession of different marbles but some would gain and some would lose. This is also evolutionary progress and not unlike the changes that take place between generations within living genetic systems.
Now let us assume that red marbles become of highest value and green of lowest value. The players will concentrate more on winning red marbles and so these will gravitate to the best players, others will lose all their red marbles. Suppose the elite (the good players) now decide to change the environment and declare that those who have no red marbles cannot play. This eliminates some players and the games go on. Later the master enters the schoolyard and decides to rectify the earlier injustice (change the environment again); he declares those who have no green marbles to be barred from the games.
Some of the best players, who have eliminated their lowly valued green marbles, are now out of the game. These examples represent the effects of genetic 'specialisation' in living things and are like the absolutely logical and proven natural progress (and eventual consequence of genetic change) in the changing environment of life.
Let us now see the marbles as representing 'genes' in a large community and we now see how great numbers of changes can take place and how (over generations) specialisation can occur in a suitable environmental situation - we also see how specialisation may lead to elimination in a later environmental change.
The reason I give this simple example is to show that the word 'evolution' can be quite legitimately used to describe the genetic changes that are constantly taking place in living systems but which have nothing whatever to do with the actual creation, or new development, of living things.
No new marbles are given the children after the first handout and likewise, there is no reason or evidence to suppose new genes are a significant addition to living populations even though such populations have considerable potential for variation. In fact our potential for variation is such that no two humans are found to be identical other, perhaps, than twins born from a single fertilized egg.
It is therefore quite legitimate to talk of evolution in these terms and such examples and discussion would be quite acceptable if the discussion were about evolutionary change alone. BUT when evolutionists talk, write and teach about evolution, they are NOT talking about simple change and rearrangement, they are talking about a system for the CREATION of life.
Be warned, if you read life education stories today you will be given examples of change or rearrangement and be enticed to believe that these are examples of creative change; they are not, such examples of creation by chance evolution are, as we shall see, evolutionist propaganda.
Evolution theorists have misled people for years by the simple device of claiming that any genetic mutation will provide an opportunity for natural selection and that this will lead to creative development. What they do not expose is that the random genetic damage is actual and destructive damage, and while this does allow opportunity for natural selection, the benefits of that selection relates only to maintaining the existing life-form. The long-term result is to simplify genetic structure; there is no new genetic creation. The process works in direct opposition to the creation of life.
Although evolutionists point to all visible signs of past change as being evidence for (or actual demonstrations and proofs of) creative evolution, beware...
NOTE: Nobel Prize winner H.J. Muller dismissed survival of the fittest as a mechanism for creation in 1949, and C.H. Waddington (a geneticist) in 1959 correctly claimed natural selection, in the context of creation, as tautology; i.e. a pointless use of words. Unfortunately, statements by eminent people such as these (even when related to questions important to human survival) are inadequate for public enlightenment if denied the publicity they deserve.
The person used to abstract reasoning can, once having had a point called to attention, look at the matter and work it out to a rational conclusion. Unfortunately, few people are used to abstract reasoning and tend to accept all statements as ONLY opinions. Education and mass media both now work against the development of abstract reasoning ability.
As vital genetic insights have not been explained in terms suitable to general understanding, let us consider another example to clarify the genetic picture. choice8.htm