---

[Taken from the September issue of the MHT Seminary Newsletter]

Recently a noted computer scientist at Yale University, by the name of David Gelernter, came out against Darwinism. He said that the fossil evidence just was not there to support it.

He explains that according to Darwin’s theory, the fossil evidence had to show fossils of very simple beings which eventually evolved into higher beings.

Darwin himself expressed concern about the absence of these fossils, but was sure that in the course of time (now about 150 years) the fossils which prove the theory would be found.

They have not been found.

This absence of evidence urged the professor to give more consideration to creation and to intelligent design. He calls intelligent design an “absolutely serious argument,” and cautions his peers not to dismiss it.

While I am not at all schooled in geology or archaeology, I am not in any way surprised to hear this secular scientist pronounce this judgement on Darwin.

Before even searching for fossils, however, it is clear that evolutionism is false. The reason is that it is based on the principle that something comes from nothing, or put another way, that something comes into being without a sufficient cause. Even common sense tells us that you can’t give what you haven’t got. Evolution sees lower forms of life evolving into higher forms of life, owing to various cosmic forces acting on the lower forms of life. So a fish, by undergoing mutations from cosmic rays or lightning, eventually develops legs and lungs. After billions of years, you get a frog.

While this might sound plausible to certain people, it is as absurd as a frog turning into a prince. The long passage of time is meaningless, since, whether a change should happen instantaneously or over time, it still requires a sufficient cause. In other words, you cannot “upgrade” in nature except by being caused by something which has that higher nature. Water, for example, cannot heat itself, but must be upgraded to hot water or steam by something which possesses heat.

So a fish cannot become a frog, or a frog a prince, except by receiving the upgrade by something which is capable of raising the nature of the thing to a higher level of being. This means that the upgrading cause must have control over the total being of the upgraded thing, in this case the frog. But the only Being which has such control is Being Itself, namely God. God received His being from no one nor any thing. He is the Uncaused Cause. He is existence itself, and has existed necessarily from all eternity.

If you have received being from something else, however, you could not possibly have the power over the total being of another thing. You may generate a being like unto yourself, but you cannot generate a higher being.
Anyone who still has his marbles knows that a prince is a higher creature than a frog. A prince has more being, greater perfection, than a frog. The jump between frog and prince could never be done except by the Author of being Himself. The same must be said about going from fish to amphibian.

Another intrinsic problem with evolutionism is that it must explain how everything came to exist in the first place. Evolutionists posit two possibilities: either that matter is eternal or that everything “poofed” into existence all at once, with no cause (Big Bang Theory).

An eternal being must be something which exists by its very nature, namely something which is existence itself, and thus could never lose being. We call this a necessary being, that is, something which must exist. Nor can it have received being from anything else. Because, furthermore, it is pure being, it is being without any limitations. From this we must conclude that it is all-perfect being and infinite being.

In summary, a being which is by its very nature eternal must be also necessary (it can never lose existence), infinite (no limitations), and all-perfect (containing everything that we consider to be good in creatures, and to an infinite degree).

Matter cannot be eternal for the very reason that it cannot be a necessary being. Matter is one of the elements of change. Matter can become anything: fire, water, gold, silver, in short, whatever you want to make it. Matter, therefore, is in need of some other element to make it this thing or that thing, e.g., gold or silver. It is therefore an imperfect being, always waiting to be formed into something. An example would be a lump of clay waiting to be made into a statue.

Obviously, then, matter cannot be the all-perfect, necessary and infinite Being which is required of something which is by its very nature eternal.

The other theory, namely that everything “poofed” into existence with no cause, is so crazy that anyone with a brain would find it totally absurd.

But evolution demands one or the other of these false theories. Otherwise it collapses.

Yet another problem of evolution is that it assigns chance as the cause of nature. Let me explain. Everything which exists has a certain nature, that is, an element in it which causes it to be what it is, and to act in a perfectly consistent manner. If this element were not there, the matter could not be this thing instead of that thing, and would not have a consistent manner of acting. For example, there is something in gold which makes gold to be gold, and something in silver which makes silver to be silver. Otherwise they would not be distinguished from each other, nor would they have distinct characteristics, nor would they act in a consistent manner.

So, for example, gold has always been gold, and has always acted in exactly the same manner, always with the same density, always with the same properties. The same is true for any element or compound you mention, for example, water. This stability and constancy requires a cause, since chance, by its very nature, is neither stable nor constant. In other words, you can’t give what you haven’t got. Chance cannot provide stability or constancy. If someone were to win the lottery every day, he would be considered a crook. Why? Because everyone knows that chance is something that comes and goes.

Thus chance cannot be the author of stable natures with constancy in their behavior. Evolutionists point to the billions of years of chance in order to explain the existence of the marvels of nature, such as the human body, but even if we admit the absurd notion that planet earth and its order proceed from a series of “winning tickets” of billions of years of lottery drawings, nothing on planet earth could remain the same from minute to minute or second to second, since there would be a constant flux.

Evolution was concocted by atheists in the nineteenth century who needed to destroy the Creator. The most fundamental religious truth is that of creation. It is the basis of all religion, since it is the basis of the relationship of creature to Creator, which includes adoration, submission to the Creator’s laws, external signs of dependence upon the Creator, reverence, and many other aspects of religion.

Evolution also destroys the notion of original sin, and thereby ultimately destroys the notion redemption from sin, and the need of a Savior of the human race.

It reduces mankind to being merely morality-free, advanced ape-like hominids, who may act as they please, just as the animals do.

What this system does not explain is how these sophisticated animals, advanced though they be, can understand immaterial things, such as beauty, art, proportion, justice, even the notion of immateriality itself. Nor does it explain why human beings crave immaterial things far more than material things: love, honor, respect, trust, justice, punishment of criminality, politics.

For example, if President Trump should win a second term in 2020, there will be a notable number of suicides among liberals, but the monkeys in the zoo will go on eating their bananas, as if just another day. Presidential authority is a thing which can only be known by reason, but can have a profound effect on your happiness or sadness.

One of the greatest boons to mankind would be the collapse of the evolution myth. Let us hope that the voice of science will call for its downfall.