The Evolution of Man Scientifically Disproved in 50 Arguments — John Shaqi
The Evolution of Man Scientifically Disproved in 50 ArgumentsWilliams, William A. (William Asbury)
Religion
The Evolution of Man Scientifically Disproved in 50 Arguments
Williams, William A. (William Asbury)
Evolution
An objection is not “outworn” until answered, and to speak of the
demise of a generally accepted theory is hardly scientific. We will not
allow the evolutionist to dismiss so weighty an objection with a wave
of the hand. Prof. Newman, in his “Readings in Evolution,” p. 68, gives
60,000,000 years as the probable time since life began. The writer,
having based arguments upon that assumption, was surprised to receive a
private letter from him claiming that life has existed for 500,000,000
years. Indeed Prof. Russell, of Princeton, says, in his “Rice
Lectures,” that the earth is probably 4,000,000,000 years old, possibly
8,000,000,000! We can do nothing but gasp, while the bewildering
guesses come in, and we wait for the next estimate. We note their utter
abandon, as they make a raid on God’s eternity to support a theory that
would dethrone Him. But these extravagantly long periods required by
the theory, science cannot grant, for the following reasons:—
1. According to the nebular hypothesis, and Helmholtz’s contraction
theory, accounting for the regular supply of heat from the sun, the sun
itself is not likely more than 20,000,000 years old, and, of course,
the earth is much younger. Both of these theories are quite generally
accepted by scientists, and have much to support them. Prof. Young, of
Princeton, in his Astronomy, p. 156, says, “The solar radiation can be
accounted for on the hypothesis first proposed by Helmholtz, that the
sun is shrinking slowly but continually. It is a matter of
demonstration that an annual shrinkage of about 300 feet in the sun’s
diameter would liberate sufficient heat to keep up its radiation
without any fall in its temperature”.... The sun is not simply cooling,
nor is its heat caused by combustion; for, “If the sun were a vast
globe of solid anthracite, in less than 5,000 years, it would be burned
to a cinder.” We quote from Prof. Young’s Astronomy: “We can only say
that while no other theory yet proposed meets the conditions of the
problem, this [contraction theory] appears to do so perfectly, and
therefore has high probability in its favor.” “No conclusion of
Geometry,” he continues, “is more certain than this,—that the shrinkage
of the sun to its present dimensions, from a diameter larger than that
of the orbit of Neptune, the remotest of the planets, _would generate
about 18,000,000 times as much heat as the sun now radiates in a year_.
Hence, if the sun’s heat has been and still is wholly due to the
contraction of its mass, it can not have been radiating heat at the
present rate, on the shrinkage hypothesis, for more than 18,000,000
years; and on that hypothesis, the solar system in anything like its
present condition, can not be much more than as old as that.” If so,
evolution, on account of lack of time, can not possibly be true. If we
add many millions of years to this number, or double it more than once,
the time is not yet sufficient. For if the sun is 25,000,000, or even
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account