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
Yet in spite of Darwin’s admission, he labors hard to show that “There
is no real difficulty under changing conditions of life, in natural
selection accumulating to any extent slight modifications of instinct
which are in any way useful”! How could the working bee conserve the
gains accumulated by experience or habit? The drone is the father and
the queen is the mother of the sterile female working bee. Neither
parent knows how to build a cell. How could they transmit their
knowledge or their habits to the working bee? Every new swarm of bees
would not know how to build their cells. There is no improvement from
generation to generation. Even if instinct in other animals could be
accounted for, evolution can not account for the instinct of the
working bees, since they are not descendants of other working bees,
from which they might inherit habits or instinct.
Is not the instinct of the bee the intelligence of God, disproving the
heresy of an absentee God? Here again we get a glimpse of the unerring
wisdom of God.
The immoveable oyster, the bee alive with divine intelligence, and the
sterile progeny of the jackass, are enough to upset the whole theory of
evolution.
24. SPECIAL CREATION: GEN. I
Evolution can not be true, because it contradicts the inspired word of
God. We do not speak arbitrarily and say, without proof, that whatever
contradicts the revealed word of God can not be true, although such an
attitude could be easily defended. Disregarding all the many other
cogent and legitimate arguments in support of a divine revelation, we
will appeal to the remarkable harmony between the story of Creation in
Genesis and the modern sciences. This could not be, if God had not
revealed to Moses the story of creation. Moses personally knew nothing
revealed by the sciences of today. And the man of that day who would
invent the story of creation, would be sure to conflict with one or
more of the following modern sciences: geology, astronomy, zoology,
biology, geography, chemistry, physics, anatomy, philology,
archaeology, history, ethics, religion, etc. There is not one chance in
a million that a writer of a fictitious account would not have run
amuck among many of these sciences, if, like Moses, he had no personal
knowledge of them.
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