Man #1

The Creation of Man

T. P. Simmons

I. DID GOD CREATE MAN?

"It is only in recent years (this was published in 1951] that science has proved that the origin of life is the same for the simplest forms as for the highest-for the infinitely small germs of tuberculosis, and the whole multitude of plant and germ life . . .as for mankind itself. At present it can be said that man has never created even the simplest form of life, or seen it rise spontaneously."

"An important part of the evolution problem is, of course, the origin of life, which appears to mean the origin of the first protoplasm. Upon this subject it must be confessed we are in as deep ignorance as ever. Indeed, if anything, the disclosures of the modern microscope have placed the solution of this problem even farther from our grasp. So long as we could regard protoplasm as a chemical compound, definite, though complex, so long was it possible to believe that its origin in the past geological ages was a simple matter of chemical affinity. It was easy to assume that, under the conditions of earlier ages, when chemical elements were necessarily placed in different relations to each other from those of today, chemical combinations would arise which would result in the formation of the complex body of protoplasm. This has been the supposition that has laid the foundation of various suggestions as to the origin of life. But having now learned that this substance is not a chemical compound, but a mechanism, and that its properties are dependent upon its mechanism such a conception of the origin of life is no longer tenable. In its place must be substituted some forces which build a mechanism. But even our most extreme evolutionists have not yet suggested any method of bridging the chasm, and at the present time we must recognize that the problem of the origin of life is in greater obscurity than ever. The origin of chemical compounds we may explain, but their combination into an organic machine which we call protoplasm is, at present, unimaginable."

"A beginning is wholly beyond the ken and scope of science, which is concerned with questions about how things go on; and has nothing to say as to how they absolutely began" (Natural Science and Religion).

"I cannot admit that, with regard to the origin of life, science neither affirms nor denies Creative Power. SCIENCE POSITIVELY AFFIRMS CREATIVE POWER. It is not in dead matter that we live and move and have our being, but in the creating and directing power WHICH SCIENCE COMPELS US TO ADOPT AS AN ARTICLE OF BELIEF . . .There is nothing between absolute scientific belief in a Creative power, and the acceptance of the theory of a fortuitous concourse of atoms . . ."

"Though I know those who hold it to be unscientific to believe that thinking is not something inherent in matter, and that there is an essential difference between inorganic and living and thinking beings, I shall not be prevented by any such pretentions of a false philosophy from expressing my conviction that as long as it cannot be shown that matter or physical forces do actually reason, I shall consider any manifestation of physical thought as the evidence of a thinking being as the author of such thought, and shall look upon an intelligent and intelligible connection between the facts of Nature as direct proof of a thinking God . . .All these facts proclaim aloud the one God whom man may know, adore, and love; and natural history must in good time become the analysis of the thoughts of the creator of the universe as manifested in the animal and vegetable kingdom" (Methods of Study in Natural History).

"We cannot understand the existence either of ourselves or of an external world unless we postulate some kind of creation. Creation involves design and purpose and mental activity, and necessarily implies a creator of some kind" (The Great Design, p. 231).

II. WHEN DID GOD CREATE MAN?

"The evidences (?) of an extended antiquity for man are purely hypothetical, entirely erroneous, and in most cases manufactured entirely out of the imagination and desire of the sponsor of such evidences. The attempts to prove the data have been simply ludicrous, and in any other field would be pathetic as well. But there is no pathos in the attempts of staid men of science to falsify evidence and obscure the very subject they are presumed to illumine; this is pure chicanery. Scientific reputations are used to perpetuate shams hoaxes that would make the late and able Barnum turn green with envy, and cause him to revise his famous estimate which said there was only one sucker born every minute", (The Theory of Evolution and the Facts of Science, p. 118).

"Egyptian Archeologists differ as to the length of the authentic period of Egyptian history. Six writers quoted by Brugsch represent it as having begun at various periods before Christ, ranging from 3150 years to 5702. The period does not exceed by very great space the time allowed by our ordinary chronology; while the fact that authorities differ to the extent of 2552 years shows how much uncertainty still belongs to the subject. How far the dynasties were contemporaneous, is still an unsettled question" (Bible History, p. 50).

"After the reigns of Apappus and Nitocris, which closed the Sixth Dynasty, a sudden and unforeseen check was given to the progress of civilization; and during four hundred and thirty-six years—from the Sixth to the Eleventh Dynasty—Egypt seems to have disappeared from the list of nations. When she awoke from her long sleep, on the accession of the Entefs and Menuhotefs (of the Eleventh Dynasty), it was to find that her ancient traditions were quite forgotten. The old family names, titles of the functionaries, the writing, and even the religion itself seems changed. No longer were Thinis, Elephantine, and Memphis the capitals, but Thebes was for the first time chosen as the seat of sovereign power. Besides this, Egypt had been shorn of a considerable portion of her territory, and the authority of her kings was limited to the Thebaid. The monuments, which were barbaric, primitive, sometimes even course, confirm all this; and on looking at them, we might easily believe that Egypt under the Eleventh Dynasty had reverted to that period of infancy through which she had passed under the Third" (History of Egypt, pp. 14,15).

"The commemoration of the dead was connected among the Egyptians with a Deluge which was typified by the priest placing the image of Osirus in a sacred coffer or ark, and launching it out into the sea till it was borne out of sight. Now when we connect this fact, and the celebration taking place on the 17th day of Athyr, with the date on which the Mosaic account of the Deluge of Noah states it to have commenced, ‘in the second month (of the Jewish year, which corresponds to November), the 17th day of the month,’ it must be acknowledged that this is no chance coincidence, and that the precise date here stated must have been regulated by the Pleiades, as was the Egyptian date" (ibid. pp. 121,122).

III. HOW DID GOD CREATE MAN?

"It is here stated that man was created by a specific fiat of the deity. To refute this, men who are unwilling to receive and recognize the power of God in creation have produced the weird theory of Theistic Evolution. By this they state that God’s part in the matter was a minor part. He created the first tiny cell and endued it with power to multiply and change, violated all present known laws of biology, and by a series of miraculous transmutations produced all living things that are now or ever have been, climaxing in a creature called man. THIS IS A HOPELESS ATTEMPT TO RIDE TWO HORSES THAT ARE HEADED IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS. This theory of Theistic Evolution limits God in His power to create a specific being and denies Him the authority demanded by the creation account in Genesis. It also violates the clear teaching of this text" (Modern Science and the Genesis Record, p. 275)

"When these present day protozoa, which are living creatures whose entire organism consists of just one cell, are observed for thousands and thousands of generations, they never change one iota from what they were in the very beginning. Countless generations pass under the eye of the observer and no new species of protozoa arise, nor do metazoa result from changes in protozoan structure" (The Theory of Evolution and the Facts of Science, p. 24).

"For a long time morphology, the science of gross bodily structure, proved the stumbling block of biologists. Realizing that all living things were simply masses of cells, and supposing that all cells were fundamentally the same, the biologist of the past generation concocted the theory of the Continuity of Life." "This is all changed now. The archaic days of biology are over, and the super-microscope, the micro-manipulator, and ultra-violet observation have opened up new fields. The earliest experiments I know of in the differentiation of protoplasm were to determine the rate of decomposition of this element under the ultra-violet ray. Then sufficient quantities of the substance were isolated for more careful study . . . The protoplasm of the cat family is one kind of protoplasm, and the dog has a distinct kind of protoplasm that differs from that of the cat. Boiled down to its essential summary, there is a variable formula for the formation of protoplasm by species. So we are now in the stage of research where we can begin to test protoplasm as we do blood! We do not make the error of saying, that as all mammals have blood they are essentially the same in origin, because we recognize the appreciable difference in the blood of one specie, genus, or family, as each blood differs from every other kind. So today with protoplasm; and the continuity theory suffers catastrophic collapse" (The Theory of Evolution and the Facts of Science, pp. 25, 36)

"The direct evidence furnished by fossil remains, is by all odds, the strongest evidence that we have in favor of organic evolution" (Morgan, A Critique of the Theory of Evolution, p. 24).

"While the comparative study of living animals and plants may give very convincing evidence, fossils provide only historical, documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more complex forms" (Part II—Historical Geology, p. 23, in A Textbook of Geology, by Schuchert and Dunbar).

"Any kind of fossiliferous rock, ‘old’ or ‘young,’ may occur conformably on any other kind of fossiliferous rock, ‘older’ or ‘younger’" (Evolutionary Geology, p. 160)

"It has been thought incredible that the orthographic climax should have come so near the end of geological time, instead of in an early age when the crust had a plastic layer beneath, and was free to move; yet the fact is beyond question" (Manual, p. 1020).

"Pictet catalogues ninety-eight species of mammals which inhabited Europe in the post glacial period. Of these, fifty-seven still exist unchanged . . ." (Fairhurst, Theistic Evolution, P. 99).

"It is notorious on what excessively slight differences many paleontologists have founded their species."

"The appearance indicates that great erosive forces carved the general contour of the rocks, after which vast streams of water, overloaded with sediment, built up the alluvial plains above the eroded surface. Normal conditions would not produce this situation. Violent water action is required to spread this sand and gravel so widely and so thickly" (New Diluvialism, p. 29).

ENDNOTES:

Home | Up | Worksheet #9

Send mail to rwolfe2080@aol.com with questions or comments about this web site.