THE MYTH OF EVOLUTION

by Joseph Gehringer

Anyone who has lived through the crises and controversies of the last half of the twentieth century will be able to recall numerous instances where two opposing groups made claims which directly contradicted each other. While both sides could not be correct, the impartial observer often found it difficult to determine which of the opposing claims was closer to the truth. And that difficulty still persists today in the controversy between creationists and evolutionists.

The mass media frequently publicized claims that evolution has been scientifically proven beyond any reasonable doubt. And hundreds of books make this same claim. Yet creationists insist that there is not one piece of genuine scientific evidence that evolution has occurred or can occur. To complicate matters further, evolutionists frequently disagree among themselves, as do creationists. As a result, it is quite common to find creationists quoting evolutionist scientists to support their own arguments. In fact, creationists have published a number of books which rely almost entirely on quotations from evolutionists. The title of That Their Words May Be Used Against Them (Henry M. Morris, Institute for Creation Research, 1997, 487 pp.) explains its purpose. The scholarly, two volume, The Origin of Species Revisited (W. R. Bird, Philosophical Library, 1989, 1114 pp.), bases its scientific case almost entirely on statements and writings of evolutionists. And Darwin's Enigma (Luther D. Sunderland, Master Books, 1988, 180 pp.) is based largely upon interviews with five well-known paleontologists. While these quotations certainly do not disprove evolution, they demonstrate that many of the claims that have been made by propagandists for evolution have been challenged by other reputable scientists.

Because such a confused state of affairs makes it difficult for the average person to form a sound judgment, it may help to examine some selected excerpts from the voluminous material published on topic. To help us place this material in its proper intellectual context, however, we will begin with a visit to the mythical kingdom of Darwinia, where we will eavesdrop on a conversation between two of its citizens.

That conversation may have been imaginary, but the quotations cited were not. And they demonstrate both the cleverness and the dishonesty of the intellectual monster we call "evolutionism." "Evolution" is first defined to mean nothing more than "change", - something which is clearly visible in the world around us. Then, employing the fallacy of equivocation, the same term is applied to a totally different concept – the supposed evolution of all animal species from earlier and different species, and ultimately from one common ancestor.

Having seen how evolutionists manipulate the meaning of words, we can go one step further and see how they manipulate scientific findings. Both the Americana and the Britannica list five types of "Evidences for Evolution." As would be expected, the ‘fossil record’ appears on both lists. After all, if evolution did take place in the past, the only reliable evidence of it would be a succession of fossils which showed a gradual change from one species to another, from the earliest organisms up to the primates. Darwin was convinced that future research would produce such a succession of fossils; a century and a half of digging has failed to justify his expectations.

http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt100.html

I went to see Angels and Demons last night. I’m glad I did. The main theme of the movie is that

Galileo is alive and well on earth, speaking from the grave. In fact, counting this movie, I have

never seen such a push for Galileo in popular science as I have in the last year. This movie puts

the icing on the cake.

Early in the movie Tom Hanks is sitting down with his female science associate and going over

the fact that, because the Church suppressed the heliocentric views of Galileo, Galileo went

underground before his death in 1642 and created a secret society of scientists and

astronomers who then called themselves The Illuminati (The Enlightened Ones). They are

“enlightened,” of course, because they knew better than the Church of how the world was

created and how it operates.

The Church got wind of this and by 1668 made a massive purge of the Illuminati, supposedly

murdering their leaders. The Illuminati have been progressing toward reprisal against the

Church ever since, and the climax comes in our day when a pope is assassinated by the

Illuminati, and the four preferred cardinals destined to take his place, are killed one by one. The

Illiminati are successful in murdering three of the cardinals, but the fourth escapes and

eventually becomes the new pope, and the whole Illiminati plot is foiled at the end of the

movie. (What we actually find out in the end, however, is that there was never a

current Illiminati plot in the first place. It was cooked up by a priest who was closest to the

pope, and the implication is that this priest was the one who murdered the pope so that he

himself could eventually become pope).

The movie wastes no time in bringing out the "science versus religion" theme. It’s sole purpose

is to make science the victor. The above priest, who is in authority during the tempe sede

vacante (the time while the pope is dead and before the election of a new pope), hatched the

whole plot to make it look like the Illiminati was attacking the Church because he wanted to

create a confrontation between modern science and the Catholic Church so that the Church

would fight back and defeat science. Hence, he is made the villain in the movie – the typical

bigot who blindly accepts religion and avoids the objective truths of science. Once his plot is

discovered, he commits suicide, notably by setting himself on fire which, I believe, is a symbol

of him burning in hell. This is a way of saying that the Church gets a taste of its own medicine

for what it did to Galileo, as it were, for trying to stop science from advancing beyond the

constraints of religion.

In effect, Angels and Demons is nothing more than dramatized theatrics to advance the

autonomy of science over religion. At the end of the movie, Hank’s female assistant is struggling

with whether she should go back to her work in nuclear physics. She is struggling because, in

the very beginning of the movie she is part of a science team working at the Haldron Collider

which has just produced the first quantifiable specimen of anti-matter. This anti-matter is

important, thematically, because it is touted as the first step to finding the so-called “God

Particle,” the infinitesimal particle that supposedly began the Big Bang. In fact, later in the

movie, the priest who plotted the Illiminati charade is caught on tape saying, ‘if science is to

discover the God Particle, then what significance will the Church have in our day, for science

has answered all the questions that puzzle mankind, even how the universe began’ (which

implies no need for God to begin the universe; it can do it all by itself, thank you! Don’t laugh.

There are a whole host of scientists today who preach that doctrine. I document them in the

book Galileo Was Wrong).

This anti-matter is housed in a special magnetic container that prohibits it from touching any

normal matter. (Anti-matter is composed of atoms that have a positive charge on the electron

and negative charge on the proton, while normal matter is the reverse). If the anti-matter

touches the normal matter, there will be a cataclysmic explosion. There is, in fact, such an

explosion that occurs toward the end of the movie, but it happens at a high altitude so that

there is minimal damage to the Vatican. But because Hank’s female assistant saw the

destruction caused by the explosion, she struggles with whether she should return to her work.

She fears that science could destroy the world. Hanks and her have a discussion about whether

science is proceeding with wisdom, a wisdom that the Church offers science but that science is

not always willing to accept. Hanks is an agnostic. His advice to her is to go back and continue

her work, because science can save the world, not destroy it. In effect, Science is deemed as the

savior of mankind.

Just prior to this conversation, Hanks is in dialogue with one of the chief cardinals about the

existence of God. The cardinal suggests to Hanks that Hanks was sent by God to foil the

“Illuminati” plot. Hanks doesn’t agree God sent him, but the cardinal insists. In effect, the

cardinal is saying that Hanks saved the world and the Church from disallowing science to have

autonomy over religion, and this was all directed by God so as to put the Church in its proper

place after it made its egregious mistake with Galileo.

So we see how important the Galileo issue is. It never goes away because it is the most

effective means for the world to undermine and destroy the authority of the Catholic Church,

for if it is possible for the Catholic Church to make such a grave mistake on something as simple

as whether the earth goes around the sun, we can imagine what it will do when it gets its hands

on more complicated issues such as evolution, the Big Bang, and even when life begins in the

womb, to name a few.

Every area of science today has a free ticket for autonomy once it is believed that the Church

was not guided by heaven to say that heliocentrism was heretical in 1616 and 1633. I am

convinced that this is the quintessential issue for our time. If the Church didn’t get Galileo right,

then there is really little reason to listen to her on anything else (except dogmatic infallible

proclamations by the extraordinary magisterium), for the simple reason that the Church put the

full weight of her magisterium and tradition behind the supposition that heliocentrism defied

the faith and morals of the Catholic Church because it denied the literal meaning of Scripture.

Movies like Angels and Demons remind us of this undeniable truth.

Just to reinforce the point, take a gander at this lecture series at the Franklin Institute taking

place in June. Note that the whole theme of the lecture series revolves around Galileo and how

his controversy with the Church will then lead science into all kinds of controversial issues of

which the Church should also choose to keep a low profile.

Robert Sungenis

_____gene546________________________http://www.catholicintl.com/articles/articlereviews/Review-AngelsDemons.pdf