Page 90 - The Dark Spell of Darwinism

The Dark Spell of Darwinism

terms in an appropriate place. But using such words won't help evolution-
ists get around their great impasse, for many other basic questions stand in
the way of their theory that evolutionists have to answer, but cannot.
Evolutionists must especially answer how the first cells and first living
creatures came into being. Where did the mind-bogglingly sophisticated
systems within a cell come from? And how did the imaginary transition
from sea to land occur? Alternatively, they must explain what clear proofs
there are for such matters as the supposed evolution of human beings, the
origin of the extraordinary characteristics in animals, the source of self-sac-
rifice and intelligent behavior in living creatures. They must also give con-
crete proof for their claims about the gradual formation of structures like
DNA, eyes and wings; about the development over time of cells' ability of
to synthesize proteins flawlessly, and of blood to clot. As yet, no evolution-
ist has come forward to present any clear, concrete proof of these most basic
matters regarding the formation of living creatures. When you examine
their lectures, books and articles, you will see that, when required to explain
these matters, they try to divert attention by hiding them behind countless
scientific terms, Latin words and sentences that ordinary people cannot un-
derstand.
Taking this point of view, we can see that the theory of evolution is a
word game based on empty talk, interesting inferences, guesses and sup-
positions. It relies on long philosophical excursions and repetition of words
that serve only to keep people from thinking. From the few titles of articles
listed above, you can see that it is a word game based on incomprehensi-
bility.
Evolutionists believe that they will reach their goals by using such
methods, thinking they've given the impression of stating something in a
highly scientific style. However, they are benefiting only from the fact that
the general public knows very little about scientific matters.
To bring even more clarity to the matter, we can cite George
Stavropoulos, a proponent of the theory of evolution, from an article he
wrote in the journal American Scientist:

88