notes of JFerrara MD http://members.tripod.com/~uncljoedoc/index.html There are two arguments that I have against unquestionably accepting the central hypothesis of evolutionary theory that man descended from the apes or other lower animals species. Followers of Darwin have noticed that people and other primates display similar bone and general body structure. For example two arms and two legs, one head five fingers or close to it per hand seems to be the prevalent anatomic tendancy in homo sapiens as well as in his proposed ancestors. These similarities they say strongly suggest and possibly bring proof to the hypothesis that man is directly related to the lower animal lines And that evolutionary theory is correct. But these proponents of Darwin also say in effect that natural selection is so accurate and powerful a force that it can evolve a complex and intelligent creature like man. Now if the latter is true I think that is almost like saying that the process of natural selection is capable of developing the one best set up for survival. If there is one best or optimal body structure than why isn't it just as reasonable that nature moves toward the same best structure in different germ lines? Therefore monkeys, whales, horses, and people all may be moving towards having four extremities, one head, five digits per extremity and not have to be related at all. Natural selection could be doing it just as the scientists say. My next argument is that, as everyone knows, mankind cannot decide whether it is carnivorous or herbivorous. There are many who believe that meat is the primary food source for humans, and others who hold just as dearly to vegetables. If man were truly evolved from lower animals, he would know instinctively what to eat just as all animals do. It would not even be an issue probably. And if you say that man developed a reasoning ability by which he questions things, I would say that that reasoning ability should just as well have helped to settle the issue. The issue of whether or not man is descended from lower animals really boils down to whether he is supposed to live according to social darwinism. Lower animals live according to the rule of survival of the fittest. But this is not the way man is supposed to live. We are supposed to be kindhearted and helpful to those less fortunate than ourselves. Furthermore this outlook is at the heart of man rather than some late evolutionary development. Scientists who complacently point to similarities between homo sapiens and the lower animals have never seen the need to investigate this basic difference. What makes man different from the animals? Why are lower life forms called to exist according to the rules of the jungle while people are expect to live according to the Golden Rule? Scientists have not sought to explain this difference in biological terms. This amounts to a bias on the part of science. We know that science took root in the period of history dominated by religion and philosophical thinking. It remains to be seen whether religion and philosophy could ever take root in a world dominated by present day science. Having advanced an argument, however miniscule, against evolutionary theory and on its own terms, it is not unwarranted to propose certain theoretical considerations that illustrate the actual tenor of my thinking on the subject of evolution. It is not that I find it an invalid theory by any means. Strictly speaking I cannot deem evolutionary theory invalid because I have no way of testing the theory experimentally. This brings me to my point. A theory which holds sway in scientific discussions that cannot be proved or disproved because it does not submit to laboratory experimentation is difficult to classify. While it may be true it does not fit the strict criteria the criteria of the scientific method. In fact it shares this qualification with the hypothesis that an was created de novo by a supreme being. Both theories are not scientifically provable; therefore both theories require faith and the alteration of a mind set. While you are allowed and even encouraged to this with a religious doctrine you cannot do this with a scientific hypothesis. In science such an alteration amounts to a bias. I would like to say that I am a member of my time, and that I recognize that the theory of Darwin has led to productive investigation and given a reasonable framework for current investigative thinking. However it has side effects which in the long run may prove to be desultory for the reasons mentioned above. For one thing it drives a wedge of cynicism between man and religion. It colors ones thinking so that the account of Genesis, be it poetry, or fact or a poetic rendering of fact, loses its luster, if that is possible. But there is truth to be found in Genesis. For example it states that man was made from the dust of the earth. This could be a way of saying that man was formed of the elements which is scientifically true. The statement may very well have stimulated scientific thought in that direction at an earlier time. It suggests an epochal sequences of developments stated in terms of "days". The "waste and void" creates an image not unlike the theory of Oparin in which a "primordial soup" of molecules was initially shocked by lightning to create the first organic molecules. But the Bible account goes on further to address a side of development ignored by evolution. It goes on to say that The Lord breathed life into the nostrils of his creation. By this is meant that there is a mystery at the heart of man that does not easily submit to scientific study. It is so important for scientists, inundated with a materialistic approach to experience, to cordon off a tangible representation and reminder of this mysterious aspect of life. The Bible remembers some of the mystery of life or the elan vital, the spark of life- an aspect that science often deemphasized limited as it is to observable phenomena. But is evolutionary theory truly observable in an experimental sense? When scientific method deviates from its own protocol by treating of the untestable hypotheses of evolutionary theory as routine hypotheses when they are not, it is veering imperceptibly off course and requires a corrective influence. Therefore as scientists, let us not too willingly discard the Biblical account until all the data are collected. Genesis says that man is the steward of creation. In keeping with this, science is man's tool which he controls and limits. The Darwininan theory is possibly true and yet it seems more like a Credo which controls and directs man's thinking without any hope of being disproven. No hypotheses must be allowed to do this. Science may boast of Darwin and write off the earlier traditions; but has any scientist even reflected on the evolution of the hydrogen molecule. In truth science has no concept of the origin of the dust from which man is made whatsoever and yet it sets itself up as authority on the very development of man. Open your eyes oh man and see what you are not seeing!! Then your science will be true to form and worthy of its name.