But Satan has managed to be extremely successful in getting his evolutionary lie out. So much so that most professing Christians by far, most professing Christians would deny the simple straightforward testimony of Genesis 1 that God created the entire universe as it is now in six 24-hour days, and that about six or seven thousand years ago. Far and away most evangelical Christians, professing Christians would deny that. Why would they deny the clear teaching of Scripture and tamper with the veracity and integrity of the Word of God and bring themselves into such jeopardy? Satan is very clever, very subtle and has done an immensely successful job in selling the lie of evolution.
Now no part of the evolutionary lie is more loudly proclaimed or more widely believed than the evolution of man. In fact, when most people think about evolution, they think about man, they think about the picture in National Geographic of the ape-like creature on fours and all of a sudden the sequence of about ten different pictures as this four-legged creature all of a sudden becomes erect and takes the posture of a man, and they tell us that’s the progression of human evolution.
We’ve all seen those imaginary human evolution lines where we go from ape to man in a series of drawings. Every school child in public education is constantly taught that man has come like this from apes. And supposedly, they say, there is fossil evidence for this…and I want to speak of this for a minute because if I don’t somebody is going to ask me about it…but there supposedly are fossils. Every once in a while somebody finds a bone somewhere in Africa or somewhere. And out of that bone they tell us they have identified the missing links in this sequence. Supposedly there is fossil evidence.
Well, the fact of the matter is there isn’t. And most all of those fossils are hoaxes. The presupposition is that evolution is true. They’re trying to make the bones fit the drawings in National Geographic. In a book written by John Ankerberg and John Weldon called Darwin’s Leap of Faith it says, “Despite widespread belief to the contrary, the fossil record of mankind is woefully inadequate to justify any belief in evolution. Despite a hundred and thirty years of searching, there are no fossils that have convincingly related man to any other species. Most have been conclusively proven false.” And as I said, many were outright hoaxes.
Anthropologist Kathleen J. Rikes(?), editor of Hominoid Origins, hominoid being a term for human, cited, “Many authorities who disagree about the interpretations of these many alleged human ancestry discoveries, until accurate dating of the fossils is possible…she writes…reconstruction of hominoid relationships must remain tenuous at best.” Now there’s an honest anthropologist, an honest evolutionist who says none of the fossils prove anything.
Duane Gish(?) writes, “There is no evidence, either in the present world or in the world of the past, that man has arisen from some lower creature. He stands alone as a separate and distinct created type, or basic morphological design, endowed with qualities that sets him far above all other living creatures.”
Now I don’t want to get too technical, but just to kind of show you that you can do your homework on this and the Bible will stand, the evolution of man has sort of been divided into three sort of Latin parts…ramapithecus, australopithecus, and pithecanthropus. And those names will be on the quiz, of course. These have all been…these are the Latin terms given to these supposed fossils and they have been heralded as transitional forms between ape and man. The average person on the street probably still believes these classifications represent genuine intermediate forms. But they don’t. Even evolutionists are seriously divided and none of these classifications documents any human evolution at all.
For example, ramapithecus, the first one, is just one of a long series of creatures that have been suggested at one time or another. In other words, all different kind of bones have been thrown into that ramapithecus title. They’ve all been suggested as missing links, but when more complete evidence has become available, we’re all relegated to the ape family.
And then there’s australopithecus, they said that that was evidence of human evolution. The view that these fossils represent genuine intermediates has been challenged by the famous British anatomist Solly Lord Zuckerman and Dr. Charles Oxnard, formerly director of The Graduate Studies, professor, by the way, of anatomy at the University of Southern California Medical School. Zuckerman headed a research team for over fifteen years, studied the anatomical features of apes, man, monkeys and the australopithecan fossils and anatomical specimens from hundreds of apes, humans and monkeys, compared along with almost all available important fossil fragments of this particular category. Most evolutionists seem to classify australopithecus as a genus of the hominoid or family of man, rather than apes. But Zuckerman replies to all of them, “I myself remain totally unpersuaded. Almost always when I’ve tried to check the anatomical claims on which the status of australopithecus is based, I have ended in failure.” And he concludes that this was nothing but an ape and as such in no way related at all to the ancestry of man. An honest evolutionary look at these things debunks them.
The work of Zuckerman and Oxnard literally has tended to be so conclusive that many other scientists have had to fall in line behind it. And that’s the way it goes with the final one that I mentioned to you, pithecanthropus, it’s the same story. Pithecanthropus you might know as the Java man or the Peking man, the creation of some kind of transitional form out of some minute skeletal fragment. They now believe was never a man at all, but some creatures related to the gibbons. The gibbons not being a family down the street, but an ape, as you know. Cro-magnon man, Neanderthal man they now know were nothing more than just human skeletons.
There’s a fascinating book on this. If you really want to read…I don’t want to talk anymore about it, but there’s a fascinating book called Bones of Contention, it’s a good title. It’s a creationist’s assessment of human fossils by a very outstanding creationist scientist by the name of Marvin Lubenow, it’s published by Baker in 1992, Bones of Contention if you want more study, you will find the debunking of all of these supposed transitional fossil forms.
Now here’s the simple understanding. Because man did not evolve, it’s impossible to prove he did. Okay? Can you handle that one? They’re having a hard time proving man evolved because he didn’t. And so they’re in hopeless confusion because they’re trying to make this whole deal fit the drawings in National Geographic and it doesn’t work. And I’m going to give you some quotes from some leading evolutionists.
“This article originally appeared here at Bible Bulletin Board.”
