‘If you cut off the tails of cats, will they give birth to tail-less kittens? Of course not! Yet, more than 3,000 mainstream biologists were dismissed, imprisoned or even killed for disagreeing that a similar idea might work when applied to plants.
Soviet genetics research was effectively destroyed in the 1930s and ‘40s because the scientist at the head of the Soviet Academy of Agriculture Sciences squashed all dissent from his own view. And he had the power of the communist state behind him!
His name was Trofim Lysenko, and he believed the Soviets could transform Siberia into “a land of orchards and gardens” by “training” seeds to handle cold weather and harsh conditions. He believed that plants could be engrafted to permanently change the heritable characteristics of the stock. Such ideas were based on Darwin’s predecessor – the early evolutionist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829). Lamarck argued for evolution through inheritance of acquired characteristics. In other words, build up your muscles so you can then pass bigger muscles on to your kids.
Charles Darwin wrote his book On the Origin of Species in 1859 to make Lysenko’s ideas seem more scientific by appealing to “deep time” to allow for the imperceptible changes we cannot observe, and appealing also to “natural selection” to try to make the heritable changes more plausible.
But Lamarck was the first to suggest the famous evolutionary scenario of giraffes acquiring a long neck. Giraffe parents supposedly stretched above other animals to reach the leaves of tall trees. And thus they passed on their increasingly stretched necks to their offspring through succeeding generations.
Lysenko was an evolutionist too impatient for Darwin, so he put Lamarckism into practice. For example, he believed he could transform a spring-wheat species into an autumn-wheat species via 2 to 4 years of autumn planting. It would supposedly condition them to “a revolutionary change”. But genetically this was impossible since the spring wheat species had 28 chromosomes in 4 sets of 7, and the autumn species had 42 chromosomes in 6 sets of 7. Change and adaptation is always limited to within the original species or “kind” by virtue of the genes needing to be there in the first place – put in place by our Great Designer and Maker. Lysenko’s plantings on the collectivist farms never took hold or simply rotted away. Geneticists in free market countries knew Lysenko to be a fool.
But Lysenko and the Soviets under Joseph Stalin were true believers in the ideology that mankind needed to “reset” the old and traditional (“bourgeoise”) ways. And that this could be made to happen as society “toughed it out”. In other words, they believed in Marxism. “Tear down the old order to build a new one.” Build it back better! Sound familiar?
Great famines took place in the Soviet Union under this ideologically driven pseudo-science and the false hope it raised. The famines were made worse, of course, as private farms were stolen and put into collectives, and successful farmers were persecuted. Lysenkoism was kept in place throughout Stalin’s life, and it ruined agriculture in other communist countries, too. These included Eastern Europe and Communist China, where horrible famines took place in the 1950s under Mao Tse Tung.
As I’ve pointed out in previous letters, we are bombarded today with much pseudo-science, not only Evolutionism but also Climate Change Alarmism. We are fed fear and false hopes which are driving a “great reset” of world culture, education, government and economics. Many are on board with it – just as they were in the days of Lysenko, Stalin and Mao.
Every storm or series of storms now gets blamed on Climate Change – which is, of course, ridiculous. What little science there is in an agenda-driven pseudo-science becomes tainted by whatever assumptions about earth history enter the narratives or computer models. And much scientific research is funded by government grants. The research grants are written with a desired outcome in mind, and those applying for the grants know in advance whether to assume Evolution or to assume man-made Climate Change.
An interesting development is the new awareness of how much Communist Chinese money is funding elite American University research. Since the Department of Education recently began enforcing Section 117 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 for disclosure of university funding, it has come to light that most of the $6.5 billion of undeclared university research funding has come from Communist China. And much of it is to promote climate alarmism – considered a weapon for distracting and weakening the U.S. economy.
We need to keep going back to the Bible. That’s where the truth is. The desire for a “great reset” goes all the way back to the Serpent in the Garden with Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve believed Satan’s lies, and they wanted their “eyes to be opened”, “to be as gods”, knowing (a perfected knowing of) good and evil” (Genesis 3:5). They wanted to be “enlightened” (as they were in a way, vs. 7) and, therefore, they went along with the temptation to tear down the original order.
This Satanic philosophy of tearing down God’s order is what Karl Marx promoted (The Devil and Karl Marx, P. Kengor; Marx and Satan, Rev. R. Wurmbrand). It also manifested at the Tower of Babel, as Nimrod (whose name means “to rebel”) argued against God and for the “enlightenment” of making themselves “as gods”. Nimrod is the classic type of anti-Christ. It should be no surprise to see in our day a great push for a Great Reset to One World Economy, One World Government and One World Religion under a controlling system apart from God.
Genesis 1:21 “And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.”
‘The pseudo-science of climate change is replete with scare stories. New Scientist recently contained a most disingenuous example, with the headline: “Climate change will make world too hot for 60 per cent of fish species”. “Fish are at a far greater risk from climate change than previously thought,” the article opined.
Yet, in the very next sentence, the article conceded that the figure of 60% of species becoming extinct was only a concern in the “worst-case scenario of 5°C of global warming.” A rise of 5°C is equivalent to a 9°F rise. Previous warming models – which have still over-estimated global temperature rises by more than 200% – have suggested rises of 2.3°C. The New Scientist article suggests that a 1.5°C rise would kill off 10% of fish species. Actual temperature rises have stayed below 1°C, with no noticeable reduction in species of bony fish.
The article is fallacious on many levels. Evolutionists have made great play in the past of criticizing creationists for referring to “fish”, as evolutionists have concluded that former fish class is actually three classes – bony fish, cartilaginous fish and jawless fish. Yet, this climate-change article, purporting to be scientific, uses the old fish classification. Also, the extraordinary ability of fish to adapt to different environments has been overlooked.
‘Stonehenge in England is one of the most mysterious artifacts on earth. This megalithic structure dates to about 4,000 years ago with huge stones placed in concentric rings. Who built it, why, and how?
There are two types of stones at Stonehenge. The larger sarsen stones are believed to have been brought from about 20 miles away. On average, one sarsen stone weighs 50,000 pounds. Eighty-one sarsens were needed. The bluestones weighed up to 10,000 pounds, and 80 of them were used. These bluestones came from 135 miles away (as the crow flies). Yet, they had to take a different route. The builders brought these stones from the mountains to the coast, shipped them by boat around the coast, and finally carried them over land. Large waste piles north of the stones’ excavation site indicate that the stones were shaped on-site before shipment.
To fit the upright stones with the horizontal lintels, mortice holes and protruding tenons were created. In 1923, a professional mason did an experiment of shaping a single sarsen with a stone maul; he was able to remove about six cubic inches of stone per hour. Researchers estimated that it would have taken 50 masons, working 10 hours a day and 7 days a week approximately 2 years and 9 months to finish the dressing of the stones.
Then the stones had to be laid in a precise geometrical pattern. Holes were dug. Then the stones were hauled into position and stood upright. The skills required to build sophisticated megalithic structures came as a result of highly intelligent people in a stratified society. This project required designers, architects, surveyors, managers, masons, etc. A simple farming community does not generate these skills. People 4,000 years ago were not ignorant but intelligent, just as is recorded in the Bible. Man was intelligent from the beginning.’http://www.searchforthetruth.net/
Matthew 16:2 “He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, [It will be] fair weather: for the sky is red.”
‘One good test of whether a theory is scientific is whether the theory can accurately predict new and surprising findings. If you have a barometer, you may do this all the time. The sky may be clear, but the barometer is falling fast. No matter how nice the weather looks, you know that rain is likely.
Creation scientists believe that humans have been on Earth in their present so-called “modern” form ever since the model first came out. Since that was on day six of creation, humans have been on Earth as long as any creature. So creation scientists have predicted that as we find more fossils, we will find fossils of “modern man” in older and older rocks. Such a discovery would shock the evolutionists!
Evolutionists say that, according to their theory, “modern” humans have been around for only a small part of the world’s history. In their inflated estimate, they say we have been here for only 35,000 years. Evolutionists received a surprise when that age recently had to be almost tripled. A new discovery pushed the date for “modern” humans back 92,000 years. As a result, evolutionists had to admit that we turn out to be older than some of the creatures from which we were supposed to have evolved!
Of course, one has to take the hot air out of those evolutionary dates. They can be adjusted down to a number that fits the biblical calendar. However, the scientific prediction made by creation scientists has proven out. And creationists are predicting that the history of “modern” humanity will continue to be pushed back further and further!
Genesis 1:27 “So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”
‘While the Bible teaches us that sex is a wonderful gift of God, evolutionists believe that sexual reproduction should not have evolved. According to evolutionists, if sexual reproduction were to develop, evolution is supposed to get rid of it.
To make matters worse, immobile plants use sexual reproduction. This creates a problem in transferring the male genes to the female for fertilization. Just to confound things even more, God uses insects and even mammals to transfer the pollen. Since evolutionists believe that plants were around for many millions of years before animals, evolutionists have yet another problem.
The European family of the Arum lilies attracts beetles and flies. When one of the insects lands on a flower, he finds a slick, oil-coated surface and ends up sliding down into a chamber filled with small hairs. Imprisoned, he finds a sweet sap that makes good eating. While he is gorging himself on the sap and getting sticky in the process, the male part of the flower showers him with pollen. The next day, the sticky, pollen-coated insect finds that the doors to his prison are open. So he flies off to another flower to unwittingly deliver his load of pollen!
‘The existence of humans suggests that, at some point, there must have been a first human. Neither evolutionists nor creationists deny this. However, creationists believe that Adam (Genesis 1–2) was the first human. But whether the first human was Adam or some unnamed, recently-evolved person, where did that person learn to speak?
Evidence suggests that humans do not learn to speak unless they are taught by someone who already knows how to speak. Additionally, the archaeological record indicates that fully-developed languages have been in existence as long as humans have been (Elgin 1973, 44). For these reasons, Curtis, in a 1990 article, argues that a personal creator was responsible for the existence of the first human.
Linguistic Evidence
Linguistic research suggests that languages have not evolved from a prehistoric development period (Eglin 1973, 44). Rather, languages have always existed with the same communication potential as they currently possess. In fact, it is possible that they even held greater communication potential in the past.
An example of an inscribed clay tablet
Archaeological Evidence
The archaeological finds from the past 100 years of excavations have demonstrated that written language appears well developed in the earliest records of civilization. For example, the Ebla tablets date to about 2000 BC. These tablets contain writing in a fully-developed, phonetic language.
How Do People Learn How to Speak?
Some Darwinian anthropologists have suggested that if, in the process of evolution, there was a transition from animal to man, this transition would have included the acquisition of language. However, one of these anthropologists, Humbolt, realized that man cannot speak without already being human. For him, this created an unsolvable problem regarding the origin of speech (Lyell 1873).
Another problem with determining the origin of speech from an evolutionary perspective is that in so-called primitive cultures, the languages tend to be more complex than in more advanced cultures. Furthermore, animals with the physical capability to use logical speech do not do so. Studies have shown that animals that respond to commands do so based on vocal tones rather than the spoken words. Thus, all attempts to solve the evolutionary origin of language have failed.
Every child that learns how to speak learns from someone who already knows how to speak. There do not seem to be any exceptions to this rule. Feral children who grow up without contact with spoken language did not learn to speak until they came into contact with speaking individuals. Once they had heard speech, they were able to learn how to speak (Tomb 1925).
What Does this All Mean?
Since multiple languages appear to have existed in fully developed forms in the earliest known civilizations, it appears that the languages do not have one common root. Rather, each language appeared independently of the others.
This evidence aligns well with the biblical account. From the creation of Adam until the Tower of Babel, there was only one language on earth (Genesis 11:1). Curtis suggests that God taught the first man, Adam, to speak. It is clear that Adam spoke a well-developed language because he was able to name the animals (Genesis 2:19). From that point on, each generation learned to speak from the previous one.
Later, when God confused the languages at the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:7), He miraculously created a number of additional unrelated, fully-formed languages. The pattern of language learning continued. Each person learned to speak from the previous generation.
Conclusion
The scientific evidence obtained through linguistic and archaeological studies suggest that the first human who learned how to speak must have learned from someone who already possessed the capability of speech. This first person must have learned from someone of a higher order than humans. This correlates well with the biblical account of God’s creation of Adam. Adam must have received the ability and knowledge to speak from God himself. The study of language demonstrates that there must be a creator God. No human can speak a language unless that person has been taught. Furthermore, languages have not arisen from some lesser forms of communication. They appeared early in history, fully developed. The languages present today do not share a common root, suggesting that they appeared as separate, well-developed languages. This accords well with the account of the Tower of Babel.
References
Curtis, William M. 1990. “Human Language Demands a Creator.” The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism 2:1, 69–72.
Elgin, Suzette H. 1973. What is Linguistics? Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall Inc.
