Concepts Have Consequences

fi/image/itg/sft/I-17-625w.jpg

Concepts have consequences. People act on what they believe to be true. If children are indoctrinated through a public education system which only allows evidence which neatly fit into a naturalistic explanation of life, we will increasingly become a society which looks only to itself for answers to life’s questions.

If we have evolved from apes, if we are just another animal …then who sets the rules? Whose standards should define right from wrong, good from bad, helpful from harmful, lawful from unlawful? Without an absolute basis for morals, the distinction between these antithetical concepts becomes blurred. The ultimate result is a spiraling descent toward meaninglessness and a degradation of the value of human life. Acknowledgment of creation provides answers to these foundational questions of life which are based on factual scientific and historical evidence. If evolution is true, then only a leap of faith provides answers. On what FACTUAL BASIS can anyone say his/her “leap of faith” (even a Christian “leap of faith”) is right, while someone else’s “leap of faith” is wrong?

An all too common example of the consequences of the blind belief in evolution can be found in most high school biology books containing a section on comparative embryology. This is the concept that humans and animals have a common ancestor because their embryos have a similar physical appearance. This concept was popularized in 1866 by Ernst Haeckel as he traveled throughout Europe lecturing on the subject and showing drawings of how different animal embryos had similar appearances. However, it was shown that he had used fraudulent drawings as early as 1874. Amazingly, although the specific drawings used by Haeckel have long since been discarded, his teachings remain in textbooks to this day. The concept does not even acknowledge the vastly different developing functions of the completely different animals. Furthermore, in the 1950’s it was proven that a woman’s fertilized egg is a complete human being. Only time and nutrition are required for it to grow larger. From the moment of conception, a pregnant woman’s body is two bodies, not one. That second body was never anything but a human being!

Examples of embryonic parts which have been said to be ancestral features are the “gill slits” and the “yolk sac” of the developing baby. The “gill slits” and “yolk sac” serve completely different functions in the human embryo than in that of animals to which they are supposedly related. Gill slits form gills in fish. In humans, they are merely folds forming various glands and facial features. The yolk sac contains food for a reptile, while for a human it has a radically different function. In a human embryo the heart and circulatory system develop before the bones (which will ultimately be the baby’s blood source). Yet, the developing baby may have a different blood type than its mother, so cannot use her blood. With no bone marrow to make its own blood, how can the baby continue to develop? The simplest engineering answer would be to provide a temporary alternative supply. The yolk sac serves exactly that purpose, then disappears! As King David said 3000 years ago, “I will praise Thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.”1

I suspect the primary reason comparative embryology is still used (in a futile attempt to support evolution) is that it can be used to justify abortion. A woman does not have an abortion because she believes in evolution… but how much easier to justify killing a baby if you believe it is just a blob going through some stage of comparative embryology. How easy to justify moral disobedience if we are just animals accountable to no one but ourselves. Fortunately, the Maker of this universe has provided a bridge to span the abyss between sinful mankind and Himself. And this bridge is open to everyone willing to repent and acknowledge the truth.

1. The Bible, Psalms 139:14.