Past Editorials Al Colombo

Personal Thoughts

Editorial Section



Evolution: Fact or Fiction


The "Theory" of Evolution
is just that, a "Theory."

Hi Folks,

Did man really evolve from the ape? If you read Up From The Apes, by Michael Lemonick and Andrea Dorfman, Time Magazine, August 23, 1999, the answer to that seems to be "yes." If you read the book of Genesis in the Bible, it says that all of creation as we know it had one author: YHVH (God). Both of these premises cannot be right, so which one is and which one is not? Since I know God and I have no idea who Lemonick or Dorfman are, I think I'll take the Word of God as fact.

I once wondered at the similarities between all the creatures around me. Eyes, ears, nose, mouth--the similarities are so numerous that it's striking when you stop and really study it. I figured that this visual observation supported the notion that all life on earth came from the same point of origin. This, I once thought, also supports Darwin's theory that man evolved from the Ape--after all, this was presented to all of us in science class as if it were indeed an absolute proven fact, but surprisingly I have found that it is not.

Before I even knew all the facts regarding the theory of evolution, I changed my stance on this after reading a book called The Naked Ape. One of the areas of this particular book that made me laugh to myself was the part where the little fishes grew legs because their water puddles kept drying up. This made it possible for them to stroll over to another water hole. Sure, so why didn't Robinson Caruso sprout a set of wings so he could make it off of that island? :-)

The point is, by the time the little fishies realized they needed a set of legs, wouldn't they have already long died for lack of air? Also, ask yourself what mechanism would have been at work in the first place if the fishy story was right? Wouldn't it take some kind of intelligence to make the decision to change the fishies' flippers into legs? Talk about imagination!

It is my sincere, honest opinion that it's not a matter of ape to man, but rather that all of life on earth simply had the same author, a Creator who used certain orderly and effective characteristics when He formed life on earth. Frankly, much of the evolutionary theory is just that, a theory.

Is it possible that naturalist, Charles Darwin (1809-1882), saw these similarities and simply misinterpreted them? First, let us examine who Charles Darwin was and who he was not. He was a naturalist and a doctor--he was not a scientist. He also did not have the benefit of modern day science and its gadgetry to make the enormous assumptions that he made.

Isn't it true that many of the scientific ideas of yesterday have been later found amiss? How many times have our science books been rewritten do you suppose? Why has science yet to discount Darwin's theory of evolution? Is it because it's held up to scrutiny? Or, could it be that we simply haven't stumbled onto the proof we need to say without a doubt that it is or is not true?

Darwin actually studied to be a doctor and a minister. At the age of 16, Darwin's father sent him to Edinburgh University to be a doctor. After spending two miserable years at Edinburgh, he was sent to Cambridge to be a minister. Apparently, Darwin could not stand the sight of an operation.

Darwin believed that man shares a common ancestry with the monkey. He also believed in a process he called "natural selection." He came to these conclusions through "simple visual observation" while spending 5 years aboard a British Naval ship called the Beagle. Darwin referred to this experience as "the first real training or education" of his mind. And yet it is said that he "Daydreamed that ancient manuscripts or letters would one day be discovered and would prove what was written in the Gospels"[1]

What brought Darwin to the conclusion that man came from monkey through natural selection?

"All along, Darwin was noticing patterns. In the Galapagos Islands, there were 14 different species of finchlike birds with different sized bills. There was a resemblance, too, between the species on the South American mainland and this island. And mice on one slope of the Andes were different from those on the other. He later wrote, "It was evident that such facts as these, as well as many others, could only be explained on the supposition that species gradually become modified, and the subject haunted me."[1]

Scientists and environmentalists alike have latched onto Darwin's theories--and this is exactly what they are--theories! These theories have enabled these individuals to explain away the idea that man, the animals, insects, plants, etc., were created by an organized, conscious, thinking, superior God. Environmentalists then, as well as today, agreed with Darwin's assumption that the ecology cannot and will not support the ever growing number of creatures on earth.

"In 1817, he started his 1st notebook, and by the end of 1838, he had formulated his theory of natural selection, and only had to prove it. In brief, his theory said:
  1. Animals reproduce in much greater numbers than can be supported by the environment.
  2. Great numbers, those that are least fit, die in the struggle for existence. The fittest are naturally selected to survive.
  3. Variations in structure are inherited.[1]

When Darwin's book was released, many scientists spoke out against it.

"Many scientists opposed it. Herschel, the astronomer, called the theory the 'law of higgledy-piggledy.' Sedgwick, a geologist, wrote to Darwin, 'I have read your book with more pain than pleasure. Parts of it I laughed at until my sides were almost sore; other parts I read with absolute sorrow.'"[1]

Why would Sedgwick be sorrowful over Darwin's theory? Perhaps he envisioned the proliferation of this doctor/minister's work to a mistaken position of prominence, as it appears to enjoy today. In reality, Darwin's entire theory of natural selection has more to do with faith than it does with hard, cold, science. Since the underlying force behind religion is faith, I submit that the theory of evolution is actually a religion in and unto itself, rather than a legitimate science. Is there any doubt that when the first assumption is wrong, then all that follows must be held in suspect?

Al Colombo

  • Bibliography

    [1] The People's Almanac, David Wallechinsky and Irving Wallace, Doubleday & Company Inc., Garden City, N.Y.


  • Send Al Colombo MailSend me your comments please

    Past Editorials
    Return to the Main Menu

    || MAIN MENU || CAMPS || AL'S VIEWS || E-MAIL ||


    Copyright©1999 Allan B. Colombo