The Genesis Flood—Its Nature And Significance, Part II -- By: Henry M. Morris
BSac 117:467 (Jul 60) p. 204
The Genesis Flood—Its Nature And Significance, Part II
[Editor’s Note: The material in this series of two articles on this subject is treated in more detail in a forthcoming book of approximately six hundred pages entitled The Genesis Flood, to be published in August, 1960, by the Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Nutley, New Jersey, at $6.50.]
The unique significance of the great Flood of Genesis to the present generation lies in its conclusive negation of the modern philosophy of evolution. This evolutionary concept very largely conditions the thinking of modern man, not only in scientific disciplines, but also in political, sociological, and even religious studies. In particular, it has supplied the basic intellectual framework for all the influential anti-Christian systems of these latter days. At the recent Darwinian centennial observance at the University of Chicago (November 26, 1959), Sir Julian Huxley, one of the world’s most prominent evolutionary biologists, said: “In the evolutionary pattern of thought there is no longer need or room for the supernatural. The earth was not created; it evolved. So did all the animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul, as well as brain and body. So did religion.”1
Sir Julian has been broadcasting these opinions for over forty years, and it is significant that evidently none of the two thousand leading scientists who had gathered from all over the world at the Chicago convocation raised any public objection to his assertions. The general commitment of the world intellectual community to this type of philosophy is well known to all who are at all conversant with modern scientific literature.
But far too few people realize what a fragile foundation supports the tremendous superstructure of evolutionary speculation. Most of the stock textbook arguments for evolution—the evidence from comparative anatomy, from gene mutations, from embryological resemblances, etc.—are entirely circumstantial and can be much better explained in terms of divine
BSac 117:467 (Jul 60) p. 205
creation. The only direct evidence for evolution is that from paleontology, the study of the fossil record. The Yale geologist, Carl Dunbar, recognizes this when he says: “Although the comparative study of living animals and plants may give very convincing circumstantial evidence, fossils provide the only historical documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more complex forms.2 Similarly, the geneticist Goldschmidt, after admitting the inconclusiveness of...
Click here to subscribe