Puddle To Paradise
by B. H. Shadduck, Ph.D.
(This was ©1925 by B. H. Shadduck - now PUBLIC
DOMAIN)
PUBLIC DOMAIN - FREE to Copy
& Use - (Full ZIP, 350kb - Readme)
Section 4 - CIRCUMSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE
It is obvious that the only possible evidence of what happened when
man appeared on earth must be circumstantial. unless the only eye witness
is permitted to testify. If what purports to be God's testimony is received,
it is against evolution.
I am well aware that many attempts have been made to turn this testimony
into "allegory" and make it fit evolution, but allegory must not be made
to mean exactly the opposite of what it says. Here is a summary of the
testimony and the "allegory."
THE BIBLE
God formed man of the dust.
God breathed into his nostrils and he became a living soul. This was
to fulfill the plan to make man in God's image. In the catalog of animals,
there was not one fit to be his mate. Adam was put into deep sleep and
a mate made from a rib. They were warned not to do a certain thing. A reinterpreter
appeared
and persuaded Eve that God did not
mean exactly what he said and promised
an evolution to something better.
Man fell and the curses followed.
|
THE "ALLEGORY"
God made man by proxy; an ape mammy furnished the "dust."
He took a breath for himself when he was born, like other apes.
He was not made in God's image; just started to evolve in that direction.
His mate was another ape product; the ape acting for God, of course.
Man fell slowly, painfully UP.
The other details are "folk lore."
|
Why this labored effort?
|
Evidently to thin out the miracle of creation so that anti-miracle
"Christians" with weak stomachs can take a little broth. To borrow
a phrase from electricians, unbelievers want their miracles "stepped down"
to a very low voltage When you begin making allegories out of miracles,
there is no logical stopping place till you make an allegory of God. If
we knew the details of Adam's physical makeup before the fall and knew
that he had neighbors made on much the same physical pattern, was there
anyone to forbid God making him just that way as a special creative act? |
Let us illustrate with another miracle. Exodus 4 records the story of
a stick that God turned into a snake. Can you say with a certainty on which
you would risk your soul, "God couldn't do it; if it was like a snake,
it was born of a snake that evolved from a fish"?
Is the New Testament allegory also? Matt. 3 :9 says, "God is able of
these stones to raise up children unto Abraham." If God did just that thing,
they might resemble men without having any evolutionary connection with
man or monkey. If creation is impossible in Genesis, it is impossible in
Matthew.
Surely there cannot be any possible evidence that a God who did make
a serpent from a stick and could make a man from a stone, could not have
made his image man immediately and like anything else he pleased.
Evolution-ism, when you simmer it down, puts ape limitations on man
and human limitations on God. They assume that we are only a pint of brains
ahead of an ape, and as for God-- he must have been limited to what man's
brain approves.
|
Some will concede that God could
do it, but they shrink from overworking him. Some will say, "Must we believe
the improbable ?"
Is creation improbable?
If it is, evolution is impossible. How else could there be the first
life for evolution to start with"?
To say that it started itself, is disastrous, for there would be no
one to stop it, if there was no one to start it. It is just as necessary
to the theory of evolution to stop the process that would produce the first
life as to start it. If it could start one place at one time, it could
start in many places, many times. If you leave the gate open like that,
30 minutes of time and a ten-acre swamp would generate enough "ancestors"
to give each form of life a little forefather of its own.
Is that clear?
It is vital to the theory of one ancestor for all, to presume a some-how-or-other
starter to start one little lone progenitor, and have another presumption
to stop the starter before it starts two. Otherwise there might be a different
origin for each kind of creature, and that would be CREATION thinned out
by a process. That would permit each kind to be brought forth "after their
kind." This could not explain the creation of Adam, but it would ruin the
theory of evolution utterly. |
|