Printer Friendly

Charles Darwin and his apostles have go it all wrong! Professor Felix I D Konotey-Ahulu (pictured below) uses this review of Dr Carl Wieland's new book, One Human Family--The Bible, Science, Race, and Culture, to elaborate his own position on Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution, racism and science.

DR CARL WIELAND, AUTHOR OF the new book, One Human Family--The Bible, Science, Race, and Culture, must be greatly congratulated for tackling this huge subject not in five different books but in one miniature tome of some 250 pages, which contain the best in-depth account of racism I have ever read.

Written by a white Australian medical doctor, this excellent book sets out to prove (and in my opinion, extremely successfully) that contrary to received wisdom, there is but one human race.

In the process of doing this, Dr Wieland demolishes Darwinian Evolutionism--the idea that we humans began as a one cell organism a very great while ago, and progressed through multiple cell organisms, to invertebrates, then to vertebrates by a process called natural selection and then, sharing on the way a common ancestor with the chimpanzee, we became separated some 8 million years ago into human stock and through development at different rates, several different races emerged.

Not so, says Carl Wieland. This is simply not true. Charles Darwin and his apostles have got it all wrong, because the universe with all that is in it, including ourselves, cannot be explained without God. An atheist could never write a book like this one, so that is all the more reason why atheists in particular need to read it over and over again to learn from it. Do not abandon the book half way through merely because Carl Wieland, a medical graduate, mentions God in discussion. Whatever your religious or non-religious outlook, please finish the book, jotting down what you disagree with, because on almost every page the author gives scientific and other references that answer most questions that arise in the mind of the serious reader.

The book includes details that will surprise, if not amaze, most readers. Take for example the following 10 statements:

1. The Aboriginal inhabitants of Tasmania were regarded as "wild beasts whom it is lawful to exterminate".

2. The Aborigines were virtually wiped out by European settlers; "the last full blooded Tasmanian died in the 1870s".

3. Thomas Huxley, a prominent English biologist who advocated Darwin's views, wrote in 1871 that "No rational man, cognisant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man."

4. A museum in Sydney "published a booklet which appeared to include our Aboriginal relatives under the designation of Australian animals'."

5. A New South Wales missionary in Australia "was a horrified witness of the slaughter".

6. Margaret Sanger of Planned Parenthood fame "even addressed a meeting of the Ku Klux Klan and she maintained that the brains of Australian Aborigines were only one step more evolved than chimpanzees and just under blacks, Jews, and Italians".

7. 60,000 blacks were sterilised in the USA.

8. In 1906, a man called Ota Benga, "a dignified human being from Central Africa's Congo [of the ethnic group whose members are often called the pigmies] was put on display in New York's Bronx zoo. There he shared a cage with an orangutan and a parrot, to be ogled by the masses as an example of a living 'ape-man' or 'the missing link'. Large crowds thronged to see this 'primitive creature', justifying the commercial instinct of the promoters."

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

9. A Scientific American article at the time referred to pygmies as "ape-like little black people" and said that "even today, ape-like negroes are found in the gloomy forests, who are doubtless direct descendants of these early types of man, who probably closely resembled their simian ancestors." ("Simian" means monkey).

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

10. "Virtually no Christian voice in Australia did what was required--to affirm boldly the real history of man as given in the Bible".

In tandem with horrendous facts like these, Dr Carl Wieland points out that Darwin's Theory of Evolution leads inexorably to the notion that the black person is inherently inferior. Wieland demonstrates that genetics, which some modern scientists rush to claim proves the truth of evolution, is quite the converse, for genetics is the nail in the coffin of Evolutionism.

Why so? Because DNA, the foundation brick of genetics, is information. (See Werner Gitt, references box). DNA information produces protein, which in turn produces us. Information is never the product of evolution, because it is non-material. Natural Selection or no Natural Selection, information has never evolved. Many PhDs are just beginning to realise this, and they are abandoning Darwin in their droves; some have suffered for it, having been expelled from their posts in prestigious universities (see references box).

If you, the reader of this article, are really serious about knowing the facts, please read Wieland's book yourself. He shows how genetics can produce the different coloured skin from just 8 humans that were on Noah's Ark in the Bible, exactly the number that global genome sequencing has shown divides us humans today.

Incidentally, the Oxford University Professor Bryan David Sykes, in his book The Seven Daughters of Eve, also arrives at the figure 8 when he profiles the DNA make-up of current humankind. But whereas Sykes accepts Darwinian evolution with its millions of years without question, Wieland proves that the facts as we see them fit a non-evolutionary explanation, even from the point of view of science.

He shows that the same facts can be interpreted in different ways depending on one's initial assumption. Start with: "Man evolved", and the facts that we see around us will be interpreted with evolutionary spectacles. But start with "In the beginning there was God" and the same facts can be interpreted differently. Wieland shows that those who say God used evolution to produce us have the greatest problem. (See my testimony below. I once believed that God used evolution to produce us).

Wieland goes on to discuss culture and ethnic differences, proving that our human differences are due less to genetics, than to culture. In other words, what are called racial differences and primitive development, with the use of "stone age" and "hunter gatherer" appellations, are due more to environmental and historical catastrophes than to genetic programming. Read the examples he gives, and you will never describe any group of people as having "evolved" from monkey origins at a slower rate than others.

Wieland seems to wonder why some South African blacks take huge pride in being described by white anthropologists as being the first humans to "evolve" on the African continent. These Africans do not appreciate that those describing them thus sincerely believe that black people are nearer the monkey origins than "other races".

Wieland thinks such concepts are not only nonsense, but that the real facts are that the scientific evidence with its "millions of years" does not exist at all. It is just make-evolution-believe.

He deals brilliantly with questions of "carbon dating", so-called "ape men", issues like "when did dinosaurs become extinct--millions of years ago, or recently?", "do sickle cells have anything to do with evolution?", who was Cain's wife?", "who was Neanderthal man?', "what about Australo-piths and Lucy (A. Afarensis)?", and "what of the origin of different languages?". All of these are discussed perfectly by Wieland with scientific references which the serious reader can turn to. He proves that not only is Darwinian Evolution's "molecules to humans over time" impossible scientifically, but also that some of the "scientific evidence" (e.g., missing links, peppered moths, drawings of embryological resemblance, etc) was fraudulent--and he proves it with verifiable references.

Yet this fraudulent science is still left in many textbooks. When removed from later editions of the textbooks, no apologies appear for the fraud. Eugenics is defined in one dictionary as: "The proposed improvement of the human species by encouraging or permitting reproduction of only those individuals with genetic characteristics judged desirable. It has been regarded with disfavour since the Nazi period".

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Wieland shows that Adolf Hitler was a Darwinian evolutionist. He says "eugenics, racial hygiene, and the full evils of racial thinking reached their apogee in Nazism".

The apartheid regime in South Africa is discussed impressively. Wieland shows how the wrong belief in the so-called "curse on Ham" in the Bible gave white people an excuse, even though they called themselves Christians, to discriminate against black people as happened in Australia. Using the Bible to discriminate, he thought, was reprehensible. His discussion on culture emphasises that "primitive tribes are not different genetically, but culturally".

A dimension that places Wieland's book a cut above others is that of personal experience. He relates his mother's account of Hitler in Germany, and his own discussions with the missionary son of a Dutch Reformed South African prime minister, Hendrik Verwoerd, founder of apartheid.

How can the son of the racist head of Apartheid South Africa be a missionary preaching to the blacks? Find out from the book! I was also moved by an account in the book of an Apartheid Christian woman who wept when Wieland gave a lecture to show that black people were her relatives racially, and not inferior. Racism in the USA is also discussed comprehensively by Wieland: "The shocking results of the eugenics programme include laws against so-called mixed race marriages in 27 [American] states, human breeding programmes, forced sterilisation of over 60,000 US citizens and even euthanasia". Also covered in detail are slavery and the transatlantic slave trade. Wieland says Christians are not exempt from prejudice, and were involved in the slave trade, especially when they too had imbibed Darwinian evolutionary doctrine.

"Go and preach to the savages" was not an uncommon mentality. Indeed, one missionary who went to Australia was said to have commented that natives were incapable of comprehending truth.

Wieland is ruthless in repudiating such doctrine, pointing out that the Southern Baptist Convention of the USA in the 1830s had provided "support for slavery".

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

He deals with the Biblical passages that people quote as supporting slavery, and discusses racism across the world, not excluding "black" versus "black" atrocities.

Wieland is at his most instructive on the relevance of the Bible. He says the Bible is history not myth. "Scripture radically condemns the hugely unequal treatment that was meted out under apartheid to black South Africans in such areas as education and health, for instance".

He mentions that racism is a symptom of "sin", as also are pride, covetousness, hatred, and injustice. "The message of this book," Wieland states, "is basically simple. It could almost be summarised in the three words: one human family."

So whether black or white, or neither, we are all one human family in "sin"--a vital subject which in my opinion requires another whole book because readers who are atheist and humanist will not accept Wieland's Adam and Eve, and "sin" as history

I found the account of what Wieland's daughter is doing in Australia most moving. It is not mentioned in a boastful way. My understanding is that Lara, Wieland's medically qualified daughter, rejects Darwinian Evolutionism, and hence regards the Aborigines as equal "racially" in every sense except where they have been ignored by her Australian white government.

Lara (whose photograph appears in the book) "has devoted much of her life working with, and standing up for, the poor and disadvantaged in her Australian homeland, specifically Aboriginal communities ... where alcohol, violence, sexual abuse, and suicide" devastate the community.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Lara and her husband Ron have let some of the teenagers "come to live in their home during school term". Many of these Aborigines' friends had committed suicide as teenagers. "Merely giving lip service to antiracism may be trendy, but is clearly not the answer," says Wieland. Read this priceless book, and pass it on.

My own position

I consider myself to have been extremely fortunate to sit at the feet of the greatest Darwinian evolutionist of the 20th century. His textbooks on invertebrates and vertebrates were read in every corner of the world. J Z Young FRS (Fellow of the Royal Society, the highest scientific elite community in the world) was professor of anatomy at the University of London.

Our second Bachelor of Medicine Class of some 120 students was the only class in the entire world where students had to take a three-hour paper on "Evolution and Metaphysics" in the pre-clinical exams before we walked the wards for three years to become doctors.

There were no textbooks on the subject so if we were to pass the exams, we all had to hang on every word of Professor Young's dozen or so lectures delivered weekly.

I had come from the Gold Coast (now Ghana) where I read Science, and had been presented with the "Evidence of Evolution". J believed what I was taught completely.

Come lecture number 8 (or 9?), and Professor Young was comparing and contrasting the brain of a new-born human baby with that of a grown-up chimpanzee. This was how I put it in the British Medical Journal, the world's leading medical publication (22-29 December 2001):

"J Z Young's brain was razor sharp, and I revelled in his lectures. But, paradoxically, it was the man's humility and sincerity that made me lose my faith in Evolution. He was lecturing on the human brain, a subject on which there was not then an equal in the whole world, and he was comparing it with the brain of the highest primate.

"Professor Young was suddenly at sea; he was out of his depth; and suddenly he communicated this feeling to us. That clinched it for me. I turned to the girl sitting next to me and whispered, 'Did he say he did not know?' Professor Young confessing ignorance? In my book, he passed the Pascal Test."

I had discussed earlier in the article Blaise Pascal who said the most brilliant people in the world were those who realised that there was a limit to reason. Not to realise that, according to Pascal, was a sign of mediocrity however brilliant you may think you are. To pass the Pascal Test, I told the British Medical Journal, was (and is) to realise that there is a limit to reason.

I quoted Nobel Prize winner in Medicine/Physiology, Professor Sir Peter Medawar, to support me. His book The Limits of Science says just that. There are things that reason (science) is not equipped to understand. Medawar FRS has passed the Pascal Test! Today, there are many atheists who think genetics supports their atheism without realising that the co-discoverer of the DNA Double Helix Genetic Code, Sir Francis Crick FRS, only guesses at its origin (see references box). He even uses the word that scientists are not supposed to use, miracle, to explain the origin of life: "The origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle ..." (see references box).

So Crick too has passed my Pascal Test. He does not know how it all began, and he said so. With Richard Dawkins and other apostles of Charles Darwin in mind, I had this to say in the British Medical Journal (BMJ): "These days, to listen to lesser brains waxing eloquent about the know-allness of Evolution, drives home my conviction that they are whistling in the dark to keep their scientific courage up."

Brilliant atheists and Darwinism

In this article I keep referring to "the serious reader". Readers are divided into two: (a) the serious reader and (b) all others. Serious readers are those (about half my age) who have been told what to believe, namely that they began as molecules which (over time) became humans, who then began to read this article. Well, take it from me that while adaptation occurs by natural selection, evolution never did occur, never does, and never will. Take that from one who sat at the feet of Professor J Z Young FRS.

Now, listen to this: Exactly 30 years after I lost my evolution faith on scientific grounds, a fellow of the Royal Society, Cambridge University's Professor Sir Fred Hoyle, a man with a giant mathematical brain, certainly far superior to Professor Richard Dawkins' brain, made the following statement in a well-publicised book, The Intelligent Universe: "How has the Darwinian Theory of Evolution by natural selection managed, for upwards of a century, to fasten itself like a superstition on so-called enlightened opinion? Why is the story still defended so vigorously?"

Remember, this question was not asked by an idiot, or an uninformed creationist, but by a thinker. The greatest headache for Darwinian evolutionists is not only caused by brilliant atheists who reject evolutionism as scientific nonsense, but also by postgraduates like myself who once believed in evolution on scientific grounds, but now reject it, also on scientific grounds.

Recently Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity (PSSI) co-sponsored an international symposium entitled "Biological Information--New Perspectives" that was attended by many PhD scientists to address the question: "What is biological information and where does it come from?"

The symposium was held at the Slater Hotel on the Cornell University Campus. The question that needs answering is this: "Can all the attendees who reject Darwinian Evolutionism be described as scientifically illiterate?" Having destroyed Darwinian Evolutionism by describing it as a superstition (which I agree it is), Professor Fred Hoyle FRS used some mathematical calculations to propose his own ideas. Sir Francis Crick, who also confessed an inability to describe the evolution of the genetic code (see references box), postulated the invasion of the world from outside the earth.

But what do I, a PSSI physician, put in its place? Answer: First, I identify completely with Nobel Laureate Sir Peter Medawar who showed that "ultimate questions are beyond the explanatory competence of science", and demonstrated "the existence of questions that science cannot answer and that no conceivable advance of science would empower it to answer".

So where do I turn for an answer to the origin of the universe and my place in it? Not to science, because it is incompetent (according to Nobel Laureate Medawar), nor to Darwinian evolution, because it is superstition, according to Prof Hoyle.

For the correct answer I must ask the correct question, a question that has never been asked by Richard Dawkins and his fellow apostles of Darwin. I am going to test the serious reader here right now:

Of the following two important questions relating to the universe and my place in it, which did I consider was the more important by far--(a) or (b)? Question 'a' is this: "How did it happen?" Question 'b' is "Who made it happen?''

The answer of course is "b", a question that atheistic scientists can never ask, because there is no "who" in their scientific vocabulary to originate the universe.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Furthermore, the most important thing about me is not my flesh and bones, but my soul, the personal entity that survives death. "Nonsense," says the scientist, "there is no scientific definition of the soul". I have published "The soul is supra-scientific" in the BMJ. There is no way science can explain these supra-scientific things. Atheists do not have a clue. Nobel Laureate Francis Crick may use the word "miracle" for life's origin, but I prefer the word "supra-scientific"--no scientific explanation possible, and there never will be!

Something supra-scientific happened in Bethany, a few miles from Jerusalem about 2020 years ago. Lazarus had been dead 4 days, and the body produced a huge stench all over the place. The Lord Jesus Christ gave the command "Lazarus, come forth!" and he who was dead came forth.

The organs of the body that had suffered colliquative necrosis and putrefaction suddenly came to life. I defy any scientist to explain how? Although we know that it takes months and months for severed nerves to heal, it took less than a split second for rotting Lazarus to emerge.

It is not lost on me that the same Divine Voice that had commanded "Let there be light" and brought the Universe into being supra-scientifically, was what brought dead Lazarus to life. Medawar is right. No branch of science can explain what happened at the beginning. When the command was uttered the Triune God did not have to wait, arms folded for aeons and aeons, to let light travel at 186,000 miles per second to arrive on the earth. No, the divine command was obeyed immediately, and supra-scientifically. (Triune refers to God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit--another supra-scientific concept.) Atheists will shout "What rubbish!" But the serious reader must choose between one authority, and another authority: Choose between believing scientists who say the world began by accident, in a Big Bang; choose between them and the Lord Jesus-Christ who said "Before Abraham was, I am" [John 8 verse 58]. Choose between the "God Delusion" atheist Richard Dawkins who says you live, work, procreate, and die, and that's it, kaput! And the one who says "For what shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" [Mark 8, verses 36 & 37].

Choose between the expert who says Jesus never existed, and the Person by whom all history is divided into two: "BC" Before Christ, and "AD" (In the year of Our Lord).

Note, not "BC" and "AC" [Before Christ and After Christ]; He is alive, having supra-scientifically arisen bodily from the dead. When atheists sign a cheque dating it I June 2011, they are proclaiming, albeit reluctantly, that 2011 years ago the Lord Jesus came into the world supra-scientifically.

I have researched and discovered that Jesus said no less than 41 times in the Gospel of John that He was "sent". Serious readers may wish to check this out for themselves, and find out why Jesus came. Mind bogglingly supra-scientific!

Scientists will refuse to ask question "b" because they say there is no scientific definition of the soul, and there is no God either. Serious readers should now be able to distinguish between "what to think" and "how to think" and come to their own conclusions. When I was in my "what to think" cerebral function default mode, I continued to believe in Darwinian Evolution as a Christian, but as soon as I began to think clearly in my "how to think" default mode, I lost my evolution faith.

Christianity not European culture

Many people, both in Europe and Africa, think Christianity is a European religion. Wrong! Jesus learnt to walk not in Europe, or the Middle East, but on African soil in Mizraim (Egypt), where his family fled when Herod wanted to kill him. The Ethiopian chancellor of the exchequer read Isaiah chapter 53 fluently before anyone in Britain knew how to read (Acts, chapter 16).

The Black man went on his way rejoicing when Philip told him why The Lord Jesus came into the world, explaining not only how a hypocrite like me can have my relationship with God restored but also how a wicked transatlantic slave merchant like John Newton could, on repentance, be forgiven through the merits of The Lord Jesus Christ, and be looked upon as if he had never sinned. Newton never got over this good news, and he wrote the hymn "Amazing grace ... that saved a wretch like me ...". This is how anyone who has been reconciled to God feels; grace being defined as "Favour shown to the thoroughly undeserving". Atheists do not have a clue what this means. But the serious reader of this article must not allow them to tell us there is no God, and that there is no such thing as the soul.

(Dr Wieland's book can be obtained from creation.com/store.)

References

(1.) Carl Wieland. One Human Family: The Bible, Science, Race and Culture. Published June 2011. Obtainable from Australia: atcreation.com/store.

(2.) Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a 2008 documentary film directed by Nathan Frankoski and hosted by Ben Stein.

(3.) Bryan Sykes. The Seven Daughters of Eve. Bantam Press. London 2001.

(4.) FID Konotey-Ahulu. The Supra-Scientific in Clinical Medicine: A Challenge for Professor Know-All. British Medical Journal, 22-29 Dec 2001, Vol. 323, pp. 1452-1453.

(5.) Francis Crick. Origin of the Genetic Code. Journal of Molecular Biology 1968, Vol 38, pp. 367-379.

(6.) Francis Crick. Life Itself: Its Nature and Origin. Simon and Schuster, New York, 1981, p. 88.

(7.) Fred Hoyle. The Intelligent Universe. Michael Joseph, London, p. 25, 1985.

(8.) Peter Medawar. The Limits of Science. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1985.

(9.) Edgar Andrews. Who Made God? Searching For A Theory of Everything. EP Books. 2009.

(10.) FID Konotey-Ahulu. The Soul is Suprascientific. British Medical Journal, Rapid Response 16 May 2008.

(11.) Werner Gitt. In the Beginning was Information: A Scientist Explains the Incredible Design in Nature. First Master Books Inc. 2005.

(12.) Jonathan Sarfati. The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution--A Response to the Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. Creation Book Publishers, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 2010.
COPYRIGHT 2011 IC Publications Ltd.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2011 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Africa/World
Author:Konotey-Ahulu, Felix I.D.
Publication:New African
Article Type:Critical essay
Geographic Code:8AUST
Date:Aug 1, 2011
Words:4159
Previous Article:Banking on a revolution: until this year, one could say that the African Development Bank's (AfDB) work in North Africa was rather conventional but...
Next Article:DSK saga: it's the IMF that should be on trial! Digging beyond the alleged sex assault ordeal of the former managing director of the IMF, Dominique...
Topics:

Terms of use | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters