Site Section Links
KRONOS Vol III, No. 1
A Third Alternative
[The following letter, dated April 5, 1977, was sent to Professor Paul Kurtz, Editor of The Humanist, in response to an issue of The Humanist that championed uniformitarian evolution by natural selection as the only alternative to creationism. The quotation at the very end of the letter is from Professor Kurtz' own statement on behalf of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal; see The Humanist, May/June 1976, page 28. Otherwise, the letter is self-explanatory. As this issue of KRONOS goes to press, the letter has not yet been published by The Humanist, but it is expected to appear in a future issue.]
In your "Evolution vs. Creationism" issue (January/February 1977), you have once again tried to resolve a scientific controversy by means of authoritative pronouncements from members of the scientific establishment, rather than through evidence and argument.
Your signed "Statement Affirming Evolution" is frightening enough, with its claim that the uniformitarian principle of evolution by natural selection is "the only view that should be expounded in public school courses".
Even more appalling is Bette Chambers' boast that, of the hundreds approached, "No scientist objected to the factual content of the statement." That is a damning indictment, for your statement is clearly not factual. It is just not the case that there has been any "firmly established ... confirmation of the principle of natural selection" as "an essential part of the process of biological evolution", and it is just not the case that "there are no alternative theories ... that any competent biologist of today takes seriously".
There are increasing numbers of competent biologists and other scientists of today who are taking very seriously the alternative theory of cataclysmic evolution presented by Immanuel Velikovsky in 1955 in his Earth in Upheaval. Velikovsky shows that newer species have indeed descended from older species, but in discrete and sudden leaps rather than in continuous and slow transitions. The mechanism for the formation of new species is the massive mutation that results from global catastrophes when Earth has been in near-collisions with other bodies. These near-collisions and cataclysmic circumstances caused both the simultaneous extinction of numerous older species and the simultaneous proliferation of numerous new species. Velikovsky's theory also explains why the "missing links" are absent from the geological record: such intermediate or transitional forms never did exist at all, for evolution has proceeded by discrete jumps from one species to another, rather than by continuous gradation through intermediate stages.
The article by Cloud struggles ineptly with the same embarrassing facts that faced Darwinians a century ago, and emerges with the same untenable result: that uniformitarian evolution fails to fit the geological record only because that record is compressed and incomplete! All those "Missing links" must have lived, because the theory requires it! Wouldn't it be better to select a theory like Velikovsky's that does fit the facts, rather than to make up imaginary facts that are required by Darwin's theory?
The device of natural selection has long since been abandoned by competent evolutionists such as Kellogg, Osborn, Bateson, and More (see Earth in Upheaval, pages 250-252). For natural selection has been found inadequate either to generate the sudden, numerous, and simultaneous new species indicated by the geological record or to explain the sudden, numerous, and simultaneous extinctions of older species indicated by that same record; furthermore, there is no indication of any Spencerian "survival of the fittest" rule here: "Fit and unfit, and mostly fit, old and young, with sharp teeth, with strong muscles, with fleet legs, with plenty of food around, all perished"
(Earth in Upheaval, page 228).
The uniformitarian natural selectionists and the creationists are two of a kind. They both make the same mistake, that of assuming that if they disprove the theory of the other side they thereby prove their own theory. Actually, each side has disproved the other side's theory, and both sides are wrong. The creationists are wrong in that newer species did evolve from older species; but the uniformitarian natural selectionists are also wrong in that evolution was not by natural selection, but was cataclysmic.
When you and the creationists finally tire of tearing each other to pieces, you may eventually appreciate Velikovsky's theory of cataclysmic evolution. In the meantime, your own theory is already obsolete and untenable. For you to react to the difficulties you face by censoring the creationists and by denying the existence of the Velikovskians is hardly a scientific posture. It smacks more of "antiscientific and pseudoscientific irrationalism".