THE ORIGINS OF LIFE BY THE MASONIC THEORY OF

As we stated at the beginning, the theory of evolution rests on the claim that living things were not created, but arose and developed due to chance and natural laws. In order to test this theory scientifically, it is necessary to look at every stage of this supposed process, and to examine whether or not such a process occurred in the past and whether such a process could have been possible.
The first step in this process is a hypothetical condition within which lifeless matter could engender a living organism.
Before looking at this condition, we must recall a law that has been recognized in biology since the time of Pasteur: "Life comes from life." That is, a living organism can be generated only from another living organism. For example, mammals are born from their mothers. In many other species of animals the young are born from eggs that had been laid by the mothers. Plants grow out of seeds. Single-cell organisms such as bacteria divide and multiply.
Nothing has ever been observed to the contrary. Throughout the history of the world no one has ever witnessed lifeless matter giving birth to a living being. Of course, there were those in Ancient Egypt, Greece and the Middle Ages who thought they had observed such an outcome; the Egyptians believed that frogs sprang from the mud of the Nile, a belief also sustained by Ancient Greek philosophers, such as Aristotle. In the Middle Ages it was believed that mice were begotten from the wheat of granaries. However, all these beliefs proved to be out of ignorance, and finally, in his famous experiments in the 1860's, Pasteur proved that even bacteria, the most basic form of life, did not come to be without a predecessor, that is, it is not possible for lifeless things to produce life.
But, the theory of evolution is dependent on this impossibility because it claims that living things were born and developed without the involvement of a creator, and this requires that, at the first stage of this proposed scenario, living things be generated by chance.
Darwin attempted to describe the origins of life, about which he knew little, in a short sentence, wherein he stated that life must have first appeared "some warm little pond,"111 but evolutionists that followed him became concerned about elaborating on this matter. However, efforts made throughout the twentieth century to produce an evolutionist explanation of the origins of life resulted only in deepening the impasse in which evolutionists had found themselves. Apart from the fact that evolutionists have not been able to give the slightest scientific proof that life can be generated from lifeless matter, they have also not been able to provide even a theoretical explanation. This is because the structure of the most basic single-celled living organism is highly complex. It is mathematically impossible that even a cell's basic constituents—proteins, DNA or RNA—could have come to be by chance, much less the cell itself.
The fact that the probability of life generating by chance is zero alone proves the existence of order, in other words the fact of creation. On this matter, the famous English astronomer and mathematician, Fred Hoyle, makes this comment:
Indeed, such a theory (that life was assembled by an intelligence) is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.112
This "psychological reason" that Hoyle mentions is the evolutionists' disposition by which they insist on rejecting, in advance, every result that should lead them to accept the existence of God and their conditioning themselves for this.
In our other works focusing on the invalidity of the theory of evolution, we cited many admissions of this fact by the evolutionists and we examined the irrational hypotheses that evolutionists have blindly proposed merely in order to not accept the existence of God. At this point though, we will focus our attention on the Masonic lodges to see their view on this matter. While it is so clearly evident that "life was brought into being by an intelligent Creator," what do the Masons think about the question?
Master Mason, Selami Isindag, in his book intended for Mason audience, entitled Evrim Yolu (The Way of Evolution), explains the matter in this way:
The most important characteristic of our school of morality is that we do not depart from the principles of logic and we do not enter the unknowns of theism, secret meanings or dogmas. On this basis we assert that the first appearance of life began in crystals under conditions that we cannot know or discover today. Living things were born according to the law of evolution and slowly spread over the earth. As a result of evolution, today's human beings came to be and advanced beyond other animals both in consciousness and intelligence.113
It is important to notice the connection between cause and effect suggested in the above quotation: Isindag stresses that the most important characteristic of Masonry is that it rejects theism, that is, belief in God. And immediately afterwards, he claims "on this basis" that life arose spontaneously from lifeless matter, and later underwent evolution that resulted in the appearance of human beings.
It will be noticed that Isindag brings no scientific evidence to bear on the theory of evolution. (The fact that there is no scientific evidence is presupposed by the obtuse words these are facts "that we cannot know or discover today"). The only support that Isindag supplies for the theory of evolution is the Masonic non-acceptance of theism.
In other words, Masons are evolutionists because they do not accept the existence of God. This is the only reason for their being evolutionists.
In the constitution of the "Great Council of Turkey" organized by Turkish Masons of the 33rd degree, the evolution scenario was once again restated, and the Masons' rejection of the creationist explanation expressed in these words:
In a very early age and according to an inorganic process, organic life came to be. In order to produce cellular organisms cells came together in groups. Later, intelligence sprang forth and human beings were born. But from where? We keep asking ourselves this question. Was it from God's breathing over formless mud? We reject the explanation of an abnormal kind of creation; a kind of creation that excludes man. Since life and its genealogy exist, we must follow the philogenetic line and feel, understand and acknowledge that a wheel exists that explains this great deed, that is the act of "leap." We must believe that there was a phase of development in which there was a great rush of activity that caused life to pass at a particular moment from that phase to another.114
It is possible here to recognize Masonic fanaticism. When the writer says that they "reject a kind of creation that excludes man," he is repeating the basic dogma of humanism, that "a human being is the highest creature that exists," and announcing that Masons reject any other explanation. When he says, "an abnormal kind of creation," he means God's intervention in the creation of living beings, rejecting this possibility a priori. (However, what is truly abnormal is that Masons accept, without observation or experiment, the illogical belief that lifeless matter came to life by chance and formed life on earth, including human beings.) It will be noticed that according to the Masonic explanation there is no suggestion of scientific proof. Masons do not say, "There is proof for evolution and therefore we reject creation." They are only blinded by a philosophical fanaticism.
Masonic publications insist on this tenet. Master Mason Selami Isindag claims that "apart from nature there is no force that guides us, and is responsible for our thoughts and actions." He immediately adds, "life began from one cell and reached its present stage as a result of various changes and evolutions."115 Later he summarizes what the theory of evolution means for Masons:
From the point of view of evolution, human beings are no different from animals. For the formation of man and his evolution there are no special forces other than those to which animals are subjected.116
This assertion shows clearly why Masons attach such importance to the theory of evolution. Their aim is to defend the idea that human beings were not created and to present their own humanist materialist philosophy as tenable. And, the only method that can be used to reject the idea that human beings were created is the theory of evolution. So, it is for this reason that Masons, to whatever extent, believe in the theory of evolution and seek to disseminate it throughout society.
This shows that Masons, who are constantly accusing those who believe in God of being dogmatic, are themselves dogmatic.



MORE.....

ERASMUS DARWIN

Those generally thought to be the founders of the theory of evolution are the French biologist Jean Lamarck and the English biologist Charles Darwin. According to the classic story, Lamarck first proposed the theory of evolution, but he made the mistake of basing it on the "inheritance of acquired traits." Later, Darwin proposed a second theory based on natural selection.

Though, here we must mention the name of another theoretician who played an important role in the origins of the theory of evolution: Erasmus Darwin, Charles Darwin's grandfather.
Erasmus Darwin was an eighteenth century contemporary of Lamarck. A physicist, psychologist and poet, he was recognized as an authority. His biographer, Desmond King-Hele even called him the greatest Englishman of the eighteenth century.99 But, Erasmus Darwin had a very dark private life.100
Erasmus Darwin is mainly noted as one of England's most prominent naturalists. As we said at the beginning, naturalism is a view that does not accept that God created living things. Actually, this view, which is close to materialism, was the starting point of Erasmus Darwin's theory of evolution.
In the 1780's and 90's, Erasmus Darwin developed the main outlines of theory of evolution, according to which all living things came from a single common ancestor by chance and according to the laws of nature. He did his research in an eight acre botanic garden he had prepared, and sought evidence that would prove his idea. He explained his theory in two books, entitled Temple of Nature and Zoonomia. Moreover, in 1784 he founded a society to manage the dissemination of his ideas, known as the Philosophical Society.
Years later, Charles Darwin would inherit his grandfather's ideas and the basic outlines for the proposal of his theory of evolution. Charles Darwin's theory elaborated upon the structure established by his grandfather, while the Philosophical Society became one of the greatest and most passionate supporters of his theory.101
In short, Erasmus Darwin was the true pioneer of the theory we know of as the theory of evolution that has been propagandized throughout the world over the past 150 years.
Where did Erasmus Darwin discover the idea of evolution? Where did his interest in this subject come from?
After a thorough search for the answer to this question, we discover the interesting fact that Erasmus Darwin was a Mason. Though, Erasmus Darwin was no ordinary Mason, he was one of the highest ranking masters in the organization.
He was the master of the famous Canongate lodge in Edinburgh, Scotland.102 Moreover, he had close ties with the Jacobin Masons who were the organizers of the revolution in France at the time, and with the Illuminati, whose prime cause was fostering hostility to religion.103 That is, Erasmus Darwin was an important name in European Masonic anti-religious organizations.
Erasmus educated his son Robert (Charles Darwin's father), who too had been and made a member of the Masonic lodge.104 For this reason, Charles Darwin received the inheritance of Masonic teachings from both his father and his grandfather.
Erasmus Darwin hoped to have his son Robert develop and publish his theory, but it would be his grandson Charles who would undertake the enterprise. Although it came some time later, Erasmus Darwin's Temple of Nature was finally revised by Charles Darwin. Darwin's views did not have the weight of a scientific theory; it was merely the expression of a naturalist doctrine that accepts that nature has creative power.


MORE.....