GOD AND MAN - OR MAN AND APE?
Victor T. WalkleyT0 accept Darwinisrn, as it is currently presented, means the acceptance of a mindless universe, and hence the inevitability of materialistic determination. This is of course unacceptable to Celtic-Culdee ideology, but the full presentation of 'evolution' (the emergence of humankind from an ape-like creature) is not a completed theory because of the need to observe politically correct disclosures. Truths that are deemed politically incorrect, or that might cause offence, are suppressed and stifled.
Study of Celtic-Druidic philosophy provides for the acceptance of the rise of a separate race (species) caused by the evolution of a sub-species from an apelike creature, but that does not by any means accept the notion that all of humankind evolved in that manner. There are those created by the great God in God's image, and those who are the descendants of ape-creatures. When brute murder, rape and mindless perversion has almost free reign in the land, is it politically correct to say that those corrupt degenerates are a regression back to some ape ancestor a thousand generations ago. Is the polarisation of society, and the emergence of two codes of justice to accommodate that policy, a regression to the society of apes?
Darwin relied mainly on the selection of small individual variations, and also gave place to spontaneous variations and the influence of the environment. Unfortunately the work of Gregor Johann Mendel (1822-1884) a rnonk, later abbot of Brunn (Moravia) is seldom reported. Mendel was the first to study hereditary features (later to be termed genes) and by experimental means established the presence of those important elements in every cell that determine the character of the mature body. It is a fundamental and inviolable quality of nature but ignored by Darwin.
Mendel's experimental work was concerned with heredity, and his experiments successfully demonstrated that two characteristic elements are present in every cell, a dominant and recessive character (now called genes). Both exist side by side and whatever is generated, neither is changed. The recessive element remains unaltered whatever the recombination of future generations. Thus inherited determinants create the character of a mature body but the character of the body has no effect on its heredity. Mendel's work was 'lost' for many years but was finally brought to light and in recent time has been considerably expanded. Indeed Mendel's work now forms the basis of heredity studies and this research gave impetus to the rapid growth of the science of physiology, biochemistry, medicine, and the interpretation of genetic structure. It is of primary importance in the field of evolutionary understanding. Darwin's work on the other hand remains a theory to this day, and supporting evidence is no more than theoretical conjecture.
Of Darwin's Origin of Species, published in 1859, it was society at large, and the academia, who suggested the work confirmed that evolution had replaced God and that the apes had somehow ousted both church and presbyter. However, closer study will reveal that Darwin merely proposes that there is a species of man derived from an ape ancestor. Unfortunately both church and lay persons were thrown into confusion. Because some few scientific men, of undoubted ability and opposed to the Biblical truths, supported the Darwinistic theory, the general impression was that all scientific men thought the same. The fact that Darwin supported the writing in the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament) was ignored. The Church remained dumbstruck and gave no lead, oblivious of its own birthright.
The Celtic-Culdee Church recognised the existence of a distinctly separate species of humankind, the 'strange people' and the Bible speaks of a race of 'strange people,' and 'giants' in anti-diluvian times (Genesis 6:4 and 6:2). Ezra (9.1) records that God's people 'have not separated themselves from the people of the lands', and of this separation of the people (Ezra 10: 11; 10: 1 7) 'separate yourselves from the people of the land and from strange wives', and so strict was this warning that 'they made an end of all the men that had taken strange wives.' Are these 'strange' people the ones the Darwinists speak of?
Variations do of course occur and these may be beneficial or harmful to a tribe. We must also remember that any theory of variation must not simply include differences but must include similarities. Differences in character can be accounted for by mutation (discontinuous variation or sudden inheritable divergence from ancestral type). Reversion also occurs when the offspring shows a character not of the immediate parent but of a remote ancestor. All depends on the recombination of factors already present in the parent. It must also be remembered that a mutant is or variant species may not be suitable to its environment or is detrimental to the tribe, and would thus not survive or would be rejected. It is not a question of 'survival of the fittest' but 'survival of the luckiest'.
Druidism readily accepted the early Christian doctrine simply because they were already acquainted with the truths spoken of by the early prophets and recorded in the Pentateuch. It was because of the similarity of Druidic doctrine and that of the Biblical teaching that the Culdees (the first universal Celtic Christian Church) consisted of a large number of followers who were themselves of Druidic persuasion. As stated in my book (Celtic Daily Life, Robinson Publishing London, 1997), the Culdees accepted the old Itala Bible as the revealed word of God. A theology to be believed and followed in every particular. Such was the similarity and structure of the law between Druidic teaching and the Revealed Word in Biblical text that there was no conflict between the two faiths. This proved equally true of the Celtic community in Britain.
Both Druid and Culdee were aware of the corruption of Cain and of the spiritual apostasy by the introduction of idolatry into Gaul by the false prophets and necromancers from the East and from the Mediterranean region. Interbreeding tainted the blood of successive generations after Cain, and certain angels were later led to commit sin by taking wives of the daughters of men. 'That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all they chose.... There were giants in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of man, and they bare children to them.' (Genesis, 6:2 and 4)
Enoch (Book VI) records identical information. These 'sons of God' were the fallen angels and are so mentioned in 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 -'angels which kept not their first estate.' This then is the origin of those man-ape creatures that the Darwinists proclaim.
In a letter to W Graham, written by Charles Darwin in 1881 Darwin observes: 'Nevertheless you have expressed my inward convictions, though more vividly than I could have done, that the universe is not the result of chance. But then with me the horrid doubt arises whether the conviction of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any such convictions in such a mind.' (The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin.. Vol. 1. Ed. Francis Darwin. New York, 1959).
Those amongst us who believe as creationists (i.e. that everything that exists has its origin in special acts of creation by the Great God) are perfectly justified to say that there is indeed a sub-species of man existing as a humanoid, as proposed by Darwin. This is borne out by the Revealed Word, and accounts for the fact that anthropoligists have been unable to make a final link between man and ape because that species arose only at a moment in time, when the fallen angels came in unto the daughters of man. Hence, before that time there could be no predecessor or ancestor.
Back To Archive Contents