Cheon Seong Gyeong – Sun Myung Moon
How far back does history go? Does it post-date or pre-date the theory of evolution? What is the theory of evolution? Sparrows and buntings are cousins. They are the same. Their bone structure as well as every other feature is exactly alike. What differs between the two is the color of their feathers; everything else, even their sexual organs and eyes is identical. Be that as it may, if they were told to do so, would the sparrow and the bunting be able to exchange their mates with one another, make love and reproduce? Would they be able to do so even if they tried for thousands of years or not? (232-126, 1992.7.3)
Sparrows and buntings are siblings. How about that? This statement is 100 percent correct when compared to monkeys and human beings. Then if a sparrow were to mate with a bunting, would they give birth to a new kind of bird? Scholars all over the world believe that because our outward appearances and structures are similar we must have evolved. They deny the logic that everything has developed through lovemaking between male and female and their resultant reproduction. How complicated do you all think the sexual organs are? With most fish, the females and males do not come into physical contact at all. It is different on land. (199-307, 1990.2.21)
How old is the planet earth in this solar system? It has been revolving for billions of years, and yet has it ever been off-course by the merest trifle? It is right on course day after day. In the same way, all creation follows its rhythm. Would the building of nests be the same for American sparrows and Korean sparrows, or would they be different? Answer me: same or different? They would be the same. In terms of evolutionary theory, the nest building of sparrows should develop with time, shouldn't it? If so, then how is it that they have been building their nests in the same way for thousands and tens of thousands of years? How do they know about building their nests? The swallows build their nests in their own way, as do the sparrows and the orioles. In the latter case, they build their nests on trees. (179-246, 1988.8.12)
If you were to bring together a male king orangutan and an ugly woman, marry them, and make them pray and offer devotions for thousands of years, would they ever have offspring? Would they be able to produce a baby? Give me an answer, you descendants of monkeys, communist gangsters! Do you think that offspring could be produced from the marriage of an orangutan and a woman, if the communist world were to pray and implement all kinds of force, or do you think that impossible? If you do not know, don't insist upon communism or evolutionary theory. You should all wise up to that. (262-80, 1994.7.23)
To go from the level of an amoeba to that of a monkey, gates of love for thousands of species need to be passed through upward. Evolutionary theory has ignored this fact. Would it be possible to move freely from one to the other without passing through different species? Can birds mate with insects? Can birds ascend within the animal kingdom without crossing boundaries? It makes no sense to claim such a thing just because the bone structure is the same, and omit the fact that they need to grow through the relationship of love, the gates of love. Would interspecific mating bring forth better offspring? It would only produce inferior breeds. The problem arising here is that these people do not know about the love relationship. (254-264, 1994.2.15)
The differentiation of species is very strict. There are thousands of species between amoebae and monkeys. Each of these species brings forth their young through the gates of the females and males, which means thousands of births. The thinking that one could go from one species to another disregarding the levels of thousands of species would suggest that it could all be done within one birth, a notion that is completely wrong because it denies the fact that the gates of love need to be passed through. How can an amoeba pass through the gates of love for thousands of species and become a human being? Would similar bone structures make all the other characteristics similar too? Similar bone structures can be found everywhere. Stop saying such crazy things. (266-39, 1994.12.4)
Considering the origin of species from the viewpoint of present-day evolutionary theory, we can definitely say that a species cannot come about just like that. There must be a male and female. This is true for the mineral world as well. For a substance to be formed, the positive ion must fuse with the negative ion. There must be positive and negative, male and female. (213-63, 1991.1.14)
Re-creation involves the creation of an environment with subject and object partners, followed by corresponding developments. This is how evolutionary theory should also develop; it cannot develop as it is. Subject and object partners must unite, be absorbed into something greater, and pass through the gates of love. According to this principle, to progress from the loveless amoeba to the human being thousands of levels need to be passed through, and these gates of love cannot be crossed just like that. (230-68, 1992.4.19)
Today's evolutionary theory states that amoeba developed and evolved into human beings. What should we think about this? In order for male and female to reach the level of humankind, they need to pass through the several thousand stages on the path of love. People are ignorant of this. The boundaries between different species are very strict. Would it be possible, then, to pass through them at a run and evolve like that? (209-29, 1990.11.25)
Is there anyone among you who would like to have some other man meddle with your wife? It is the same in the case of animals and plants. Is it common or absolute to answer no? When you say absolute, you are leaving no space for anything else. Different species are of completely different levels. The amoeba came into being through the gates of love of male and female; how then can it be connected to and give rise to another species? Can it ascend just like that? It must pass through the gates of love. Can it ignore that system and just evolve? You Western rascals look like monkeys -- and that is how they came up with evolutionary theory. That's right; the hair on your heads and bodies is brown like a monkey's! (216-247, 1991.4.7)
Love is absolute. It is just for the two beings and does not want the intervention of a third. From this viewpoint, the amoeba is connected to humankind through the process of love in several thousands of stages. Love is the source of continued existence. Would not everything fall to pieces if there were no love? The amoeba lives only one year, but its existence is continued in the form of its descendants through love. Would you like to have a third party intervene at the gates of love to produce a multi-colored amoeba? If a monkey and human mated, would they ever produce their young if they lived for a thousand years or not? Not even ten thousand years, let alone a thousand, will see them giving birth to offspring. So I say stop talking nonsense. (222-185, 1991.11.3)
The theory of evolution could not be justified even in the insect world, if you were to disregard the principle that the male-female relationship underwent a process of development to ever higher stages, that is, through the countless gates of love that exist between the amoeba and the monkey, and consequently caused these species to be totally disconnected. You can see how even the sparrow fits into this scale of reciprocal relationships. During times like winter, they do not care about mating, and so they fool around, each of them as a different plus; however, when spring comes they build their nests and form a close relationship, that is, they become absolute. Male and female unite to absolutely drive out any third sparrow that comes their way. When another female comes, the male drives her out, and when another male comes, the female drives him out. Why? They instinctively drive out any intruder which threatens to break their respective reciprocal realm within the universal principle. (218-338, 1991.8.22)
Flowering plants all belong to their respective species and do not change themselves into a different type. They cannot change. In view of this, the distinction between species is very strict. That is why the logic of the evolutionary theory, which states that the monkey evolved from the amoeba, cannot stand. With this strict distinction between all the species, how could thousands of them connect and develop in a single system supported by them all? The evolutionary theory does not recognize the power of love. Only through the power of love does reproduction become possible. Without it, nothing could ever reproduce. How can the power of love work between amoebae and monkeys? Such a thing can never happen -- not under any circumstances. (278-100, 1996.5.1)
If amoebae were to evolve into monkeys, could the former develop into the latter on its own? What would need to happen in order to pass through the many different species? Without rising to new levels of love, it would not be possible to go from one to the other. Another, greater species cannot come from something lesser. Only by passing through the countless stages of love of male and female could they reach the higher species. If, in the world of distinct species, the principled concept of plus and minus does not allow the invasion by a third party into the love relationship, then amoebae cannot climb to a higher level on their own. (237-135, 1992.11.13)
Evolution is about producing a different species, but without going through the relationship of love, there is no way another species can come into being. The distinction between species is very strict. (302-181, 1999.6.13)
Evolutionary theory must be demolished with a single blow. They are discussing it in terms of their own arbitrary theories. Calling humankind the offspring of monkeys! Those no-goods! People are meant to serve God for eternity. What on earth are they talking about monkeys for? There are forty-seven differences between monkeys and human beings. There cannot be changes in quality or species. For all that, if a monkey were to mate with a human being, would they give birth to a human or a monkey? Of course not! The origin of species is absolute. (299-90, 1999.2.5)
Why does the universe exist according to the pair system? Naturally so, say the evolutionary theorists, and that is all well and good. What is the more familiar truth that came before evolutionary theory? Men and women have genitals, the sexual organs. Have these organs evolved? If they had, then the way of lovemaking should have changed as well. People of this present age should have a more developed way of doing so than those of the past. Even in the insect kingdom, the lovemaking should be different today from what it was in the past. The birds, too, should mate in a different way. Discussions should be held based on such factors. Are the love organs, which are the origin of life, made to develop evolutionarily? They are crazy. (191-53, 1989.6.24)
The strictness of differentiation between created species in the realm of love cannot be violated by anything in the cosmos. With the coming of spring, pairs of male and female sparrows start building nests to lay their eggs. They do not allow any third party, whether bird or other animal to meddle in their affairs. Is there any man or woman here who would like to have his or her best friend present on the night of his or her wedding day? Evolutionary theory is not true. To a woman getting married, there is no one else closer to her in this world than her mother and so she may think, "I must have her with me whether I live or die! I want to be with her no matter what happens." Yet that just cannot be. Even such a woman would not ask her mother on her wedding night, "Mom, please stay with me tonight." Would there be a woman who does? The intervention of a third person is absolutely unnecessary. That is the traditional and original standard of love that should be observed by humankind. (228-154, 1992.3.27)
How complicated do you all think the sexual organs are? In terms of their structural development and shape, the sexual organs for sparrows, buntings and wagtails are identical. Well then, what would come from the mating of a sparrow and a wagtail? Is that even possible? The rascals, they are talking about things they have no knowledge of. If I were to argue with them, after exchanging a few words they would be struggling to give answers. Those scoundrels! Females and males! If we were to say that everything developed from the amoeba, how can we explain the existence of females and males, convex and concave? Why is it that all things are made in such a way that they can only reproduce by giving and receiving through these organs? Who determined that? Was it the evolutionists? They do not realize that formation of the origin of life, the internal energy, takes place through the unified foundation of male and female life forms, and is so great that it goes beyond the universal view. There are forty-seven differences between monkeys and human beings, or so I have heard. If the two were to mate, could they have offspring? When I posed this question to the communists in my schooldays, none of them could give me an answer! I could go on telling you hundreds of such stories, but there is not enough time. Such nonsense is unacceptable. (198-24, 1990.1.25)
Can evolution take place based on the isotope of the structural shape? No, it cannot. Why? In the case of the amoeba, it is impossible for it to be elevated to a higher level without passing through the path of love of male and female. The bunting and the sparrow are similar in appearance, but does that mean that one evolved from the other? Their feet and beaks are identical in shape. You cannot differentiate one from the other. Be that as it may, would anything come of the mating of a female bunting and a male sparrow? What would be produced from the marriage of a white man with a female orangutan? Would they bring forth their young or would they not? Answer me, evolutionists! You need to know that developments can only come about through the sexual organs. Ponder this when you get home tonight. Do you know how complicated the sexual organs are? Within them are concentrated all neural components necessary for all types of formations of that particular species. (199-253, 1990.2.20)
People today believe that humankind evolved and developed; however, taking the amoeba as an example, they did not begin to develop with just one, for only when a male and female animal interact can development take place. The evolutionary theory is a big problem. In order to advance from a lower class of existence to a higher one, it would be necessary to pass through all the different levels of love between male and female. In other words, one would have to pass through a great number of levels of love. You all know that a sparrow and a bunting are very similar. Their features are of slightly different hues, but other than that, their bone structure is identical. For all that, if you were to mate a sparrow with a bunting, would they reproduce? Evolutionists, give me an answer. Try mating them. They will never reproduce. Westerners have comparatively more hair, but then would the marriage of a Western man and a female gorilla produce a child? Never. (201-146, 1990.3.30)
The differentiation of species is strict; hence, we can realize that monkeys are not our ancestors as the evolutionists are claiming. One cannot develop from an amoeba into a human just like that; it would be necessary to pass through countless levels of love in innumerable stages. The law of love applies in the same way to the animal kingdom. The intervention of a third party is absolutely not permitted. However, the question remains whether one can evolve by stages. In the action of energy, the output is smaller than the input. So, if engaging in action results in a minus, how could something greater arise from it? Isn't that so? Nothing of its own ability can come together with a third entity that would allow it to develop. (212-308, 1991.1.8)
Would the amoeba like to have something else come along and involve itself in its procreative relationship? That is why one cannot deny the logic that no such connection can be made between species. Before speaking of the meaning of evolution, if the sexual organs of males and females were removed, evolutionary theory would crumble at the roots. As there were males and females before evolution occurred, the interaction of relational factors bringing about evolution could go on. (221-291, 1991.10.26)
Did the male and female organs evolve into the present state where they can harmonize with each other? This evolutionary theory is the problem. Does the connection of those organs create a path for an amoeba to come into a relationship with something on a higher level? Can it meet with anything and everything, not just horizontally but in every other way? Of course not. The world of males and females came into being based on the concept of love and is on a level completely unrelated to evolution. (222-39, 1991.10.27)
In the world of love, it is the law of nature never to permit the presence of a third party; one must be alone with one's partner. This is the case for sparrows and insects as well. Then, from the viewpoint based on evolutionary theory, how many ascending orders of love in thousands of stages are there between amoebae and human beings? Are there not thousands of species of insects? From plants to insects, there are thousands of species. Yet there are people who believe that these thousands of species and human beings evolved from amoebae through continuous development. Not at all! Several thousands of stages of love need to be passed through. The distinction of species is very strict. What, human beings evolved from amoebae? Those impostors! (227-296, 1992.2.14)
All beings were created in pairs. What would evolutionists say if you asked them, "Why did males come into being?" They will answer, "They came into being naturally," which shows they are out of their minds. Did they come into being naturally? All males and females came into existence in order to reproduce their own species, not others. Monkeys do not become human beings, and snakes do not turn into frogs. Is that right or wrong? Evolutionists are ignorant people, who do not know that males and females relate on a specific level of love for their species. You know about males and females. Did they come to be like that for no purpose? (209-193, 1990.11.29)
In an environment, there must be subject and object partners, and they must unite and form an interactive relationship as such. Simply put, subject and object partners must build a reciprocal relationship. Thus, one cannot live alone. One's mind and body are in a relationship of subject and object partners. If the subject does not recognize the object, no connection can be made. Even in the world of chemistry, if there is no affinity between two elements, then however much they are forced to fuse together in the laboratory, nothing will come of it. If they are compatible, they will fuse together instantaneously on contact. (291-112, 1998.3.5)
The differentiation between species is very strict. Suppose a bird that is similar in appearance to a frog goes to the world of frogs and suggests to one of them, "Will you mate with me?" Would that frog answer, "By all means!"? Wouldn't it run away or fight? Such a thing could not happen. Evolutionary theory denies the fact that it is impossible for a new species to be born without passing through the gates of love in going from the amoeba to the monkey. In other words, if what it insists is true, then the amoeba must have passed through several thousands of gates of love. Can it do that? They are completely out of their minds. That is why communism disintegrated before me. I am curious to know how they will answer the question: "What comes first, reason or being?" Does mind come first or matter? You learnt about evolutionary theory at school, didn't you? It is wrong. Evolutionary theory is wrong. Now I will start a revolution. (274-67, 1995.10.29)
Have we perceived that, in reproduction, there has been a process of development in the relational world of plus and minus, and that the concept of male and female was there before evolution was theoretically possible? Since, in terms of love, the distinction between species is strict, a third party cannot intervene. According to evolutionary theory, one must cross over the several thousand stages from the amoeba to the monkey; however, there is no way this can be done. Given that only after passing through thousands of gates of love can that seed of development be connected, is it possible for an amoeba to give rise to a monkey? That is absolutely impossible. (245-62, 1993.2.28)
If you acknowledge evolutionary theory, you are ignoring the fact that several thousand stages must be passed through between the amoeba and a human being. Even when you are in the same stage, you cannot just pass through. Each of these stages is connected through thousands of gates of love. Has the invasion of a third party ever been allowed in love? No, it has not. Have you ever met a bride who said, "Mother, please stay with me tonight!" on her wedding night? It is the same for the husband. Even a man who used to say, "I hate it when my father is not with me!" will not ask his father, "Father, please stay with me tonight!" on his wedding night. Love abhors the intervention of a third party. This is also true for the animal kingdom and the insect world. In view of this, there is no way that human beings or anything else but a monkey can be born from the species of monkeys. (239-231, 1992.11.25)
However much a professor researching chemistry in the laboratory commands, "Hey you, fuse this element with that one!" nothing will come of it. Elements do not fuse if their relational requirement is not satisfied. No reaction will take place because they only come together when one can be the subject of the other. Although this is a principle of existence, in order to explain the formation of the universe, people have irresponsibly come up with the theory of evolution, which is a load of rubbish. At this point, we need to acknowledge the fact that original universal power creates the energy of interaction of all existence. (117-74, 1982.2.1)
Monkeys and human beings are different at the roots. Do monkeys lead cultural lives? Ever since the onset of life, human beings have followed religion. Do monkeys try to unite the world through culture? Do they invade and occupy other nations as their own or build national boundaries to distinguish between their nation and others? Do they or not? They are different in kind from human beings. Do monkeys glorify God? All they like to do is eat and reproduce and that is it. Human beings and monkeys are completely different. The scholars and experts asserting evolutionary theory are deceiving others in unduly persisting that monkeys evolved into people. The Unification Church should clarify that their assertions are wrong and set things to right. (41-185, 1971.2.15)
Evolutionary theory is used to explain today's world, but in order for amoebae to reproduce species that are greater than themselves in their present state, an extra input of energy must be added. In short, additional energy is necessary. Can the amoeba induce additional energy, all by itself, in order to develop? Does it have such ability? For it to climb a little higher and become something bigger, it needs greater energy within itself. Then, since it does not have the ability to create additional energy by itself, from where would it procure this extra energy? Can such logic be established? Whether it is Mr. Kim or Mr. Park, if a man claims, "I can knock down Muhammad Ali in a heartbeat," would he really be able to do so? In order for him to do so, he would need to acquire a greater capability compared with the inherent force he currently possesses, as there would be limits as to what he could do as he is. If Mr. Park were to claim, "When I grow stronger through mutation I will knock Ali down," do you think that is likely to ever happen? Do you? (89-73, 1976.7.11)
Taking into consideration the principle of the dissipation of energy, can input be equal to output for human beings? Energy enters the body to carry out actions; can that energy be equal to that left after the action has been carried out? Is it consumed in the process of action? Does motion consume energy? Thus, output cannot be equal to input, but is always less than before. Evolutionists imply that energy increases with action. Such a formula does not exist. If it were true, this world would be turned upside down. Hence, an external source of additional energy would be necessary. (55-254, 1972.5.9)
Evolutionists say that the amoeba evolved gradually into a higher animal, the monkey, and that the monkey evolved into the human being. Think about it. In order for a human being to exert superhuman force, he needs to have the extra energy supplemented from somewhere else. Such is the principle of energy. Energy is inevitably consumed with action. Only when extra energy is added can action be carried out anew. (38-155, 1971.1.3)
In principle, a subject and object will not interact if by doing so they will be worse off compared with before; they will only interact after they have discovered a mutual purpose that will leave them better off after the action. Considering evolutionary theory with this in mind, we can perceive that if a purpose cannot be found for the betterment of a being through evolution, development would not take place. In order for development to occur, a greater level of energy must be invested through the horizontal relationship. Otherwise, there can be no development. That energy will be of no use without a purpose and object of action. (54-11, 1972.3.9)
What is contradictory in evolutionary theory? In order for the amoeba to evolve and develop, it requires energy. It needs an external source of energy in order to grow gradually. For it to be able to say, "I will be born as a being of the stage above, as a higher being!" then something extraneous must be added there. Without additional energy input, it cannot grow. It needs energy from outside itself. The question is, can the amoeba grow and continue to live, and, at the same time, generate enough energy for itself to become a greater being? Such a thing can never happen. (265-58, 1994.11.20)
How do developments take place in evolutionary theory? This theory is completely opposite to the principle of input and output. How can there be such a theory in the world? Is evolutionary theory not all about developing to a higher level? Does evolution mean becoming a lower form of life? According to the theory, the amoeba came into existence naturally and gradually grew larger and evolved into a monkey, which in turn evolved and developed into a human being. In this process, as described by evolutionary theory, does it grow bigger or smaller? On the other hand, the principle of energy absolutely dictates that something bigger cannot be produced from a process where input and output are equal; rather, whatever energy was originally applied would naturally become less than before as it was consumed. (37-16, 1970.12.22)
In thermodynamics, if a process occurs based on the input and output of energy, a loss must be incurred, that is, the energy level will decrease. So what I want to know is: from where does the logic arise that it will increase? The term "evolution" suggests that with the passage of time some elements are added to a being, and with that addition it becomes greater; the question is, from where did those additional elements come? Where can you find the logic that justifies output as being greater than input? Action entails a loss, and so input must exceed output. From this perspective, the logic of evolution cannot be established. Created beings cannot take in another source of energy in this process. In the world of motion output that is greater than input can never be produced, for if it were possible, it would give rise to unlimited power.
What is the next problem? People today who believe in the theory of evolution have forgotten that everything came into being through the intercourse and interaction of plus and minus, man and woman, stamen and pistil, and positive and negative ions. There are gates of love in thousands of stages to be passed through in going from the level of an amoeba to that of a human being. However, these people think that it took nothing to go from one to the other. Nonsensical rascals! The principles relating to all species are strict: no beings permit third-party intervention. (214-193, 1991.2.2)
If the theory of evolution is to be upheld, all beings should be able to supply themselves with the energy necessary to evolve, for without extra energy, they would not have enough power within themselves to cause their nuclei to change and combine to form new features within themselves, hence the conclusion that evolution is impossible. (117-72, 1982.2.1)
A subject and its object always have a common purpose and direction, yet what purpose and direction can there be in evolution? This principle cannot be applied to evolutionary theory. Thus, we should demolish communism through understanding this purpose and direction. Communism has tried to ravage the world with this sham theory. When the amoeba engages in action, the energy it produces will be less than the input, so how can it become something greater? How can some higher-level being come out of it? In the amoeba, the output is less than the input, and so in order for it to create something greater, a source of energy from outside would be necessary. Otherwise, the basis for evolutionary theory will collapse. Does the amoeba have the ability to take in energy from an outside source which would lead to qualitative changes? Those ridiculous good-for-nothings! (210-155, 1990.12.18)
Speaking of the theory of evolution, do you think it is possible for an evolving amoeba on its own to create a new resource which would be the starting point of evolution? Action and motion take place around three points, plus, minus and a new source of energy, then another point, the fourth base, the evolved being, needs to emerge to complete the circle. The one in action must go from the third point to the fourth, that is, it must interact and move in a circle. Yet can the amoeba have enough energy to go around 360 degrees and return to its original position on a new level? It cannot.
Then who has invested the energy for this third point? Logically speaking, this means that energy from another source must be added there. So, what direction should evolution take? Who determines this direction? The evolving amoeba cannot set a direction for itself. In view of this, that which has been termed as mutation is the raving of lunatics. Who would listen to it? Nowadays, the theory of evolution is an obsolete phrase, rotten to the core and lying in the dustbin where it belongs. I should say: it is the thinking of the cesspit. (209-187, 1990.11.29)
Today's physics has advanced to a point where it is asserting dualism, that all atoms have awareness. This logic is similar in essence to the Unification Church's principle of dual characteristics. Albeit on different levels, all creation has comprehension. Is that not true? Only on this basis can such things like germs go on existing. Do you think so? Would those germs, invisible to the naked eye and several thousandths of a millimeter in size, have ears? Would they have eyes? Would they have noses? How about mouths? Would they have sexual organs or would they not? They have all of those features. (209-187, 1990.11.29)
In creating this world, God began with three points. From this perspective, we cannot accept the theory of evolution or the term "evolution." If the amoeba were to engage in action, it could not choose the third point base by itself, as that is created by another source of energy. If it were to initiate motion in such a state, this motion would have to become circular, which means the number of points would need to be increased for it to become spherical motion. (212-277, 1991.1.8)
Evolutionists! Those ideas should be extirpated. Is there anyone here who believes in evolutionary theory? Learned people like professors are more than willing to believe in it. Why is this so? However much force is applied, two objects that do not complement each other cannot interact or become one; not even God Himself can bring them together! Why? Such is the law of the universe! Why? Being created based on the ideal of love with everything given its complementarities, the universe operates on a pair system.
Did human beings evolve from amoebae? There can be no harmony on a straight line. It would take a long time to explain this logically. How can three points be made lineally? How can the third and fourth points be made to create a diamond shape which allows this harmony to come about? Where does a circle come from? It cannot arise from a straight line. Does the amoeba have energy within itself to choose and form the third point? It does not. The amoeba can only relate on the plus-minus level between two points on a straight line. (211-254, 1990.12.30)
From the position of an amoeba, several thousand steps extend upward according to the laws of love; how then can the amoeba pass through all the gates of love to the level of love of man and woman? It cannot. The problem in evolutionary theory is the question of where energy is derived extraneously. Extending the range of species is made possible only after crossing over the hills of love, so did it pass through the gates or go over them and become a monkey? The next question is this: there are males and females for everything and even in the case of minerals and chemical elements there exist plus and minus; so was evolutionary theory there before the relational concept of plus and minus? The answer is: no, it came after the concept. Then the subject-object relationship in this universe must be acknowledged. Nothing can exceed its limits. (263-273, 1994.10.15)
Harmony cannot be created on a straight line. A straight line is formed by connecting two points. For creation to take place there must be three or four points forming the dimensions of space. Who created this third point? Can the straight line create it? Give me an answer: who set the third point above and the third point below? This is how all developments in the creation of the universe can be brought about. What this means is that any action requires subject and object partners, which is why nothing can happen without them.
What is the next question in line? In thermodynamics, input always exceeds output. Then where is the logic that when an amoeba engages in development, its output is greater? It should not increase, but decrease. In this regard, evolutionary theory should be revised. (215-232, 1991.2.18)
There is no harmony between two points on a straight line. Only with the appearance of a third point can the basis of harmony for the spherical world be established. The ability to create a third point is absent in evolutionary theory. As such, you need to understand that there are laws that do not allow us to disregard creation. Such things cannot be found on the points of a straight line. (227-267, 1992.2.14)
In view of the creation of the universe, when we consider how the base of the third point, creative energy, could be established on the original linear form of existence, we realize it is impossible to conclude that the universe began as described by the theory of evolution. The creation of the universe in fact began from this third point. The existence of these three points indicates that there is a nucleus, the third point, connecting to all existing beings as objects. (227-30, 1992.2.10)
Evolution is an outdated, obsolete theory. It has no ultimate direction. From the perspective based on there being direction and purpose, it would signify that the path bringing mutual benefit to both realms of plus and minus has been determined. That is the central path, and at the same time, the path of righteousness. In short, that is the path preferred by both realms.
Evolutionists have failed to find a solution to the argument based on the relationship of input and output. They have also been unable to suggest a direction concerning evolution. On pondering whether the amoeba has within itself the power to invoke a source of energy in order to develop into a being greater than itself, the answer is that it does not. Do not waste time talking about it. The direction for such creative development is the direction of love. (207-256, 1990.11.11)
In drawing some conclusions about the theory of evolution, we can ask the question: in order to evolve, does the amoeba create an internal source of energy through which it can develop or have the energy supplied to it? For it to evolve and develop from the present state, a source of energy must be added to the amoeba, but does it create this energy to develop or does it receive this energy from somewhere else? It is undeniable logic that if it cannot create that energy, it would need to be supplied with it.
Is it indisputable that one being evolved from another just because the two have the same bone structures? Those who claim this are totally crazy. They are lunatics. You need to understand that there are different classes of several thousands of species between the amoeba and the monkey. In short, there is distinction between species. What this means is that all species are differentiated and continue to exist through the gates of love of male and female. Then can it be claimed that just because the bone structure of one resembles that of another, one evolved from the other, disregarding the fact that the gates of love for thousands of species need to be passed through in order for them to be connected? Have they passed through those thousands of levels of love in order to achieve development? (263-273, 1994.10.15)
When you are born, do you have your eyes closed or open? Then did you decide when you would open your eyes or did you do so naturally? Were you taught to suckle the breasts of your mother for milk or not? If not, how did you come to do so? There is an invisible magnetic bond there, that is to say, there is a principled path for everything that engages in action. In view of this, we need to understand that all actions do not take place by mere chance.
Evolutionists today say, "The universe developed on its own. It came into being naturally." The question is: how could it come into being naturally? How could it just develop from nothing? Can it come into existence without a cause, motive, process or result? Motive and cause come first, and then direction. Then why does direction come in here? Does a baby go a certain way with the consciousness, "I should go this way"? Why do the eyes open? As soon as your eyes are opened, do you look inwards or outwards? Why should you look that way? Where does such direction come from? How does it come about? From this, we can perceive that beings exist to follow a certain purpose. (94-10, 1977.6.19)
We cannot even answer all the questions about our eyes. These questions cannot be solved through dialectics and current evolutionary theory. From now, you will need to grapple with communism, and demolish evolutionary theory and dialectics. If you crush the former, the latter will collapse automatically. What is the current argument? It is the question of what comes first: mind or matter? The communist world claims, "Matter is superior, and so it comes first," and the democratic world says, "Mind comes first."
With regard to how the eyes came to be, those who think, "They came about just because they wanted to" are completely mad. Why are the eyes able to move while the nose cannot? When the question is asked, "Why do the eyes move?" the dialectical evolutionary answer would be, "Because they want to." The purpose of the eyes is to see, and because such is their purpose, they need to move. In short, they move to fulfill their purpose. The nose remains still even when dust falls on it, whereas the eyes blink repeatedly. Why do they do so? It is to moisten the eyeballs because their moisture evaporates and leaves them dry. Why are there eyelashes? They exist so as to block dust from entering the eyes. To the question, "Why is it like that?" the evolutionary dialectical answer would be because it wanted to be that way. It is not as simple as that. If the eye sees anyone who says he came to be like he is because he wanted to, it would tell him, "You mad scoundrel, stop talking nonsense!" (93-176, 1977.5.29)
We need to resolve the issue of evolutionary theory. It is a problem because the concepts of evolution and realism have been used as tools by communism. What is invisible is truly precious. Can you see God, conscience or love? These three invisible and invaluable things are most precious for human beings. Everyone knows they have a conscience, right? Is there anyone who does not have one? Is there anyone who does not have love? However, both of these are invisible to the eye. What happens as a result of being invisible? They can enter anywhere and become one with anything. Could they enter so easily if they were visible? Since they cannot be seen, they can even enter human cells. There is no place they cannot pass through. Such logic will stand. No one can control love. True love cannot be controlled or obstructed even by the universe. (239-68, 1992.11.23)
Would evolution come first or the existence of male and female? Which would precede the other? Does actual existence come first or is it the concept of love that comes first? This is a serious matter. In order to demolish communism, we need to have a clear understanding of the logic that can subjugate evolutionary theory. Would the amoeba have existed before or after the world of experiential relationships? How did I say the connection linking the different stages between the amoeba and human beings was made? Where on earth can you find such a foolish logic which claims amoebae changed into human beings through evolution, and completely disregards the concept that beings developed through love? (235-23, 1992.8.24)
The realm of Christian culture, which has been part of history since medieval times, was thrown into greatest confusion by humanistic doctrines. Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, with humanism as its basis, played a major role in destroying Christianity, tying and hanging it by the neck. This theory claimed there was no God. Within the world of creation, male and female in the pair system become subject and object partners. The concept of male and female, in terms of human beings, is man and woman; what then would come first, the existence of male and female or the concept of evolution? Subject and object partners can be found in every environment, but not an evolutionary process. In any environment, there must be subject and object partners. Even in the mineral world, the electron revolves around the proton as the center. In molecules, the positive and negative ions are engaged in interaction. Would they all have preceded the concept of evolution or come after it? They would have preceded it. They would be there before it. (245-49, 1993.2.28)
What would come first, the concept of evolution or the existence of male and female in the universe? Does the subject and object partnership come first? In the mineral world, too, there are positive and negative ions, which are in a pair system of subject and object partners. The plant world is like that, too. Stamen and pistil are in a reciprocal subject-object partner relationship. How about the animal kingdom? It is made up of males and females. This is the unchanging natural law of the universe. There never was -- and never will be -- anyone on earth who can shift any male or female from one species to another with human self-willed force. If there were such a person, the consequences would be disastrous.
I say: stop justifying evolutionary theory. You should know that the yin-yang concept long pre-dated it. It was a secret, hidden from us as one of the mysteries of the universe, but we should no longer be ignorant of the fact that this universe was formed by the yin-yang concept and the subject-object relationship. Then which would precede the other: evolutionary theory or the yin-yang concept? It is the latter. Did Jesus come on earth to revolutionize the yin-yang concept? Yes or no? (272-255, 1995.10.6)
How does evolutionary theory say evolution took place? Claims that everything evolved from the amoeba are a load of nonsense. Can developments take place of their own accord? They take place by the investment of an extraneous source of energy coupled with an ideal relationship between two parties. Only give and take between two parties in a reciprocal relationship can give rise to developments of a higher level. (86-114, 1976.3.14)
According to evolutionary theory, amoebae developed into people. How complicated is development? Development is not about a being of a particular class adapting to its environment as it is. In order for a being to upgrade itself to a higher category, it needs to pass through the love process of plus and minus, that is, male and female. However, this reality is completely disregarded in evolutionary theory. Can a being first be a male, then develop into another male, and then develop into a female, and then another female, and so on? We develop and become higher-level beings only by passing through the gates of love, but evolutionists are oblivious to this fact. In order to evolve, one must pass through the gates of love. (208-235, 1990.11.20)
The claim that man and woman came about through evolution is problematic. Did love exist before evolution or did it come about afterwards? Which is it: before or after? It was before. Nowadays it is said that even germs exist as couples. Not amoeba, but germs. Even in the world of germs, which can only be perceived when magnified hundreds of thousands or even millions of times, we can find conjugality. Would they have pre-existed amoebae? How about that? Isn't it interesting? The fact that everything exists in pairs shows that they were created based on love. In light of this, the sensibility of love can be said to have pre-existed evolution. Then how could the different classes in the billions of stages of male-female interaction be traversed in the evolution from amoeba to human? This is illogical in itself. Such logic is obsolete. Evolutionary theory is causing a serious problem. It has served as the basis of development for communism, which has denied God and His existence throughout its history. (223-355, 1991.11.20)
Where is the universe heading? Without recognizing this direction, we cannot have a purpose in view. Communists speak of evolutionary theory and so cannot understand the true purpose of the universe. Nevertheless, all beings are created as subject and object partners, and interact in love. What connects them is the path of love. Everything is seeking the way of love. (260-12, 1994.4.11)
Today's evolutionary theory should recognize that advancement is based on the principle of subject-object relationships. The minds of these two beings should be in accord and be stimulated through a greater mutual purpose. Only when they are spurred on to pursue the fulfillment of that purpose together can they rise to a higher place. Thus, there must be subject and object partners. The stimulation arising between the two is called love. (265-190, 1994.11.21)
Can the logic of love be found in evolutionary theory? I am talking about the theoretical basis of how concave and convex came into being. Then which came first: the theory of evolution or the yang-yin concept? Which is it? The latter came first. Then which preceded the other: male and female, or love? Which is it? Male and female came into being because of love. (274-93, 1995.10.29)
From where did the universe originate? It was not through evolution. We need to understand that male and female existed before the concept of creation or evolution. Why did male and female come into being? It was for the sake of love. Love is the formula for all existence. (280-60, 1996.11.1)
All beings were created in pairs. What would evolutionists say if you asked them, "Why did males come into being?" They will answer, "They came into being naturally," which shows they are out of their minds. Did they come into being naturally? All males and females came into existence in order to reproduce their own species, not others. Monkeys do not become people, and snakes don't turn into frogs. Is that right or wrong? Evolutionists are ignorant people, who do not know that males and females relate on a specific level of love for their species. (209-193, 1990.11.29)
The universe protects the integrity of the reciprocal realm of subject and object partners. How would evolutionary theory look in light of this principle? One cannot go from the amoeba to higher forms of life just like that; plus and minus must become as one. When they unite, they become either a greater plus or greater minus. In this way, some beings are above and others below. In front of the standard of the one overall Subject Being, if a being is the object partner of the plus that corresponds to the Great Subject's positivity, it would attach itself to that plus, whereas if it were the object figure of the minus in relation to that Great Subject, it would attach itself to the minus. This is how they would form a greater plus or a greater minus, and thus develop towards a greater world. (218-266, 1991.8.19)
How can we refute evolutionary theory? It is a serious issue in the academic world. Did the male and female monkey come into being through evolution? How about that? Were male and female created through evolution? Everything down to the smallest insect in the insect kingdom exists as male and female, as stamen and pistil in the plant world and as positive and negative ions in the mineral world. Did this arise from evolution? Try asking an evolutionist the origin of male and female. What would be his answer? He could not deny that they came into existence in order to love one another and reproduce. (221-145, 1991.10.23)
Where did evolution first begin? This is the question. Young intellectuals today are caught in a trap by this question, and so are bound for hell. It is claimed that evolution began from the amoeba. Everything has been clarified by me with regard to the debate between the opposing arguments of evolution and divine creation. Evolutionary theory was fabricated by atheistic communism in a state of denial toward God. It is a monster that has wrought destruction in the scientific world and should be totally discredited. We can now perceive through the microscope a whole world of germs millions of times smaller than the amoeba. If evolution had begun from the amoeba, would the male and female germs have existed before the amoeba or after? (222-78, 1991.10.28)
We should be aware of one important question. Weren't male and female in existence based on love before evolution? Evolutionary theory is the problem. Did male and female come into being through evolution or did they pre-date it? Substantial beings came to exist based on and because of love. Man and woman -- male and female -- unite together for the sake of love. Such a thing as evolution could never have taken place. Substantial beings were created from the concept of love well before evolution, and therefore the word evolution is inappropriate for man and woman, male and female. They were born for love. (223-246, 1991.11.10)
At the very beginning of creation, there was the concept of love, male and female, long before claims of evolutionary theory. Man and woman get married for love, and once they are married, they are to attain oneness. For what purpose should they unite? It is solely to fulfill the purpose of love and has nothing to do with evolutionary theory.
It is one thing to understand the male-female union as the formula of creation, but quite another for a male to think about evolving into a female, and vice versa. Such a thing cannot come about naturally. Although this is, in itself, impossible, when all is said and done, it cannot be denied that male and female can unite and that the motive behind this concept is love. In that light, evolutionary theory can never be established. So, for what reason did male and female come to exist? It was for the sake of love. (224-126, 1991.11.24)
The concept of evolution could not be found in the universe. The concept of augmentation first began based on love. It is God's ideal of creation to bring about and organize advancements based on the concept of love. Taking into consideration the concept of love that pre-dates evolution, how can the existence of male and female as connected to the concept of love come to be understandable through evolutionary theory? The emotion of love was there before evolution, and its source has nothing to do with oneself. It was there even before man and woman came into existence. Thus, concept comes first. What is the principal palace of love? Can you work it out? (224-143, 1991.11.24)
Now that the topic of evolution has come to the forefront, let's say something about it. In the mineral world, we find the reality of plus and minus. In the animal kingdom there is male and female, and in the plant kingdom, stamen and pistil. Everything exists as masculine and feminine. In the human world it is represented by man and woman. Would they have come into being without reason? For what did they come into existence? Everything is in the relationship of subject and object partners, to give and receive, and interact, centering on love at its own level. (240-290, 1992.12.13)
You have no idea how much evolutionary theory contributed to destroying Christianity. Now, however, the era has arrived in which I can shatter evolutionary theory with my bare hands. Will you continue to believe in evolutionary theory or not? Will you believe in what I say or in evolutionary theory? Now the time has come to put everything in order. Evolutionary theory is one big lie. If the power of love has extended over hundreds of thousands of generations, how could the amoeba pass through the several thousands of gates of love just like that and become a human being? Can the amoeba have within itself such ability or capacity to soar high into heaven? (240-297, 1992.12.13)
With regard to the mainstream ideologies of the world today, conceptualism and realism have become the two mainstreams of the philosophical world, giving rise to the conflict between theism and materialism, right and left wings, which has inflicted great damage on the world. Left-wing ideology, in particular, has attained worldwide supremacy through evolutionary theory. What comes first: the existence of man and woman or the existence of love? Before there was man and woman, there existed the concept of love. Since love pre-existed them, man and woman were created to be prepared for it, that is, to be in accord with the concept of love. Hence, conceptualism and realism are not separate. What communism did not know was that conceptualism and realism can be unified through love in such a manner. (228-162, 1992.3.27)
Until now, the question of what came first between evolution and God's creation has been a topic of endless discussion among the world's scholars. Was the concept of evolution there before the concept of love? Which came first? Certainly not evolution, for it came into being after the concept of love had long been in existence. The universe of the pair system was created first, and then the structural similarities between different beings gave rise to evolutionary theory. You need to realize that evolutionary theory did not emerge because the universe was created according to its teachings.
All kinds of birds are similarly structured. Nevertheless, distinction of the species is quite another matter. Can a sparrow and a bunting mate and reproduce? That can never happen. From the amoeba to a human being, there exist divisions of the species in several thousands of stages; so could they just be disregarded and an amoeba transform into a human being all at once? Not on your life. The differentiation of species is absolute. (228-61, 1992.3.3)
The question is where to find an ideological concept that will convince even the communists to turn around and recognize the existence of the living God. How can we set the standard to absolutely deny materialism and evolutionary theory, to unite our minds and bodies, and to become the ideal starting point of a unified world? This has been the problem throughout world history.
The communist bloc propounded evolutionary theory, whereas the religious realm insisted on there being a creator; hence they fought with one another. What has been advocated by worldwide blocs all ended in failure. Therefore, these worldwide bases should not be the starting point. It should be on the individual level. Since an individual erred and brought about such a result, a choice between spiritualism and materialism should be made by the individual.
The world will become unstable without eliminating evolutionary theory and establishing the nucleus of absolute values based on a theory of creation, centered on the absolute God. (270-96, 1995.5.7)
The ideological world has been plunged into contradiction and chaos by current evolutionary theory, dialectical materialism, epistemology, spiritualism and so on. Only when the absolute truth is established can the formation of a world of absolute values become possible. The existence of absolute values is eternal, unchanging and unique. Then, when we consider what the eternal, unchanging and unique principle in the universe is, we reach the conclusion that it is the love relationship between subject and object partners, cause and effect. (89-226, 1976.11.27)
The big question these days is: which is true -- evolutionary theory or that the harmonious universe was created? Who determines the direction of evolution? Can it do so by itself? Can a developing being make the decision on its own? Another question is how that being can cultivate, give out and increase the energy to form a relationship with a higher realm.
Such things become possible only through God. This question cannot be explained by science. Hence, similar to human beings, matter also cherishes the desire for union with God. Such is its purpose. It is the same for everything. In this manner, humankind is the main representative of all existence in the substantial world. (111-127, 1981.2.8)
Where is the source of our thoughts? Some people say it is inside our heads, whilst others say it is inside our hearts. If someone claims that we exist because we are thinking, then where are we: in our hearts or in our heads? Then there are further questions. If we exist as resultant beings then the question we should be asking is how we came into existence, that is, what is our origin? This is the question: from where did we begin life?
In general, people believe human beings evolved from the animal world, but this is a makeshift theory fabricated from a need fro an explanation. In order to form a logical connection, the theory was invented as an expedience; there is no way of knowing if evolution really took place. Did the basis of our mind begin from the amoeba? What I am asking is: is the amoeba our mental ancestor? Evolutionary theory claims that everything began and developed from the amoeba. (117-68, 1982.2.1)
What is the current philosophical ideology concerning human existence? We need to research on a fundamental level in order to answer that question. Although we have pursued this theoretically, asking, "How did we come to be like this?" we have yet to reach a conclusion to the questions, "What is a human? What is a true human?" All scholars and renowned philosophers have pondered the question of human existence, but they have yet to reach a conclusion. "What is a human being? What is the origin of humankind?" This question still remains unanswered in both evolutionary theory and creation theory. It has not been brought to a satisfactory and settled conclusion. (170-144, 1987.11.15)
Looking at scripture, even Confucius' teachings are rather vague, as he did not know about the personal God, Heavenly Father. There must be a Father from whom we originated, yet Confucius did not know about Him. Buddhism comments on the principle that everything in the universe returns to its origin, but does not know the personal God. One false move and they will be supporting materialism and evolutionary theory. Since they stand at the formative stage of religion that is not dissimilar to the viewpoint of evolutionary theory, they could very easily fall into materialistic thinking. (198-257, 1990.2.4)
After the French Revolution and the process of development from humanism through the ideas of the enlightenment to communism, the latter united with Charles Darwin's theory of evolution to drive Christianity into the pit of destruction. (213-65, 1991.1.14)
Scientists today say that this universe is made up of energy, but what they do not realize is that before energy can exist, there must first be action. Confusion arises from not knowing the fact that due to there being action, there must also be subject and object partners. In forming a judgment about creation according to the concept of subject and object partners, then evolutionary theory breaks down at the fundamental level. (131-212, 1984.5.4)
I have heard that many major universities in the United States do not offer lectures on topics such as the theory of evolution. That is only proper. This theory claims, "Everything came to exist naturally!" Yet, if everyone believed that they came into being naturally, how nonsensical that would be! If you were to ask, "Came to exist naturally? Is there a subject-like nature in nature?" they will reply, "We don't really know that." What absurd talk is that? How did subject-like nature come about? They will answer, "It happened just like that, as a physiological action, a developmental phenomenon." If you went on to ask, "Is that so? How did that arise?" then the answer they will give is, "No one knows. That's just how it came to be." There cannot be any logic in such arguments. There cannot be a result without a cause. There cannot be scientific logic that denies the law of cause and effect. (159-267, 1968.5.19)
Now evolutionary theory has become a historic relic of the past. The theory claimed that evolution brought about progression. If so, why can't evolution take place in reverse? Could it not occur in the reverse order, or in any direction, whether east or west? Who decided the direction in which to evolve? Can the evolving beings designate the direction themselves? To develop from amoeba to human, numerous stages on successively higher levels need to be traversed, and the question is: who set the direction in which to develop towards a higher level? In other words, why must the creation develop toward a higher level? (166-212, 1987.6.7)
The one flaw in all religious scriptures is the fact that they do not explain the process of the Creation. They do not talk about the purpose and process of God's creation. Much has been written, based upon all types of logic. Since they do not deal with the concept of creation, they do not know the direction and purpose of creation. Hence, everyone in the world is doing as they please, coming up with evolutionary theory and other damaging ideas, and behaving in whatever way they like. That being so, we should clearly understand about the concept of creation. Next, we need to inquire why this world became so evil when the direction and purpose of creation did not intend this. After discovering that reason, we need to work out, going back to the very beginning, why entire nations met with destruction in the process of history as narrated by the Holy Scriptures and human history. There must be a historical view with a logical approach that can be justly approved by everyone from both general and practical standpoints. (212-323, 1991.1.11)
A third party cannot be included in an absolute love relationship. As this logic is true, evolutionary theory cannot be justified. The amoeba cannot develop alone. It would need to develop to a new level through the relationship of positive and negative and the gates of love. Considering that religious doctrines teach reciprocal love relationships and that heavenly law precludes third-party intervention, the conclusion can be drawn that evolutionary theory cannot be sustained. (203-343, 1990.6.28)