From The Nebulous Hypothesis:
A Study of the Philosophical and
Historical Implications of Darwinian Theory
© 1996 by James M. Foard
Editor and Publisher James M. Foard.
The Darwin Papers may be freely
copied and distributed for non profit use
provided acknowledgement is made
for material written by the author.
The Darwin Papers © 2000 James Foard
© 2004 James Foard
The entire Darwin Papers may
be read HERE
Read about Mark Isaaks' amazing story of the
evolution of the Bombardier Beetle, straight from TalkOrigins below
His sister said of him, "Never was any youth more industrious; up at three or four in the morning, reading, making notes, sketching bones, coloring maps, stuffing birds by the hundred, collecting butterflies, and beetles-teaching himself German sufficiently to translate it readily, singing always merrily at intervals."(2)
Blyth spoke often at scientific meetings in London in the same circles that Darwin frequented, expounding theories quite similar to Darwin's own later writings. From 1835 through 1837 he published some articles dealing with the subject of natural selection in The British Magazine of Natural History, and it is evident that Darwin recieved copies of this magazine while in Peru in 1835 during his voyage on the Beagle. (3)
Loren Eisely has shown in Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X. that not only was it obvious that Darwin had been quite familiar with Blyth's writings but that Darwin was to use many of Blyth's ideas years later on when writing his Origin, yet he had given Blyth little or no acknowledgment. (For more on Eisely, see note) (4)
Eisely makes mention of the fact that all of Darwin's major ideas-the struggle for survival, variation, and natural selection- were fully expressed in Blyth's first paper of 1835, yet Darwin was strangely reluctant to give Blyth any credit at all for this (5)
Here is an example of Blyth's description of natural selection, which, as opposed to Darwin's (and other evolutionist's writings), describes it as a process whereby the original created type of a species has the best chance of surviving among brute animals:
" There has been, strangely enough, a difference of opinion among naturalists, as to whether these seasonal changes of colour were intended by Providence as an adaptation to change of temperature10, or as a means of preserving the various species from the observation of their foes, by adapting their hues to the colour of the surface; against which latter opinion it has been plausibly enough argued, that "nature provides for the preyer as well as for the prey." The fact is, they answer both purposes; and they are among those striking instances of design, which so clearly and forcibly attest the existence of an omniscient great First Cause. Experiment demonstrates the soundness of the first opinion; and sufficient proof can be adduced to show that the other is also sound. Some arctic species are white, which have no enemy to fear, as the polar bear, the gyrfalcon, the arctic eagle-owl, the snowy owl, and even the stoat; and therefore, in these, the whiteness can only be to preserve the temperature of their bodies [VI. 79.]; but when we perceive that the colour of nocturnal animals, and of those defenceless species whose habits lead them to be much exposed, especially to enemies from above, are invariably of the same colour with their respective natural haunts, we can only presume that this is because they should not appear too conspicuous to their enemies.".
Blyth, Magazine of Natural History, 1835
Francis Hitching mentioned that Eiseley had chronicled quite substantial portions of Darwin's writings that were nearly "word for word identical between Darwin and Blyth"" although Blyth's ideas preceded Darwin's publication of The Origin by over twenty years (I do not necessarily agree with Eiseley on the strict word for word comparison, however compare this from the Magazine of Natural History in 1835, which Darwin read on the Beagle, with Darwin's earlier chapters on natural selection in his Origin) .(9) Large parts of Darwin's personal notes during this period in 1835 reflected his familiarity with Blyth's writings, yet for some mysterious reason fifty pages of Darwin's notebook from this time are missing, with the cryptic reference "All useful pages cut out," (6) added by Darwin in 1856.
Darwin's own copy of Magazine of Natural History in 1837 showed that he made use of Blyth's paper of that year, the same year when he first claimed to have come up with the idea of natural selection on his own,(7)wherein Blyth had written essentially the same basic doctrine that Darwin took credit for.(8)
Eiseley wrote, "At that moment, probably in 1837, the Origin was born."
William Wells had actually written of natural selection in 1813 (as had many others, however it was Blyth's writing that Darwin clearly was impressed by during his voyage, and it was Blyth who saw natural selection in a creationist context) but Darwin claimed that he was unfamiliar with Well's writings at the time of the original publication of The Origin of Species.
Later on, after being brought to task by certain individuals for taking credit for an idea that was not his own, Darwin gave Wells credit for the idea; however Wells originated nothing novel either: as noted, the basic concept of natural selection had been around since ancient Greek time. (Although it is a bit like pulling teeth, evolutionists are finally having to admit that there was really nothing original in what Darwin wrote, however they still insist that he somehow proved evolution. Very few of them can actually cite evidence for this. For more on this century old fable, see Chapter Four of The Darwin Papers)
The significant difference between the writings of Charles Darwin and Edward Blyth was that Blyth was an ardent creationist; (other evolutionists had written of natural selection before Blyth, it's really a pretty simple concept and was nothing new when Darwin wrote about it either, as can be seen from this website), the uniqueness of Blyth's writing was that he saw natural selection within a creationist perspective, not from a purely naturalistic one, and his papers simply flowed with his sense of awe and reverence for the God of creation who had so wonderously and wisely made all of His creatures. Blyth showed that natural selection actually worked better within a creationist framework. Thus, with this major pillar destroyed, the theory of evolution didn't have a leg to stand on, except for the ongoing propaganda campaign conducted by those such as Roland that lends the momentum to continure the charade.
Francis Hitching, an evolutionist, wrote: "Darwin took everything Blyth had said and used it to support an opposite conclusion"(10) i.e. the denial of the miraculous and of special creation. Darwin changed natural selection around to mean evolutionary descent of all beings from a common ancestor, which was never Blyth's original contention at all.
Janet Browne wrote of Darwin: "There was a sliver of ice inside enabling him to make the most of all the advantages he possessed and the circumstances in which he found himself." (Janet Browne is a noted historian. According to one critic of this chapter she must have loathed Darwin, or is it only creationists that loathe him when they speak critically of him? (11) Alfred Russel Wallace was a college of Darwin's who, prior to Darwin's presentation of his paper before a group of scientists shortly before the publication of the Origin, had written a nearly identical paper on evolution, at least in substance. After Darwin read Wallace's paper he hurriedly published his own and read his paper first. Years later, Wallace refused to go to Darwin's funural)
Samuel Butler was a contemporary of Darwin and was the grandson of Darwin's old headmaster at Shrewsbury. He had been a former admirer of him until he read the work of earlier evolutionists like Lamarck and Buffon, then he launched an attack on Darwin's early claim to having originated his theories on his own, first in a book titled Evolution Old and New published in May of 1879, then in a letter to the Athenaeum on the 31st of January, 1880. Later he renewed the attack in another book titled Unconcious Memory, in which he documented Darwin's "borrowing" much of his work from others. (There are legitimate axes to grind, and Butler definitely had one. Blyth was relatively unknown, died in obscurity and poverty, and his theories were from an entirely different outlook, creationism, not evolution, thus Butler had no ax to grind with Blyth).
World famous geneticist and anthropologist C.D. Darlington, an evolutionist (I have put his credentials here because his qualifications definitely carry weight, and should counter the tired evolutionist argument that no serious scientists question Darwin), although he doesn't come right out and say it, still comes about as close as one could get to accusing Darwin of plagiarism without actually spelling it out. He said that Darwin "was able to put across his ideas not so much because of his scientific integrity, but because of his opportunism, his equivocation and his lack of historical sense. Though his admirers will not like to believe it, he accomplished his revolution by personal weakness and strategic talent more than by scientific virtue" (Did Darlington, a noted evolutionist, have "an ax to grind" with Darwin? Apparently so, and a legitimate one.) (16)
Blyth was eventually appointed as the curator of the Museum of the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal, in India, where he lived for many years on a meager stipend. His personal life was marred with tragedy. In 1854 he married a Mrs. Hodges, a young widow visiting relatives in India, whom he had known previously in England when she had been single. She was to die within the space of three years after their wedding.
Arthur Grote, Blyth's friend and collegue, wrote "In December 1857, Blyth had the misfortune to lose his wife. His short married life had been of the happiest, and the blow fell heavily on him. His letters to his sister for the early months of 1858 are painful to read. The shock proved too much for him, and brought on a serious attack of illness . . .(17)
A few years after the death of Blyth's wife, when Darwin was famous and wealthy from the publication of his Origin and from his family inheritance while Blyth was living in obscurity and poverty, Darwin casually mentioned Blyth's situation in a letter to his friend Lyell in 1860: "I have had a letter from poor Blyth of Calcutta, who is much disappointed at hearing Lord Canning will not grant any money . . ." and then he made this remarkable admission ". . . Blyth says (and he is in many respects a very good judge) that his ideas on species are quite revolutionary.. ."(18)
Blyth never fully recovered from the loss of his wife. He remained in poor health for the rest of his days. Blyth was incapable of any harsh feelings, even towards Darwin, with whom he corresponded. He was remembered by his contemporaries as having a prodigious memory, and his friend Grote wrote eloquently of him in a eulogy: "The warmth and freshness of his feelings which first inspired him with the love of nature clung to him through his chequered life, and kept him on good terms with the world, which punished him . . . Few men who have written so much have left in their writings so little that is bitter. No man that I have ever known was so free as he was from the spirit of intolerance; and the absence of this is a marked feature in all his controversial papers. All too that he knew was at the service of everybody . . ." (19)
Loren Eisely wrote: "But let the world not forget that Edward Blyth, a man of poverty and bad fortune, shaped a key that dropped half-used from his hands when he set forth hastily on his own ill-fated voyage. That key, which was picked up and reforged by a far greater and more cunning hand, was no less than natural selection."(20)
When Blyth died in London on December 27, 1873, found among his papers was a fragment of an old manuscript that he had once been preparing, titled "On the Origination of Species". (21)
selection is the main process that Darwin said accounted for his theory
of evolution to work. As can be seen from Darwin's own writing, the presence of
transitional forms providing proof for his theory are extremely rare,
practically non-existant, because the law of natural selection would tend to
How did Darwin say that this process of natural selection takes place? Let all of those who are concerned with protecting endangered species and animal rights pay attention to this, straight from the pen of Charles Darwin, where he expounds on his idea of the process by which natural selection takes place:
" I endeavoured, also, to show that intermediate varieties, from existing in lesser numbers than the forms which they connect, will generally be beaten out and exterminated during the course of further modification and improvement. " (Origin, Chapter Ten: On the Imperfection of the Geologic Record: On the absence of intermediate varieties at the present day) (22)
Ah yes, Darwin the environmentalist. This was his reason why we don't find
those bothersome missing links to support his theory (The Darwin Papers;
Chapter's 4 - 6), and this was his sentence on other forms of life that aren't
fit enough to compete with other species in his struggle for survival; they get
wiped out, and he called this an "improvement."
Thus we have Darwin's sentence on the baby harp seals, the blue whale, polar bears, the African rhino and the mountain gorilla: they will all get beaten into extinction during the course of "further modification and improvement."
Yes, Darwin the environmentalist, championing the cause of the extinction of species.
This should come as no surprise from a man whose favorite pastime during his
college years was shooting birds at random, and who went on a bloody spree
clubbing birds to death during his voyage on the Beagle
(See Chapter 1).
He further wrote in his Origin: "As natural selection acts solely by the preservation of profitable modifications, each new form will tend in a fully-stocked country to take the place of, and finally exterminate, its own less improved parent-form and other less favoured forms with which it comes into competition. Thus extinction and natural selection go hand in hand." (Origin, Chapter Vl, On the Absences or Rarity of Transitional Varieties, pp.80, Benton Edition, 1952).
Darwin summed up his viewpoint on natural selection in the final part of the eighth chapter of his Origin of Species, where he wrote: ". . . To my imagination it is far more satisfactory to look at such instincts as the young cuckoo ejecting it's foster brothers (from the nest),-ants making slaves-the larvae of ichneumonide feeding with the live bodies of the caterpillars,-not as especially endowed or created instincts, but as one general law leading to the advancement of all organic beings [mankind included],-namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die." (Origin, final paragraph of Chapter Eight on Instinct, 6th edition)
We find Darwin's outlook on his role as a naturalist and what he thought of the delicate balance of nature when he wrote in 1856, upon beginning his Origin: "What a book a devil's chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering low and horridly cruel works of nature." (25)
In contrast to
dreary, brutal vision of the natural world (read
the four previous quotes above) we find Edward Blyth's
observations of the cooperation of many species inhabiting a similar ecosystem.
A comparison of Darwin's and Blythe's writings will show that Blyth did not see
natural selection as having the capacity to originate any species, it could only
preserve and protect the integrity of already existing species, thus Blyth was
correctly in line with what modern scholarship has to say about it.
Natural selection is merely a sorting process. It is like a shaker tray on a treadmill in a food processing plant that sorts out various peanuts by size and lets the smaller ones drop through the holes while the larger ones are passed on for consumption. The shaker tray did not create the peanuts, which were grown from other peanuts, it merely selected and separated the peanuts by size.
According to Darwin though, and his coterie of evolutionist followers, you could take certain peanuts that have novel features, such as a larger peanut, and plant it, and then select the largest peanut from that bunch and plant that, and eventually have a really, really big peanut with more survival value, say a 50 lb. peanut, or a 500 lb. peanut. Or you could grow a smarter, faster peanut, or a peanut that might start to sprout wings, or a peanut that might decide to return to the sea like they claim whales did, or it could develop some other ingenious feature that would help it survive, until finally you would have an entirely new species that wouldn't be a peanut at all. After all, that is how they claim we all arrived here from some type of primitive bacteria. This is all nonsense of course, we have bred animals to certain sizes, along with plants, and there have always been certain limits to the amount of variation that can be produced through selective breeding.
It was Blyth who articulated and developed natural selection within a creationist context and who showed that the original kind within a species had a much better chance of survival than the more exotic varieties did (this is an overall generalisation; through variation and migration certain breeds began to inhabit different locales that were more favorable for them, such as polar bears in the arctic, but as noted with the peanut, variety has it's limits), and it is Blyth from whom Darwin took his major ideas from and then turned them around to deny the special, miraculous creation of species by God. We find from Blyth's writings that he was also an early ecologist and conservationist, evidently concerned for the welfare of our ecosystem and man's role in preserving it. He expressed these sentiments well over one hundred years before the birth of the modern ecology movement when he wrote of ". . . the system which the existence of one species is necessary to that of another, and which binds each race to it's locality; where the presence of each is alike necessary to preserve the equilibrium of organic being around." (26)
stark contrast to Darwin's view of the " clumsy,
wasteful, blundering, low . . . works of nature" , Blyth
wrote: "How beautifully do we thus perceive, as in a thousand other instances the balance of nature preserved" (27) In his vanity (man) is apt to imagine that all were made for him . . . yet how ardently does he labor to exterminate every portion of that creation . . ." (28)
There were four important distinctions that we should look at
between Darwin's writings and Edward Blyth's. Secondly, Blyth also saw (and quite correctly) in natural selection,
(although Blyth may not have used the exact same terminology as Darwin did
later on, it is very clear that he was addressing the topic of natural
selection in his writings; he was talking about the very same principle)
not an originating principle but a conserving factor in operation
designed to preserve the integrity of a species:"It is worthy of
remark, however that the original and typical form of an animal is in great
measure kept up by the same identical means by which a true breed is produced.
The original form of a species is unquestionably better adapted to it's
natural habits than any modification of that form . . . the latter in a state
of nature, is allowed but few opportunities of continuing it's race . . . The same law, therefore, which
was intended by Providence to keep up the typical qualities of a species, can
be easily converted by man into a means of raising different varieties, but it
is also clear that, if man did not keep up these breeds by regulating their
sexual intercourse, they would all naturally soon revert to the original
type." (30) Blyth
also touched on the subject of comparative anatomy of creatures with outwardly
similar morphology (ex. Men and apes):
"I must venture, however, to differ from the majority of them [evolutionary minded naturalists] in opposing the prevalent notion, that the extreme modifications of diverse types blend and inosculate by direct affinity [common evolutionary descent]; contending however closely these may apparently resemble, the most similar modifications of diverse types are not, in a physiological sense, more nearly related to each other than are the more characteristic examples of the same."
He wrote in another section: " . . . every species is esentially distinct and separate from every other species; otherwise it would not be a species but a variety. The most similar species, therefore, are only allied to each other in consequence of the resemblence of their general organization." (32)
There were four important distinctions that we should look at between Darwin's writings and Edward Blyth's.
Secondly, Blyth also saw (and quite correctly) in natural selection, (although Blyth may not have used the exact same terminology as Darwin did later on, it is very clear that he was addressing the topic of natural selection in his writings; he was talking about the very same principle) not an originating principle but a conserving factor in operation designed to preserve the integrity of a species:"It is worthy of remark, however that the original and typical form of an animal is in great measure kept up by the same identical means by which a true breed is produced. The original form of a species is unquestionably better adapted to it's natural habits than any modification of that form . . . the latter in a state of nature, is allowed but few opportunities of continuing it's race . . . The same law, therefore, which was intended by Providence to keep up the typical qualities of a species, can be easily converted by man into a means of raising different varieties, but it is also clear that, if man did not keep up these breeds by regulating their sexual intercourse, they would all naturally soon revert to the original type." (30)
also touched on the subject of comparative anatomy of creatures with outwardly
similar morphology (ex. Men and apes):
men and apes simply resemble each other, that does not in itself prove any
type of common descent.
as certain DNA similarities, humans have more in common genetically with
chickens than we do with rats, a mammal to whom we are supposedly more related
to in evolutionary terms. (Humans are genetically more similar to chickens
than rats; Wageningen International Studies Paper; Whisp'r
Archive, Issue 31 - 26.10.2000 Page 05) Some
marsupials are remarkably similar to certain Eutheriatic (non-pouched)
mammals, in fact they resemble some Eutheriatic mammals more than other
Eutheriatic mammals resemble each other, however their method of weaning their
young clearly sets them apart as another order of living beings
As far as certain DNA similarities, humans have more in common genetically with chickens than we do with rats, a mammal to whom we are supposedly more related to in evolutionary terms. (Humans are genetically more similar to chickens than rats; Wageningen International Studies Paper; Whisp'r Archive, Issue 31 - 26.10.2000 Page 05)
Some marsupials are remarkably similar to certain Eutheriatic (non-pouched) mammals, in fact they resemble some Eutheriatic mammals more than other Eutheriatic mammals resemble each other, however their method of weaning their young clearly sets them apart as another order of living beings entirely.
He wrote in another treatise: "The same awful (awesome) Being who first awakened man into existence in common with the meanest atom, who appointed his destiny upon earth to be so diverse from that of his other creatures, who endowed him alone to reflect upon his Makers goodness and power . . ." (35)
These are some of the very important differences between Blyth's majestic vision of God's beautiful creation and of man's role to play in it contrasted with Darwin's evolutionary theories of some furtive creature struggling to survive by eliminating his competitors as they ascend out of primordial slime.
L et us see whether Darwin's ideas of chance evolution or Blyth's ideas of an intelligent designer make more sense in light of some observations of nature. Darwin did say that his theory would be totally discredited if a trait could be shown not to have arisen by gradual evolutionary processes: " If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."(36)
The pig shark, so named because it has a nose and mouth section remarkably resembling a pigs, does something quite unique among any creature of the animal Kingdom, there is no evidence of anything like it at all in any other animal, fossilized or modern. It's eggs are shaped like perfectly formed auger-like screws, precision fitted as though from a tool-makers machine shop, and then it drills these egg capsules into rock crevices, where the embryo develops safe and secure from predators for the space of a year!
Nothing like it exists at all in any other species of shark, there is no evidence of evolution having produced this marvel, it speaks for design from a creative intelligence, not blind chance and random chemicals mixing together. (37)
In a comparative study of the hearts of the four types of living reptiles; lizards, snakes, turtles, and crocodiles, we find that there are major structural differences between them all, with no indication of any type of an intermediate form ever existing, in fact, an intermediate form between a crocodile's heart and that of any other reptile would undoubtedly spell instant death to the creature.
In lizards, snakes, and turtles we have the right atrium and the left atrium situated next to each other, on the same side of the heart, to the left of the two aorta, while the pulmonary artery is on the right side of the heart. The crocodile's heart, on the other hand, is not anything like this at all. His right atrium and left atrium are on opposite sides of the heart: the right atrium is placed where the pulmonary artery is in the other reptiles, while the pulmonary artery and two aorta are situated in between the two atria.
!-->Among the three remaining types of reptiles, a lizards heart has both aortas and both atria connected to the left ventricle, while in a turtles heart only the right aorta and the two atria are connected to the left ventricle, the left aorta is connected to the right ventricle. In a snakes heart only the left atrium opens into the left ventricle, both of the aortas and the right atrium open into the right ventricle. None of these creatures could have survived unless their hearts were perfectly formed as they are from the beginning of their existence, an intermediate form would spell instant doom for an animal, and yet none of these reptiles have hearts that are alike in the slightest.
The amphibian has a heart unlike that of any reptilian heart. Instead of a four chambered heart like that found in reptiles, with an amphibian's heart there are only two atria that pass into a single ventricle, and a fish only has one atrium and one ventricle connected to the gills. There is definitely a progression in complexity from the heart of the fish to the reptile, but there is nothing like an intermediate stage to be found, an intermediate stage would be fatal for any creature. A heart must be completely functional and fully developed for the creature to survive.
It is similar to having four distinct types of internal combustion engines: a V-6 gasoline engine; a single piston motorcycle engine; an in-line diesel engine; and a rotary engine. Although all of these engines use similar chemical, electrical, and mechanical principles in their operation, they all have quite distinct designs for a particular, unique purpose. None of these engines "evolved" into the other engines, each one would have to be perfectly functional, with the correct specifications, timing, and design features from the start for them to operate.
evolutionist by the name of Lenny Flank has disputed this and attempted to claim
that there are transitional forms for the hearts of the four types of reptiles.
He brought up the pachyrhachis, a fossilised snake, and a fossil amphibian
called Acanthostega as some sort of proof for transitional forms. Unfortunately
for Flank, it is doubtful that they would provide information on any
transitional forms of reptilian hearts since we do not have any remains at all
of the hearts of these two extinct species. Furthermore, even if we did, their
hearts would in all probability be the same as the hearts of modern snakes and
amphibian salamanders; after all the pachyrhachis was simply a snake with unique
claspers probably used in mating, and the Acanthostega was a salamander, no
more, no less.
Indeed, this problem of the evolution of the reptiles' heart is such an unsolvable conundrum that I have decided to call it Flank's Dilemma, in honor of Lenny Flank, a self professed expert on reptilian anatomy.
Flank also has a website up devoted to Ichthyostega, a supposed transitional species in the fossil record bridging the gap between marine creatures and land animals. He stated "The creationists are fond of stating that there are 'no transitionals in the fossil record'. One of the best fossil transitionals, however, is that of Icthyostega, which combines the traits of both fishes and amphibians, and represents the transition between aquatic and terrestrial vertebrate life.".
There are some serious problems with Flank's Ichthyostega though, the first being that he has had the name of the creature misspelled on his web page heading for at least eight years (circa 1995-2003). Although there are two acceptable ways to spell Ichthyostega (Icthyostega) in English, Flank has either spelled it purposely in Spanish, in which case he might have spelled it that way in the rest of his document, which he has not, or else he misspelled it and never noticed it.
The second problem with Flank's argument is that Kathleen Hunt of talk.origins has said that Ichthyostega, along with Flank's Acanthostega were probably never in the ancestral lineage of later land animals, thus they had no place in the supposed evolutionary transition from marine creatures to land animals at all. Aside from these two minor problems Flank's page makes interesting reading. I've always been a science fiction fan since my youth. (For more detailed, scientific information on fish-amphibian-reptilian evolution see The Creature from the Black Lagoon)
There are quite a few different methods of reproduction in the fish world. Some fish mate by coupling with their partners, there are some fish species where the females simply lay their eggs in a certain region while the male swims by and squirts his sperm over the eggs. In some species the male fish have no external sexual organ, in other species the male fish have two, with the female having two corresponding areas on her body for the male to conjoin with, however the seahorse is perhaps the most remarkable innovator in the field of reproduction.
While male seahorses have no external male sexual organ, the females do, and it corresponds in the mating process in the same manner that a male organ does on other species, except that instead of ejecting sperm, she ejects eggs into the male seahorses sperm pouch, which serves as a womb where the male seahorse carries and nurses the fertilised eggs, much as a female of other species does with her young. The eggs attatch themselves to the walls inside of the pouch through which they receive oxygen and nutrients.
After the eggs have gone through the progressive stages of embryonic development within the pouch, the male gives birth to a hoard of tiny, squiggling seahorses, even going through labor pains during delivery. In other respects, male seahorses exhibit male characteristics, even challenging other seahorses for the females attention in pre-nuptial rituals.
The seahorse is also the only known fish that mates for life, or until the death of one of the partners. When both partners meet each other after a brief separation, their colors brighten, they engage in greetings, they nuzzle each other, and then they link tails and swim together from one blade of seagrass to another in a beautiful dance. The sea-dragon, similar to the seahorse, engages in the same method of reproduction, except that instead of having a pouch the male sea-dragon carries the eggs under his tail.
There is no known evolutionary explanation for the development of the seahorse’s unique method of copulation, nothing like it is found in any other species of animal, no hint of “gradual development”of chance favorable modifications.
Ants and aphids get along wonderfully. In fact it might even be safe to say that the aphid is the ants best friend. Ants raise aphids, much as we raise cattle and sheep, herding them and tending to their needs, defending them from predators, even mulching and tending the plant that the aphids live on and providing for their young.
What do the ants get in return? Honeydew, a tasty delicacy made of plant sap that the aphid ingests and then secretes for the ant to lap up. Recent study has shown that the ants do not need this snack to survive, but that they cultivate it for pleasure! One study has shown that some aphids will not secrete this chemical normally without the ants encouragement, even when stimulated to do so.
Some ants are ranchers, other ants like to farm. The Acromyrmex octospinosus, leaf cutter ants of Paraguay, grow fungus to feed upon, often harvesting it in huge plantations, even mulching the soil with dead organic matter and using caterpillar waste as manure. They have hanging gardens of the fungus within widened chambers inside of their nests, and obtain all of their dietary nutrition from it. Could such a remarkable condition have come about through blind evolutionary chance?
Remember“The Wind in the Willows”? How about “The House at Pooh Corner”? In these enchanting stories from our youth we read of Toad and Frog and other of natures’ denizens commingling happily together in animal society as they faced the trials and triumphs of everyday life.
Pure fantasy? Consider Alpheas, the snapping shrimp and his six-inch long
friend with an almost longer Latin name, Cryptocentrus coeruleopunctatus, the
goby fish. Alphy and Goby are friends, in fact they are room-mates together,
safely tucked away in a snug little burrow that Alphy digs in the sand with his
claws. Sometimes Goby takes Alphy for a walk, or Alphy takes Goby for a swim,
take your pick. Anyway, when they leave their little burrow and wander around
the ocean floor foraging for food, as Alphy skuttles along he stays in physical
contact with Goby, who swims just above him, with one of his antenna, which acts
as a sort of “leash”. This works out very well, since Alphy is very nearly blind
and cannot detect the presence of predators. Not to worry though.
When danger approaches, Goby signals Alphy with a wriggle of his body and a swish of his fins, and Alphy then dashes back into the safety and security of their burrow, followed closely by Goby. This is how Goby earns his rent, by assuming the role of “guard fish” for the nearsighted Alphy.
Pretty neat arrangement. Instead of “survival of the fittest” it would seem that “survival of the friendliest” would be a more apt description for this set of affairs. How could evolution account for this?
Darwin even wrote of the previously mentioned process of aphid and ant symbiosis in his Origin, of course not from his own research but from the work of Pierre Huber. He had no good answers as to how this came about through evolutionary means either.
Elsewhere in his Origin he makes mention of the slave making ants, where he again refers to the work of Huber, who found that there is a species of ant that depends entirely on its slaves, to the extent that "without their help, the species would become extinct within a single year."
How such a condition could gradually develop through random, natural
selection and evolution is unanswered, and Darwin doesn't even attempt to answer
it either. He wrote, "By what steps the instinct of F. sanguines originated I
will not pretend to conjecture." Further on in the Origin, Darwin wrote of some
bees that do not have the pollen collecting ability to save up food for their
young, so they lay their young in the nests of other bees who raise them. Again,
he had no idea how this came about through his theory.
When Darwin observed the well developed hierarchy in ant society, he wrote, "The castes, moreover, do not commonly graduate into each other, but are perfectly well defined: being as distinct from each other as are any two species of the same genus, or rather as any two genera of the same family." In other words, he could cite no evidence of gradual modification from one species changing into another. So he could provide no evidence for the evolution of ants.
Even then evolutionary scientists toyed with the "hopeful monster" theory because of the missing transitional forms, which seemed as likely an explanation, in fact infinitely better, than natural selection, and the fossil record bears this out as well, as we shall see., Darwin lamely agrees in the conclusion of his section in the Origin on Objections To My Theory: "To admit all this is, as it seems to me, to enter into the realms of miracle, and to leave those of Science."
No wonder Professor J.P. Lehman of France wrote: “Darwinism in its ancient and classical form has broken down.'" [i]
According to Darwin, a morphological (physical) or behavioral trait has to confer some specific advantage for survival to have any value to be passed on to it’s offspring, but this brings up the question of neutral characteristics. Some plants have leaves that are bi-polar, they sprout out on opposites sides of the stem at the same height, while others in the very same ecosystem have leaves that alternate at different levels on each side, yet both varieties of plants co-exist equally well, neither genetic trait would seem to confer any specific survival advantage. Some traits would seem positively deadly to their owners, yet they are passed on from generation to generation. It would seem that birds that can camouflage themselves from predators would have a selective advantage to others that are conspicuous, yet the female peacock is attracted to the male with the largest, brightest plumage, looking as if he's calling the nearest fox over for dinner.
In his second work, The Descent of Man Darwin noted this same fact in his section on Insects,where he stated that a characteristic unfavorable for survival seemed to be the dominant trait: "From the several foregoing facts it is impossible to admit that the brilliant colours of butterflies, and of some few moths, have commonly been acquired for the sake of protection. We have seen that their colours and elegant patterns are arranged and exhibited as if for display. Hence I am led to believe that the females prefer or are most excited by the more brilliant males . . . " thus we see that what should be a trait for natural selection to single out and remove from a species according to Darwin’s thesis, by his own admission does not happen in nature.
Despite the fact that Darwin was never able to come up with any plausible solution as to the origin of any species, he was absolutely enthralled with the concept of extinction. He wrote: “Hence rare species will be less quickly modified or improved within any given period; they will consequently by beaten in the race for life by the modified and improved descendants of the commoner species.” Another selection, among many, illustrates his favorite principle of survival of the fittest: “From these several considerations I think it inevitably follows that as new species in the course of time are formed through natural selection, others will become rarer and rarer, and finally extinct. The forms which stand in closest competition with those undergoing modification and improvement will naturally suffer most. And we have seen in the chapter on the Struggle for existence that it is the most closely-allied forms,-varieties of the same species, and species of the same genus or of related genera,- which, from having nearly the same structure, constitution, and habits, generally come into the severest competition with each other; consequently, each new variety or species, during the progress of its formation, will generally press hardest on its nearest kindred, and tend to exterminate them.” (Origin, pp.52, Benton Pub., 1952)
It would seem to me, perhaps to any reasonable thinking person, that extinction is just the opposite of the origin of a species. We frequently watch media programs that tell us all about the great extinctions that have taken place throughout ancient history, (although it is more reasonable to relate all or the majority of these extinctions to one actual event, or to a closely related series of events such as a universal tectonic upheaval and flood which were not separated by millions of years in time, they were all world-wide in scope and similar in pattern), thus a documentary on the extinction of the dinosaurs is somehow meant to provide explicit proof that evolution somehow occurred, never mind the fact that the extinction of the dinosaurs throws absolutely no light on their origin.
There are many wonders in nature that speak for intelligent design, not blind, random, haphazard evolutionary processes. The Iracundus signifer, a species of scorpion fish known as the decoy fish, manages to accomplish a feat that is quite remarkable. When food in the form of a smaller fish swims nearby, it lays quite still on the seafloor, even slowing its breathing down and altering its pigment to merge in with the surrounding seascape. This in itself may not seem altogether too remarkable, except that it engages an additional member of its body with an added trick to entice the fish near.
It raises its dorsal fin.
What make this particular trick so unique is that its dorsal fin resembles an even smaller fish, even having a black spot between the second and third membranes of the fin that resembles an eye, while a notch between the first and second membranes of the fin resembles a mouth. Thus while it lays quite still on the ocean bottom, blending in with its surroundings, its dorsal fin becomes quite conspicuous, even mimmicking the movements of a fish, and attracting predators, which show up thinking to enjoy a snack, but instead they wind up being swallowed by the decoy fish, making his sudden appearance. Could mindless evolution produce this? (38)
Evolutionary theory would postulate that thousands upon thousands of intermediate forms led up to this novel invention over millions of years, However, even if we assume that the beetle somehow managed to evolve these first two chemicals at the same time, they would still be useless for thousands of generations without the catalases and peroxidases that cause the hydrogen peroxide to break down, and without the reinforced chamber to keep the beetle from blowing himself to bits. As Huse (39) (a creationist scientist) points out, "But what would be the motivation for such a disastrous, trial and error, piecemeal evolution? Everything in evolution is supposed to be beneficial and have a logical purpose, or else it would never develop. But such a process does not make any sense, and to propose that the entire defense system evolved all at once is simply impossible."
Mark Isaak, a writer for the evolutionist website talk.origins, disagrees with this and has made the odd assertion that former Berkeley biochemist Dr. Duane Gish (a celebrated creationist scientist) is mistaken in his view that the bombardier beetle is a good example of intelligent design in nature. (See Talk.Origins, Bombardier Beetles and the Argument of Design, by Mark Isaak)
"Gish is wrong," Isaak claims, "a step by step evolution of the bombardier beetle is really not that hard to imagine." Isaak then proceeds to take us on his fifteen step process that he claims might have produced the bombardier beetles amazing system of defense. He pieces together various facts concerning arthropods and beetles from a variety of sources, but he injects them with the usual evolutionist logical errors and assumptions in his interpretation of these facts.So let us investigate what Isaak wrote and see if we can discover where truth leaves off and bias begins, as we take a peek into
Hurrrry, Hurrrry! Step
right up ladies and gentlemen to
Mark Isaak's incredible Travelling
Evolutionary Sideshow! You will see
sites that will enthrall you; you will listen to stories that will
astound you; you will witness daring feats of verbal
sophistry that will bend the very laws of nature and will leave you speechless (step aside kid,
your crowding me, no we don't have any transitional fossils), and it's all
here for your viewing, and all that you need is your computer screen and
an internet connection!
GOT HIS GAS ~
And all of these marvelous innovations, Isaak would have you believe, came about by chance, blind, evolutionary processes. No room for design here.
though, after all is said and done, we find out that Isaak was
making the whole thing up. He is simply
storytelling and he admits as much. In fact, according to Isaak, it could
have happened any one of a number of ways, take your choice!
"The scenario above is hypothetical; the actual evolution of the bombardier beetle probably did not happen exactly like that."
In fact, he actually admits that "nature is not constrained by any persons lack of imagination."
Isaak actually hasn't got the foggiest notion of how the bombardier
beetle developed his marvelous defensive mechanism, and
yet after spinning this fantasy he uses it as evidence for
"The scenario does show, however, that the evolution of a complex structure is far from impossible."
Well gosh a golly, if your going to make up your own stories out of whole cloth and then use that as proof, I suppose not! Anything could be possible with this type of logic. The entire story told above is 90% fantasy, cleverly woven together with a few observations of natural phenomena thrown in to lend it the look of scientific respectability. In essence, it's a make-believe childs' story told through the lense of an evolutionist belief system.
Isaak goes on to state, based on this fantasy: "Do bombardier beetles look designed? Yes; they look like they were designed by evolution ["designed by evolution", by definition a mindless process, not designed by an intelligent God. Were Isaak to admit that an Intelligence was involved in a hands on manner his whole case would be destroyed]. Their features, behaviors, and distribution nicely fit the kinds of patterns that evolution creates."(Could you please repeat that last part Mr. Isaak?! I don't think I heard you correctly.)
"Their features, behaviors, and distribution nicely fit the kinds of patterns that evolution creates."
Uh huh. Well, um, there's just one tiny little, itsy bitsy, teensy weensy PROBLEM HERE. Isaak created this scenario; he made it all up and then called it evolution, but there was never any evidence of an evolutionary sequence for the creation of the Bombardier Beetle in the first place! Isaak is simply assuming God out of the picture and then giving evolution the deific power of creation itself, despite his duplicitous attempt later in his FAQ to mollify those who want to believe in evolution but keep God in the picture.
He then states: "Nobody has yet found anything about any bombardier beetle which is incompatible with evolution." He goes on: "Note that all of the steps above are small or can easily be broken down into smaller steps. The bombardier beetles' mechanism can come about solely by accumulated microevolution. Furthermore, all of the steps are probably advantageous, so they would be selected."
Of course all of the steps would be advantageous; after all, they
all came out of his own mind. He never saw any of this
happening, he never had any fossil evidence for it either. He made the whole
cockamamie story up!
In real life if this were happening through chance mutation all of the steps would not probably be advantageous, the laws of probability would spell doom for Isaak's fantasy; natural selection would be sorting through zillions of mistakes to pick out the right ones; it would simply not happen.
And Isaak doesn't have "four billion years" of earth's history, because in his scheme this only happened within a tiny, little time slot within that history. Again, probability does not give him enough time for the "right" chance mutations to occur within this time slot. In fact, even if he did have four billion years, counting the time when the earth was a hot, molten mass (couldn't happen) he would still not have enough time in a chance scenario for the chemicals and cells to show up.
Isaak then states that "No improbable events are needed" for the evolution of the Bombardier Beetle. Naw, we wouldn't need anything out of the ordinary, except a supercomputer and advanced chemistry laboratory to develop the information necessary for the right chemical sequences for the quinones and new cells popping up out of nowhere to be at exactly the right spot at the exact right time when they are needed.
Isaak calls this fairy tale evolution. I think a better word for it
(without intelligent design involved, that is) might be Alakazam, or Bippidy
This is not science folks, this is pure balderdash spun out of Isaak's imagination that he uses as proof for evolution! It has as much science in it as Grimm's Fairy Tales do.
Isaak then sums up his little story with this neat little
"This does not mean, of course, that we know everything about the evolution of bombardier beetles; far from it."
Well, um, actually, we know absolutely nothing about the evolution of the Bombardier Beetle.
He goes on: "But the gaps in our knowledge should not be interpreted as meaningful in themselves. Some people are apparently uncomfortable with the idea of uncertainty, so uncomfortable that they try to turn the unknown into the unknowable"
This is exactly what Isaak has done with his fantastic story of the Beetles evolution; he has culled the entire thing out of the Twilight Zone.
And these "Just So Stories" are used by evolutionists to string together their scenarios of "how the leopard got his spots" to regale their audiences, while they heap scorn on creationists who would dare to presume that some of these marvels of nature show evidence of design!
Then in a remarkable display of the pot calling the kettle black, Isaak
accuses the creationists of hubris!
"There has never been any evidence that bombardier beetles could not have evolved, but just because they couldn't explain exactly how the beetles evolved, lots of people jumped to the conclusion that an explanation was impossible. In fact, their conclusion says a lot more about themselves than about the beetles. To make such a conclusion based only on a lack of knowledge is a kind of arrogance."
Isaak is nothing if not cunning in his presentations, much like his predecessor Darwin. Thus when creationists have pointed out the utter absurdity of all of the above events happening as he has described them by blind chance, or for that matter any evolutionist event ever happening at all, he accuses the creationists of misrepresenting evolution, or at least of misrepresenting the evolutionists definition of evolution.
He says that they (the creationists) are wrong in stating that evolution,
according to the evolutionists, is supposed to proceed by mere chance. Yet Isaak
himself, after making that accusation, barely half a paragraph later states that
chance is the main ingredient in forming new genetic material, again, according
to the evolutionists: "Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic
variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with.
From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations."
Granted, Isaak claims that natural selection plays a part in sorting out
variations supposedly produced by chance, but he has to admit that natural
selection itself cannot create anything new. Natural selection is not a factor
in originating anything, as will be more fully shown in the next chapter, The
Origin of Evolution.
Thus, even by Isaak's own words, chance alone, through mutations, produces all of the new material by which evolution is supposed to proceed with. And yet chance, or random natural selection cannot account for the complexity that we find in living systems.
Later on in his FAQ Isaak throws a bone to those who want to believe in evolution and creation, i.e. theistic evolution, that it was "God's method" for creating species. You just have to believe that somewhere way, way back there in time, in the beginning of the whole process, God kick started the whole thing but then left it alone.
But Isaak argues against any purpose in evolution. Thus we would have a God
who created everything but then who had no purpose in creating anything, just
like throwing some paint onto a canvas. SPLOT! It all happened by chance. No
purpose, no design, an almighty intelligent Being just tossed a bunch of stuff
out into a universe He created and let fly. Then again, if you want to believe
that evolution was God's method, do you mean to say that you believe that God
created evolution? Is His hand involved in the details of evolution
If so, if purpose is involved, then chance and natural selection have no role to play in it, and it is no longer evolution.
In the second FAQ, Isaak also makes the claim that talk.origins has produced observed evidence of speciation, as well as transitional fossils providing proof that evolution has occured. I would refer the reader to Chapter Six of The Darwin Papers, where both of these ludicrous claims are dealt with.
Isaak is generally so far out of the ballpark with his illustrations and arguments that it should embarass talk.origins to still keep him posted at their site, were it not for the fact that his material is actually representative of most of the arguments used by the rest of the evolutionists there as well.
Fred Williams has mathematically demonstrated the impossibility of chance
mutations' role in creating a new species, a new organ, a new anything, thus
putting the nail in the coffin of Isaak's arguments.
Now according to Isaak, you have some organism going about its daily business
when suddenly ZAP! A stray cosmic ray, or a mistake in cell reproduction
produces a beneficial mutation. Isaak states that "chance ensures that such
beneficial mutations will be inevitable". But mutations are mistakes! By their
very nature, and by Isaak's definition they are not the product of any
intelligent design. They are accidents! And a cell is amazingly complicated,
more complicated than the largest computer ever built.
A cell has more structured, detailed information than a library of 1,000 books with each book having 500 pages. A single mutation to any of this, to one word in one page of this immense library could be, and in most cases is, deadly.
Isaak has tried to give natural selection some grand role in sorting out
these wonderful beneficial mutations that chance has supposedly produced. As
noted, natural selection is only a sorting process, it contributes nothing
towards a new genome. Isaak makes plenty of assumptions, such as "When the
environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment,
different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species."
This is an unqualified statement, backed up by no science, no data whatsoever. He has used the typical Darwinian technique of extrapolation, using variations within a species kind, and suggesting that these variations can go on and on until you have an entirely different "kind" of organism.
By Isaak's reasoning, you could take a hammer to your computer and eventually
come up with a better computer, or an improved hard drive. Or you could drive an
automobile over a cliff and come up with a newer model. Well, maybe not on
the first try, but remember, "nature is not constrained by
any persons lack of imagination" according
to Isaak, and we still have natural selection to work with. So maybe we
could drive 100,000 old cars over a 1,000 foot cliff and watch them crash onto
the rocks below and eventually come up with a better model car.
Hmmmm. Perhaps that would not be enough though, lets say we could drive 1,000,000 cars over a cliff and watch them crash. With the marvelous possibilites of natural selection to help us out, some of these cars, at least one or two of them, would turn into newer models with improved transmissions, advanced electronic ignition systems better fuel mileage, more comfortable bucket seats and improved child safety locks on the doors. Lets give them improved air bags as well! That's how Isaak assumed evolution produced the Bombardier Beetle, along with all of lifes other complex living systems. It was all chance and natural selection.
Or even better yet, let's start throwing old computers over a cliff until we come up with newer ones, better ones with more advanced hard drives and improved operating systems. Let's just round up as many as we can and start bulldozing piles of them over a steep cliff and watch them shatter onto the rocks below. Now, according to Isaak's Laws of Evolutionary Probability we are going to start producing more advanced computers that process data more efficiently through this process that I would like to call "advanced naturalistic dumping".
Natural selection will take those computers that have not been totally destroyed and start sorting through them and choosing the best ones for resale in the consumers market. Businesses will be beating a path to this dumping ground to pick up the most improved computers to sell on the market. And we could take those computers that have been improved by this method and throw them over the cliff again to upgrade them even more. Do you think?
Essentially, there are three possibilities that can occur when a mutation happens: The mutation can be beneficial (rarely if ever seen in nature); the mutation can be neutral; or the mutation can be harmful (by far the most common effect of mutation, by some estimates this comprises 99.9 % of all mutations, caused by damage from nuclear radiation, overexposure to the sun, toxic chemical effects on the cells, etc).
Thus the chance for a single mutation occuring that would be beneficial are less than 50/50, less than that of tossing a coin. At best, out of the three possibilities listed above it only has a 33% chance of being beneficial. Actually it really has much less of a chance than that, because the beneficial mutation would have to be of a particular type for a particular genome in a particular organism in a particular environment to improve the organisms' genetic code and improve the survival value. In other words, out of the billions of possibilities that could occur, it would have to be a very specific mutation. It would be like hitting the lottery, only a lottery that is composed of billions of possibilities.
Now, here's the problem. For each of the steps listed above by Isaak, there would have to be numerous biochemical substeps; smaller, extremely intricate chemical changes in the genetic code for the main steps to happen. And each time you take a further step the odds against the right genetic mutation occuring after that get smaller and smaller. In Isaak's case the mathematical odds against it are zero, even given hundreds of millions of years for this to have happened, and he does not have that much time either.
Mutations do not occur at a fast enough rate to produce beneficial changes. Remember, the odds are that over time you would have just as many bad mutations as good ones, causing a reversal to any of the steps listed above, along with the numerous unmentioned biochemical substeps. In fact, you would have more, because a "good" mutation has to be a specific mutation out of numberless possibilities most of which would be fatal, to have any benefit. It would be like a blind man hiking through the continent of North America in search of a particular key laying somewhere on the ground, and upon finding that key, out of hundreds of thousands of doors finding the right door to insert the key in. In fact, according to Isaak, it is even worse, because without intelligent design the blind man would not be "searching" for the key, he would just be wandering around and "happen" upon it, and then after picking it up he would just "happen" to fit it into the right slot in the right door. And if he picked up the wrong key, or inserted it into the wrong door, it would spell instant doom. Thus you would eventually, sooner rather than later, have a deadly mutation that would throw the whole thing out of whack and destroy the species.
Thus over time the negative mutations would swamp the beneficial ones, causing an extinction event, not a speciation event, because it only takes one negative mutation to cause the whole thing to stop; not only to halt it temporarily, but to end it forever, to destroy the species entire. Even given a 50/50 chance, there would have to be so many benefical mutations occuring in a row, without any negative ones, that it would be like tossing a coin and coming up heads 100,000 times in a row! And this would never happen in nature. This is a mathematical impossibility, even with natural selection saving the beneficial ones.
And given more time, the scene only gets worse, since the probability of negative mutations occuring are actually greater than positive mutations and would increase over time, this would mean that the scenario described above by Isaak would happen only in your dreams.
Isaak also makes the same simplistic assumptions regarding the origin of life
that he made with the Bombardier Beetle: "Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the
first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not
purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties."
That much is true, however he uses this known fact of physical chemistry to launch an entirely false premise in the field of organic chemistry, unproven in the natural world, and in fact, statistically impossible (if there were to be no Designer involved). "In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators."
This is a leap of faith of incredible proportions. NONE of this has
ever been observed in nature, it is entirely based on Isaak's own
evolutionary belief system, not on any hard science at all [even Rebek's
artificially produced replicating molecule in a laboratory setting was created
in conditions that would never be found in nature, where the presence of water,
which is necessary for any life to flourish, would destroy the reaction, and the
gap between what Rebek produced and the smallest genetic code for the simplest
organism, Mycoplasma genitalium is of such gigantic proportions that it would be
impossible to bridge naturally].
Jerry Bergman has noted: "It appears that the field of molecular biology will falsify Darwinism. An estimated 100,000 different proteins are used to construct humans alone. Furthermore, one million species are known, and as many as 10 million may exist . . . Even using an unrealistically low estimate of 1,000 steps required to “evolve” the average protein (if this were possible) implies that many trillions of links were needed to evolve the proteins that once existed or that exist today. And not one clear transitional protein that is morphologically and chemically in between the ancient and modern form of the protein has been convincingly demonstrated." Why Abiogenesis Is Impossible, Jerry Bergman, Ph.D., True.Origin Archive, 25 March, 2013; Originally published Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 4, March 2000
Thus you need to have the living cell FIRST in order to produce a sufficiency of these complex carbon based molecules necessary to sustain life.
After making his argument for abiogenesis, Isaak then issues this incredible disclaimer: "One should also note that the theory of evolution doesn't depend on how the first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of abiogenesis wouldn't affect evolution in the least."
If that were the case, then why did Isaak make such a plea for abiogenesis in the first place? And why do so many other evolutionists at talk.origins and other evolutionist dens spend so much time trying to prove it as well? If abiogenesis is so unimportant to the theory of evolution, then let's just agree that God miraculously created the first cell. Isaak should have no problem with that if it is such an inconsequential item for his theory.
What Isaak has said is simply not true. The truth is that abiogenesis is fundamental to the evolutionists viewpoint, for if you are to accept that something as complex as a single cell could never have been produced by blind chance, thus that a Creator had to have been involved in it's origin, then the Creator could very easily have created all of the other species of life after it as well, and that is why evolutionists have been working tirelessly for over a century, without any success, to prove that abiogenesis is possible, even after Pasteur's experiment in the nineteenth century disproved it, and in spite of the mathematical and chemical statistical odds that show it could never have happened.
For some genuine scientific data showing the utter impossibility of abiogenesis ever happening, these articles will through more light on the issue.
To further bolster his argument for evolution, Isaak smoothly assures us "For example, Darwin explained how, under his theory, a few photosensitive cells might evolve gradually into eyes."
In point of fact, Darwin did anything but explain how a few photosensitive cells evolved into eyes. The key word here is might, and even here, in his speculative ramblings, Darwin came nowhere near to explaining in any detail the intricate biochemical steps as to how such a complex and wonderful organ developed. He simply indulged in a wandering and often obtuse game of speculation as to how it might have occured.
Darwin had to admit that the eye developing by natural selection through random evolutionary processes was well-nigh to impossible: "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems. I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree", yet in a remarkable display of cunning, Darwin still attempted to use this admission of the failure of his theory as a springboard to justify it nonetheless! (Darwin, Origin of Species, Chapter VI: Organs of Extreme Perfection)
One might think, as I did at an earlier point in my study of Darwin, that
here at last we find him in a rare moment of honesty, but alas, such is not the
case. Darwin was still incapable of a frank admission of the deficiency of his
theory; and he went on to defend his hypothesis with an attempt to compare the
lack of evidence for the evolution of the eye with the incredible argument that
since the sun only appears to revolve around the earth, but in fact it is the
earth that revolves around the sun, then this somehow would show that what only
"seems . . . absurd in the highest degree", the evolution of the eye by natural
selection, actually has some degree of credibility.
Using this type of fantastic logic, one could go on to claim that the existence of werewolves only "seems . . .absurd to the highest degree", since one only has to look at the apparent revolution of the sun around the earth, when in fact it is the earth that revolves around the sun, for absolute proof that werewolves exist! To take an obvious fact of science, and the entire science of celestial mechanics and planetary motion that goes with it, and apply that as evidence for some simplistic, infantile fairy tale supposedly explaining how the eye "evolved" is an affront to the entire realm of valid scientific enquiry, yet these specious arguments are commonly adopted by evolutionists, from Darwin's time up to today.
Isaak then indulges in a meandering, pseudo-philosophical abstract, stating in brief that things are not really what they seem, until at last, fortunately for the reader, he cuts short his attempt at profundity with this little evolutionist nugget: "Finally, remember that the general arguments used here apply to a lot more than bombardier beetles. Creationists have argued for an appearance of design in everything from bacteria cilia to butterfly metamorphosis. Those arguments all share the same fallacies; they are all based on a combination of ignorance combined with a concept of design that is indistinguishable from evolution. If a kind of design incompatible with evolution were found in biology, nobody would be more excited than the professional biologists. As yet we haven't found such a design."
To which I can only respond: "Finally, remember that the concept for design in creation has tremendous importance for the way we view ourselves, our place in the universe, and our destiny. Evolutionists have long argued for the lack of design from the bombardier beetle to the wonderful patterns on the wings of butterflies. Their arguments all have certain logical errors in common; they all spring from a mixture of ignorance and a concept of evolution that is virtually identical with design. Evolutionists have willfully refused to recognise the amazing hand of the Creator from the evidence that stares them in the face in a thousand daily wonders of creation. They have hardened their hearts against the plainly revealed truth, as the Bible predicted men would do in the last days, thus heaping up for themselves a just recompense to reap in due season.
I have one final thing to say on the subject of the Bombardier Beetle: The God of the whole universe who created the sun and the moon and the stars also created the Bombardier Beetle. He is the same God who sent His son to die on the cross for the sins of the world. "For God so loved the world (mankind) that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life". That promise is for all the fallen race of Adam and Eve, including evolutionists such as Mark Isaak. Yeshuah the son of David is the Son of God, and is the Messiah of Israel and the Saviour of all mankind. He came to earth and was born of a virgin and died for us on a cross at Calvary 2000 years ago and rose again the third day from the dead and ascended unto the right hand of God the Father, where all power is given unto Him in heaven and earth, and he shall come again in power and glory to judge the living and the dead, and of His kingdom there shall be no end. Repent and believe in Him and in His blood to take away your sins and you will have the right to enter into that kingdom, and reign with Him forevermore.
One of the showcases that the evolutionists bring out for an example of their theory is the peppered moth of England. The peppered moth was primarily of the white variety for many years, and this is because it blended in with the light colored bark on the trees, thus keeping it safe from predators.
When the industrial revolution took place in England, the soot from the factories covered the bark on the trees, turning the appearance of them dark. After this, most of the white moths were eaten by predators and the dark form became predominant. This was called by evolutionists "industrial melanism," and is paraded in science books as proof that evolution has occurred. In fact, there was merely a shifting around in the proportion of dark to white moths in the existing population, but there was nothing new added, the moth never changed into anything other than a peppered moth, it didn't turn into a different species. The dark colored peppered moths had already existed within the population, natural selection did not produce anything original.
This kind of genetic variation within species is even mentioned in the Bible, where Jacob tended the cattle for his uncle Laban and bred cattle of different colors, so this is nothing new. This merely shows the goodness of the Creator in giving species the ability to vary within their own kind to meet different conditions. "Industrial melanism" is another one of those really neat words, like "punctuated equilibrium" and "parallel evolution" that those clever evolutionists are always thinking up. Amazing. Way back in the Old Testament Jacob was using "Industrial Melanism" and he never even knew it!
We have read Darwin’s perversion of the original Biblical mandate: "Be fruitfull, multiply, and subdue the earth" in his chilling conclusion to Chapter Eight of his Origin, where he spoke of his " one general law leading to the advancement of all organic beings , -namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die" which he applied to the different races of mankind as well in his Descent of Man [see Chapter 12 of The Darwin Papers].
How different are the words of the Prince of Peace, who said: "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth".
So far: Charles Darwin has been heralded as the man who brought to us the theory of evolution. The main ingredient in his theory was natural selection. Despite the grand tributes of praise to Charles Darwin by evolutionists for his great contribution to the realm of science with his "discovery" of natural selection, Charles Darwin did not originate the idea, and he borrowed much of the concept from a creationist scientist, Edward Blyth.
But does natural selection really explain anything about evolution? And is evolution really such a recent idea, or is it merely the reiteration of an ancient pagan ideology thousands of years old?
And was Charles Darwin the first Darwin to come up with the theory of evolution, or was there somebody else in his family tree who thought of it years before Charles Darwin ever wrote of it? Who was this other Darwin whose name was synonymous with the theory of evolution years before Charles Darwin was even born?
We will attempt to find the answer to this when we read about the mysterious Origin of Evolutionary Theory in the next issue of The Darwin Papers.
1. From The Nebulous Hypothesis: A Study in The Philosophical and Historical Implications of Darwinian Theory © 1996 by James M. Foard, .
2. A memoir of the late Edward Blyth, Arthur Grote, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Part ll, Vol. 43, xiv, (August 1875), reprinted as Charles Darwin, Edward Blyth, and the Theory of Natural Selection, by Loren Eiseley, published in the Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 103, No.1, February 1959, pp. 94-114.
3. Loren Eiseley, Darwin and the Mysterious X., E.P. Dutton, New York, 1979, pp. 52-53.
4. (ibid, pp. 53-70; 80-83.) Eiseley is an evolutionist.
5. (ibid, pp. 88) Dr. Henderson of Brooklyn College investigated this matter at the Cambridge University Library, from which Eiseley obtained some of his information, though Henderson's findings have yet to be published. Darwin's own copy of The Mazazine of Natural History of 1837 has notes taken on Blyth's paper in Darwin's own handwriting.
6. (ibid, pp. 83; 90-91)
7.In Darwin's original introduction to his Origin, he gave absolutely no hint that his ideas were borrowed from others. He wrote: "When on board the H. M. S. Beagle as naturalist, I was much struck with certain facts in the distribution of the organic beings inhabiting South America, and in the geological relations of the present to the past inhabitants of that continent. These facts, as will be seen in the latter chapters of this volume, seemed to throw some light on the origin of species- that mystery of mysteries, as it has been called by one of our greatest philosophers. On my return home, it occurred to me, in 1837, that something might perhaps be made out on this question by patiently accumulation and reflecting on all sorts of facts which could possibly have any bearing on it."
8. Eiseley, pp. 79-80. The oft repeated story of Darwin's inspiration with
the theory of evolution while visiting the Galapagos Islands and observing the
varieties of finches is nothing more than that, a story, another stretch of
historical imagination wound around the legend of Charles Darwin. In truth, he
gave short shrift to the finches in his journal, and it was only after his
return to England (and after he had read Blyth's writings) that he recalled the
finches and then wrote of them. The do not take up an impressive amount of space
in his Origin.
It should also be noted that variety within a species does not constitute evidence of evolution of one species changing into another, all of the various types of finches were still finches, and there was no evidence proposed by Darwin of where finches came from either, except from previous finches.
Extrapolating variation within a species to hint that a bird might change into something other than a bird has no foundation in actual evidence, as we shall see in the later chapters of this work. Biblical creationism takes into context variation, thus all of the races of men, with different hair color, skin color, etc. come from an originally created couple. This variation within a species, however, does not constitute evolution, it is merely the existing genetic potential within a created gene pool. With all of the possible variations within humankind, we carry no genes for feathers, or claws, or flippers. Species remain distinct.
9. Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe, pp. 199, Mentor Books, July 1983, Tickner and Fields Publishers.
10. Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe, pp. 199.
11. Janet Browne, Charles Darwin, pp. xiii of the Introduction.
12. Webster's Third New International Dictionary, A. Merriam Webster, Reg. U.S. Pat. Office, Philip babcock Bove, Ph.D., Editor in Chief, G.C. Merriam Co., Publishers, Springfield, Mass., U.S.A. 1976.
13. see equivocate, Miriam Webster's Third Int'l Dictionary, 1976, 1:To use equivocal language especially with intent to deceive, 2:Speak evasively: be willfully misleading, especially with double meanings. Synonym: See lie. Equivocation 3:A fallacy in logical reasoning (14)
14. Webster's Third New International Dictionary, A. Merriam Webster, Reg. U.S. Pat. Office, Philip babcock Bove, Ph.D., Editor in Chief, G.C. Merriam Co., Publishers, Springfield, Mass., U.S.A. 1976.(15)
15. Webster's Third New International Dictionary, A. Merriam Webster, Reg. U.S. Pat. Office, Philip babcock Bove, Ph.D., Editor in Chief, G.C. Merriam Co., Publishers, Springfield, Mass., U.S.A. 1976.
16. Darlington, C.D., Loc. Cit., pp.66.
17. From a Eulogy Grote wrote several years after Blyth's death, found in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, pt. 2, 43: xiv, 1875, 169-183.
18. Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, edited by Francis Darwin, London, 1888, Volume 2, pp. 315-316.
19. Grote, see note 85.
20. Eiseley, Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X., pp. 79-80.
21. Grote, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, pt. 2, 43: xiv, 1875, 169-183.
22. Darwin, Origin, Chapter 10, On the Absence of Intermediate Varieties at the Present Day
25. Letter from Charles Darwin to Joseph Hooker, 13 July, 1856, Darwin Archives, Cambridge University.
26. Edward Blyth, Seasonal and other Changes in Birds, Magazine of Natural History, Vol.9,39.9, 1837. Darwin did make a few obscure, passing references to Blyth in his Descent of Man, but he came nowhere near to giving Blyth the place and the credit he deserved.
Darwin also made an oblique acknowledgement to the existence of God in his
Descent of Man, though it must be remembered that in the original
temptation of man, the serpent, when tempting Eve, did not disavow God's
existence (Yea is there a God?), but he did question God's authority, His
integrity, His character and His truthfulness, "Yea hath God said?" He succeeded
in casting doubt and aspersion on God's Word. While I am not trying to intimate
by any means that Darwin was the devil himself, he was definitely, in the
classical sense, the devil's advocate.
In The Descent of Man, when Darwin attempts to analyze man's religious feeling, and he theorizes that religion was a purely natural, evolutionary development of survival instincts instead of a revelation given to man from an all-powerful and loving God, one is struck by the uncanny feeling that this was written from the perspective of somebody on the outside looking in at human religious sentiment, as though Darwin himself was entirely immune to any genuine religious impulse of his own. Again, the similarity between Darwin and another infernal character in one of C.S. Lewis's books, Out of the Silent Planet, is striking. Darwin definitely seemed to be a prototypical prefigurement of the end-time "false prophet", the founder of a new socio-religious outlook on human existence, a fallen son of the church formerly studying for priestly orders who apostacised from the faith (actually, like the original son of perdition it is doubtful that he had any genuine faith in the beginning). Desmond and Moore report that when Darwin began studying for religious orders "He was headed for the Church but unconcerned about his soul."
Although Darwin's remark on his role as "the devil's chaplain" was obviously
not meant to have been taken literally, it does perhaps give an indication for
the inspiration of much of his work. In describing one episode from his college
years when he and some of his companions rode out at dark after curfew to see a
fire burning in the distance, Darwin noted that they "rode like incarnate
devils." (Complete Correspondence of Charles Darwin, Edited by Burkhart,
and Autobiography of Charles Darwin)
In this and in subsequent chapters where we investigate some of Darwin's writings, to describe him as crafty, or sly, or as the old English version of the Bible would state it- "subtle"- would almost be an understatement. He was incredibly shrewd in his ability to put something across to so many people as the scientific explanation for the origin of species when he had no evidence at all to back it up. Darwin was not necessarily the anti-christ, or the final false prophet mentioned in the Bible, but he was definitely an anti-christ, or else a false prophet, of which we are told there will be many preceding Christ's second coming, spinning a web of falsehoods into an entire worldview which is anti-Biblical and to which his followers cling to with a religious zeal.
Darwin was also acquainted while in college with the first "Devil's Chaplain", the signature attached to the reverend Robert Taylor, a former cleric who abandoned the Christian faith and set up headquarters for his "Infidel Club" near Cambridge in 1830 above a printing shop that Darwin frequented. Taylor served prison time, along with his infamous companion Carlile for blasphemy, which must have been extroardinarily serious, since in that era in England clergymen were getting by with saying practically anything they wanted with little government inteference. In two blasphemous Sunday sermons on "The Devil" delivered in the "Rotunda," an old delapidated building near the Thames restored for Taylor's "congregation," of atheists and free-thinkers, Taylor proclaimed "God and the devil . . .to be one and the self same being." (Desmond and Moore, pp. 84) Taylor, still dressed as a cleric and openly denouncing Christianity among the populace at Cambridge, strode around the campus like some avenging angel intent on overturning the Christian work going on there.
While not wishing to speculate unduly on Darwin's inner man, still, his
abnormal obsession with hunting, his acts of cruelty toward animals, his lack of
a normal emotional response to his mothers' death, his shunning of social life
and unexplained state of continual convalescence during the final forty years of
his life, are all classic indications of possible diabolic influence.
What other explanation could be given for the great international esteem given to him and his work, his being declared such a great scientist who "proved" evolution, when in fact neither of these premises is even close to being true? When observing the enormous influence of his book on the cultural and scientific community during the century after his death, and the actual paultry evidence that he offered in it for his theory, it is a bit puzzling. His work was definitely inspired, possibly even guided along by some mysterious and dark infernal hand.
When Darwin finished the final proof of his Origin of Species in 1859 he began to vomit and wrote to a friend : ""I have been very bad lately; having had an awful 'crisis' one leg swelled like elephantiasis - eyes almost closed up - covered with a rash and fiery boils: but they tell me it will surely do me much good. . . . it was like living in Hell."(Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, 1859, sourced from Creation World View Ministries, http://www.creationworldview.org/Articles/Article%2030.htm)
There is documentation that when Darwin was traveling though South America he took part in one of the pagan rites and was initiated into the dark secrets of their native religion, and it is possibly at this time that there was some kind of demonic influence on him. If that may have been the case, it is possible that Darwin was so steeped in his rebellion against God at that time that he had no idea that he even was under demonic direction, possible even "guidance" that influenced his later work, just as many modern day infidels have no idea who their true master really is. Let this be a solemn warning for those who repeatedly harden their hearts against the pleading of the Holy Spirit on them, leading them to repentance, for the time may come when they will no longer be able to hear His call. Darwin was uniquely prepared and perhaps even "chosen" for his task in life after at least three generations in his family tree of dedicated infidels and assorted rogues, although his choosing was not by our Lord.
There is another possible contributing factor for the cause of his frequent bad health and retreat from public life, which is, that in light of the dubious relationship between Darwin's paternal grandfather and grandmother, there could have been a role reversal situation between Darwin and his wife, wherein Darwin was the patient and his wife the caregiver, in fact we find that Bowlby and Desmond and Moore indicate that this was truly the case, the perfect nurse had found the perfect patient. As far as what the nature of his illness might have been, again we can only speculate, however, in light of his family history, the symptoms are suspiciously indicative of a recurrence of that unhappy malady that afflicted his grandmother and uncle, but until more of the curtain of history is lifted on this mysterious individual, we shall have to withhold any definitive statement on the issue.
Regarding spiritual deception in the modern world, in the
late twentienth century we had a Korean antichrist who cherished the ambition to
be crowned King over America and rule the world. I had some personal experience
dealing with this character and some of his followers many years ago. It was in
the early spring of 1973 when I lived in a house near Berkeley California (on
Kingston Street in the wealthy Piedmont section of Oakland) with Martin
Durst and his two young sons, and two other young college students who were
deeply involved, along with Durst, with the Unification Church, popularly known
as the "Moonies". At that time Durst was an english teacher at a local
community college who later changed his name to Mose Durst and became the
president of the Unification church of America, founded by Mr. Moon of Korea,
the aforementioned antichrist.
Durst was a fairly mild mannered man who seemed to be thirsting for attention as well as recognition in the academic and political world and he seemed to have found the attention he so desperately craved with the "Moonies". I don't doubt his dedication to his cause, but I wonder what it was that drove him into the organization in the first place. The question of our motivation is critically important in our relationship to God and our approach to Him; among the Lord's disciples it is what separated a Judas from a John. A true lover of God will love Him for who He is, regardless of what their circumstances are in life or how it may benefit them socially or financially.
Durst always seemed to me to be seeking God in order to validate himself. His
story of being brought up in a Jewish family in Brooklyn New York is poignant
and touching. But from there it quickly becomes obvious that he began to have
aspirations that may have clouded what could have led him to finding the real
Jewish Messiah: Jesus Christ, the Lord of Glory.
Durst envisioned himself as the central character in this grand epochal quest for truth, and he imagined that he had found it in the Unification church. In his autobiography he wrote
"I was tough and strong inside. Nothing could stop me. I had been waiting all my life to be used for some high purpose, and now I had found that purpose".Boastings such as these in someones' autobiography often belie the true character of the person. There was a great deal of the Barney Fife persona in Durst: The posturing, swaggering little man in search of personal greatness. The main difference between the two was that we all knew Barney was basically a good man inside who was loyal to Andy and his beloved town of Mayberry. We all loved Barney because he was basically a harmless, lovable goof with a heart of gold.
The Bible states that the Biblical Moses was of all people on the face of the
earth, the meekest one. Humility was his defining quality. God was everything
and he was merely an instrument in God's hand. One singular aspect that I recall
about the Unification church was the tremendous amount of ego stroking that went
on in it. You see, the members felt that they did not come to God because they
needed Him. They came to God because He needed them. God just couldn't
get along without them. They envisioned themselves as the cream of the crop, the
cultural and socially elite who were uniquely chosen because they were so
qualified. They were the very elect of the elect in God's continually improving
The members of the Unification church believed that they were specially chosen by God to rule the world; politically, economically, culturally and spiritually. One way they would further their goal was by holding lavish banquets at major convention centers where they would invite prominent heads of state, corporate moguls, leading scientists, and representatives of various religous denominations. Unfortunately George Bush Sr. has attended more than a few of these meetings and has received hefty speaking fees from this organization. Jerry Falwell received millions from Moon as well, and has praised him as a great Christian leader.
Members of Moon's church were sent out to mingle with the crowd at these events, where they would rub shoulders with the prominent figures they had invited, generally falling all over themselves to curry their favor with flatteries and offers of bribes for their organizations. Sometimes two or three members would even be "assigned" to a particular figure by higher ups in their organization. Generally the capstone of the event would be a speech by Moon himself to the audience where, with the most audacious blasphemy and self aggrandisement, he would proclaim himself King of creation, and make references to the male phallic organ, along with other bizarre rantings, while there would hardly be a murmer of protest from his prestigious assembly of clerics and scholars. After all, he would be funnelling money to each of their favorite organisations; better to pocket the bribe now and keep your mouth shut than to make a fool of oneself by asking where on earth did this man get his lunatic ideas from.
One astute Catholic priest who attended one of their events years ago, accurately described the whole thing as nothing more than "a fawning appeal to intellectual snobbery".
It would have been an incredibly ignominious blow to the pride of the leaders of the Unification church to have had to realise that the only way that they would have to come to God was on the same basis as the common drunk a few blocks down the street at the local Rescue Mission, that we all are equals at the foot of the cross, and that their own accomplishments and family "breeding" mean nothing compared to the sacrifice of Jesus. You see, God does not need us, but He loves us, in spite of ourselves and our sins, and He sent His Son to die for us to redeem us from our sin. Luther said "God does not love us because we are valuable. We are valuable because God loves us." And that love extends to each and every member of humankind on earth.
I briefly met Sun Myung Moon during that time. This was before I had
encountered the real Messiah, Jesus Christ. Sun Myung Moon was not merely
psychologically deranged; he was filled with evil, in the true spiritual sense.
He believed that he was the second messiah, after Jesus. In Christianity grace
is unmerited favor. Our salvation is the result of God's mercy. To hear some of
Moon's speeches you would think that he was handing out favors to God. The
people in his organization had real spiritual power too, but it was not from
The Unification church does not believe in the Trinity. According to Moon, God is nothing more than some great Yin/Yang power source, similar to a cosmic Energizer battery from which we derive power from. Jesus was merely a man given the potential for self perfection, and was not born of a virgin. The Crucifixion was a mistake, Jesus was meant to marry and start a perfect family from Jerusalem and rule the world from there. Jesus failed and Moon was chosen by God to fulfill Jesus' mission and conquer the world. This is all pretty frightening stuff, but it was lapped up willingly by the members of his church as they ran about like robots doing his bidding. Moon believes he was meant to attain perfection and find a second Eve who will become perfect and then establish a perfect family with perfected offspring, thus reversing the fall of the human race.
There are some serious problems with this.
For one thing, Moon has been married three times. Which of his three wives was the perfected Eve? For another thing, his eldest son was a drug user, drunk, adulterer and wife beater. How could he have been part of the perfect family? Then there was the incident of the Black Heung Jin Moon. Moon's son Heung Jin Moon was killed in a car accident. In 1987 Sun Myung Moon became convinced that the spirit of his dead son had taken over the body of a Zimbabwean man and spoke through him. Moon had never met the man, but he authorized this man to go around the world with authority to discipline Unification members who had strayed from the fold. This man beat up wayward members for their infractions, even "beating up Bo Hi Pak-a man in his sixties-so badly that he was hospitalized for a week in Georgetown Hospital."
In light of the fact that Moon desired to be crowned King of America and establish a family dynasty to rule the world, one can only imagine the monstrous consequences of such an event ever happening if his family were ever to achieve the political power that he craved.
The Unification church used messages from spiritists to validate their teaching, which was in total contradiction to the Word of God. During a weekend seminar on their northern California property in Booneville we listened to tapes of Arthur Ford, who was a mediumistic psychic who spoke with his spirit guide named Fletcher concerning Sun Myung Moon. Moon knew Arthur Ford and relied on his psychic readings to verify his claim to messiahship. Contacting mediums is strictly forbidden in the Bible, thus this attempt to gain legitimacy from unholy sources in the part of Mr. Moon and his church demonstrates the occultic and antichrist nature of him and his organization.
We also had a question and answer session when guests and family members would ask the woman in charge of the weekend retreat about topics relating to religion and morals. She would ponder the question for a moment or two and then supposedly obtain an answer from the spirit world (demons) and reply. One of the questions concerned the issue of abortion. This was in the year 1973, the beginning of the heyday of the women's liberation movement, the year when Roe vs. Wade was passed. When she was asked about abortion she responded that an unformed fetus in the womb was not yet a fully developed human being and that abortion was perfectly legitimate. The word of God says "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they be of God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world". (1 John 4:1)
There was a great deal of demonic activity going on in this organization. They studied the writings of an 18th century occultist and medium, Emannuel Swedenborg (who also had an influence on Joseph Smith, founder of Mormonism). Swedenborg spent much of his life consorting with demons (he believed he was talking to angels, which he was, but they were fallen angels), and denied the major doctrines of salvation by grace, the Trinity, the literal second coming of Christ, along with discarding the writings of St. Paul as uninspired. He wrote his own unholy interpretation of Scripture, which he called "The True Christian Religion". He also claimed to have seen the inhabitants of the moon, mars, venus and jupiter. He said that some of these beings on other worlds were gigantic, others dwarflike, and some similar to hunchbacks.
Swedenborg was guilty of the heresy of Sabellianism, one of many heresies
that appeared in the 3rd and 4th centuries A.D. Named after Sabellius, who was
excommunicated in 220 by Pope Callistus, Sabellianism denied the Christian
doctrine of the Trinity, claiming that Jesus was the Father Himself who
"manifested" Himself into the world in a physical "mode". Swedenborg also over
spiritualized every part of the Bible. This is an ancient heresy dating back to
Philo the Jew during the first century. Swedenborg just couldn't take anything
the Lord said at face value.
Granted, our Lord did use parables to illustrate some of His teachings, and there is symbolism in the Bible, however according to Swedenborg, such teachings as "Love your neighbor as yourself" were too profound for the average person to understand. You had to read his own special occult interpretation of the Bible to really find out the secret teachings of Jesus. It all had some hidden meaning. "Blessed are the meek" was really a secret coded message to convey some higher truth that only Swedenborg had deciphered. This was all lunacy, the pompous rantings of someone who was so full of himself that he just couldn't bring himself to understand the simple and yet sublime truths coming from the mouth of the Saviour. Even though the scribes and pharisees with all of their pride and learning opposed the Lord and his teachings, it is written that "the common people heard him gladly". The Word of God says "Except you become as little children, and become converted, you can in no way enter the Kingdom of heaven".
Returning to Moon, he has made some outrageous statements over the years that
should call into question his sanity (and the sanity of anyone who would follow
Here are just a few samples:
"Out of all the saints sent by God, I think I am the most successful one already, as it now stands. Don't you think so? [Yes!] Even seeing that, you can trust me as your leader". (Sun Myung Moon Third Directors' Conference Master Speaks May 17, 1973); "I am a thinker, I am your brain. Even though I may be rejected by God, I choose this way. " (Master Speaks, ibid); "I am a cruel person in a way. When I was imprisoned, my mother would come to see me. If she said things in the worldly manner, I would cut her off and send her away. I would say, "Woman, don't weep for me, weep for the whole world. If you are sympathetic with me, I hate to see you -- go away from me." That's what I was and that's what I want you to be."(Master Speaks May 17, 1973); "I know the established Christian theology. I know the enemy, but the enemy doesn't know me. Thus the enemy has already lost the war" (Sun Myung Moon, Today's World, November 1993, p. 14); "Are you better than Jesus? You must be better than him. Yes, you must be confident that you can do better things and you can be better than Jesus, because Jesus died and could save the world only on the spiritual level. But you are going to save the world both on the spiritual level and physical level. You must be confident that you are better than Jesus. " (Master Speaks May 17, 1973); "Abraham was the father of faith, Moses was a man of faith, Jesus was the son of man, trying to carry out his mission at the cost of his life. But they are, in a way, failures." (Master Speaks, "Victory of Defeat"," translated by Won Pok Choi, March 31, 1973, p.1); "Until our mission with the Christians is over, we must quote the Bible and use it to explain the Divine Principle. After we receive the inheritance of the Christian church, we will be free to teach without the Bible." (Sun Myung Moon, Master Speaks, #7, p.1); "The whole world is in my hand, and I will conquer and subjugate the world. I will go beyond the boundary of the U. S., opening up the toll gate, reaching out to the end of the world. I will go forward, piercing through everything." (Master Speaks May 17, 1973); "Am I foolish and insignificant or am I great? I gave all individuals in the world cause to kneel down in front of me." (Sun Myung Moon, Today's World, March 1995, p. 6)
These sayings, to anyone of even nominal Christian faith, are blasphemy. To a non-religious person they would appear to be the ravings of a maniac. Moon is probably too old now for his evil schemes for world dominance to bear any fruit in his lifetime. He will pass on before long while his organization, bereft of his charismatic influence, will undoubtedly (hopefully) fritter away to some half forgotten cult among many others in the twentieth century, while his weird belief system will be long forgotten by generations to come. Still, he is one example among many of the heresies that have stalked the Church since the first century, and we need to be on our guard against these heresies, as they will continually be popping up until our Lord Himself returns for His Church, with false christs and false prophets proclaiming some new revelation, generally with themselves at the center of their teaching, and proclaiming some new (false) way of salvation. We are also told that there will be some future evil prince with Moon's ambitions who will persecute the true Church of God, proclaiming himself to be the messiah.
The question we have to ask ourselves now is, how do we know that we are believing in the right Jesus, the real Jesus of the Bible? After all, we have many different groups running around today, and they each have their own version of Jesus. The Mormons believe that Jesus was the spirit brother of Lucifer. Swedenborg believed that Jesus was a manifestation of the Father, but had no distinct personality of his own. The Unification church believes that Jesus was a mere man who was born of the carnal union of Zacharias and Mary. So which is it?
Well, if you want to take the modern "tolerant" approach then it really doesn't matter. After all, as John Lennon sang, "Imagine there's no heaven, imagine there's no hell". Go ahead and follow your own imagination if it suites you, however in the real world, not Lennon's imaginary, drug induced fantasy, there was a real man named Jesus who walked on the shores of Galilee. In the real world we are all going to die someday and wind up in eternity. If you wan't to pretend that it doesn't really matter what you believe, then go ahead and take that chance.
In the real world, when an engineer builds a bridge, he has to rely on real
formulas, exact mathematic equations in order to have a safe bridge so that
people will not perish driving from one side of the bridge to the other. If he
uses the wrong type of material in building the bridge, or makes the wrong
calculations when estimating the amount of tension and weight that the bridge is
able to withstand, then it can cost the lives of many people if it is unable to
stand up to the constant traffic or the adverse effects of the weather. So too
in the spiritual life, if you have been handed the wrong building materials, the
wrong belief system, the wrong spiritual "food", then it can cost you your life,
your eternal life. This is a very serious issue. In the spiritual world we need
a bridge, but it must be the right bridge, or else we will perish. Just as our
Lord said "He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him
who sent Me; He who receives a prophet receives a prophet's reward, and he who
receives a righteous man will receive a righteous man's reward", so too he who
receives a false prophet will receive a false prophet's reward, and he who
follows an unrighteous man will receive an unrighteous man's reward.
This brings us back to the question, will the real Jesus please stand up? We really need to know. This is why the early church had ecumenical councils, in order to determine the real Jesus from the false christs that even then were being preached and followed in the world. And in these councils holy men of God prayed, and sought the Lord, and searched the Scriptures, and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit - "And the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name. He will teach you all things, and bring all things into remembrance that I have spoken unto you", (John 14:26) - they wrote out confessions of faith, and it is these confessions of faith that the Church has used down through the centuries to understand the true, orthodox religion given to us from the fathers of the church. And in the Apostles Creed, the earliest confession of faith among Christians, we read:
I believe in God the Father Almighty. And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord, who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary; crucified under Pontius Pilate and buried; the third day he rose from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father, from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit; the holy Church; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the flesh. The life everlasting.
Later on, to refute the heresy of gnosticism, this creed was expanded into the Nicene Creed, however nothing was added to it that was not already common belief among the earliest apostles. The Nicene creed reads
I believe in one God, the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, Creater of all that is seen and unseen. And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only begotten son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one essence with the Father. Through him all things were made. Who for us and for our salvation came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]. With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. AMEN.
This then is the orthodox faith. This is the faith of the early church. This is the defining creed by which we may know that we are following the genuine Christ, the true Jesus, and not some false, made up Jesus based on the delusions of Joseph Smith or Swedenborg or Mr. Moon. This is the cutting edge for all genuine Christian faith.
Unificationists (I have to refer to them some way, and don't want to
unecessarily offend them by calling them "Moonies", which they regard as a
pejorative term) don't believe that Jesus was meant to die on the cross. They
believe that this was all some kind of horrible mistake.
There is a saying in Christianity: The New Testament is concealed in the Old, and the Old Testament is revealed in the New. So let us look back into the Old Testament. Let us see if there is any indication that the Messiah was meant to die and shed His blood for our sins from the Holy Scriptures of the Hebrews.
Let us go back to the story of Adam and Eve (Incidently, there were more than a few church fathers as well as clerics in the midieval church who believed that the original sin might have been a sexual sin, so this is no novel revelation coming exclusively from Moon. I don't know what the sin was outside of the Bible. They disobeyed God by partaking of some forbidden fruit that was pleasing to the eyes, good to taste and made one wise, perhaps wise in the ways of the world, knowing good and evil). Immediately after Adam and Eve sinned, they made themselves skins from fig leaves. Afterwards God made them animal skins to wear. Notice that fig leave aprons were made by them. The animal sacrifice for the skins came from God. This was His provision, the death of an animal and the shedding of blood.
Next we come to Cain and Abel. Here we have the very first mention of an offering to God, and the record of the first murder in human history. Cain brought an offering from the ground to God, however it was not accepted. Abel, on the other hand, brought a lamb to God as an offering. Remember this, because Jesus was the lamb slain from the foundation of the world. His death was prefigured throughout the entire Old Testament, it was no last minute scramble by God to try and fix things when everything went disasterously wrong. Abel's offering must have included the shedding of the blood of a lamb, or lambs since it could have been more than one, as the Scripture says that he also brought their fat to God. Notice the Scripture says it was the first born of the flock. The New Testament refers to Jesus as the first born from the dead.
Now, why was Cain's offering not accepted? For one thing, his heart was not
right when he offered it in the first place. He was full of pride. How do we
know that? We know that because he killed his brother out of jealousy after God
rejected his offering and accepted Abel's. He did everything he did for his own
glory, for his own self esteem. And the Scripture said that his works were
Cain must have been furious: "Here I went to all this work, I grew my crops, (I got up at five every morning to pray, I fasted; I even fasted for seven days once; I sold flowers out in the rain, it's not fair!) I harvested them, I brought some of my fruit to the Lord, and now He says it's not good enough! But my brother's offering is better than mine! I hate him!".
I would submit that if Cain had really done what he did to please God, for God's glory, then instead of being filled with rage, he might have been hurt, and he might have searched his heart, and wondered why God had not accepted his offering. He might have asked God what was wrong. When he talked with his brother he might have asked for Abel's advice for making a proper sacrifice. He might have repented. But he did what he did for his own glory, from self love, not out of love for God. That's why he was angry at his brother when Abel's sacrifice was accepted and his was not. His pride was hurt. And the Scripture tells us that this was the cause of the first murder. This is fascinating: The first murder had a religious motive behind it. The final persecution of Christians during the tribulation will have a religious motive behind it as well.
Let us go to a third example. The Passover. In the Passover we see the clearest example of the salvation through the blood of the lamb, of Jesus. When the death angel passed over Egypt, the Jews were instructed to take the blood of a lamb and put it over the door posts of their houses to be spared. The blood of a lamb. Now, it didn't matter that night how nice of a person you might have been, how "loving" you were, what a good communicator you were, what a great personality you had or how much education you had. If you didn't have the blood of a lamb protecting you, then you were going to die. Only the lambs' blood could protect you on the night of the first Passover. You were meant to eat the flesh of the lamb that night. The Lord said "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, you have no life in you." Was God trying to give us some kind of hint here, telling us something about how the Messiah would suffer and die for our sins?
"Christian symbolism in the Passover occurs early in the Seder (the Passover dinner). Three matzahs are put together (representing the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). The middle matzah is broken, wrapped in a white cloth, and hidden, representing the death and burial of Jesus. The matzah itself is designed to represent Jesus, since it is striped and pierced, which was prophesized by Isaiah, David, and Zechariah [But he was pierced through for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and by his stripes we are healed. (Isaiah 53:5) For dogs have surrounded me; A band of evildoers has encompassed me; They pierced my hands and my feet. (Psalms 22:16) "And I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him, like the bitter weeping over a first-born. (Zechariah 12:10)] .
Following the Seder meal, the "buried" matzah is "resurrected," which was foretold in the prophecies of David. It was during a Passover seder that Jesus proclaimed that the meal represented Himself and that He was instituting the New Covenant, which was foretold by Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Isaiah ["Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the LORD. "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them, and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. (Jeremiah 31:31-33) "And I shall give them one heart, and shall put a new spirit within them. And I shall take the heart of stone out of their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, that they may walk in My statutes and keep My ordinances, and do them. Then they will be My people, and I shall be their God. (Ezekiel 11:19-20) "I am the LORD, I have called you in righteousness, I will also hold you by the hand and watch over you, And I will appoint you as a covenant to the people, As a light to the nations, (Isaiah 42:6) ].
The celebration of this covenant has become the ordinance of communion in the Christian Church. At the end of the meal, Jesus took the unleavened bread, broke it, and said that it represented His body. Then He took the cup of wine, which would have been the third cup of the Seder - the cup of redemption. He said that it was the new covenant in His blood "poured out for you." It is through the sacrificial death and resurrection of Jesus Christ that we are declared clean before God, allowing those of us who choose to accept the pardon, to commune with Him - both now and forevermore through the eternal life He offers." (The Heavens Declare the Glory of God)
"For God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life". That kind of love is the kind of love that sent Jesus to the cross: "Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends".
That was the kind of love that God is talking about. The love that bought our salvation cost the Son of God His life. He suffered beating, and scourging, and was spit upon, and mocked, and hung on a cross and died for you and for me, and His death was prefigured throughout the entire Old Testament, and I have only briefly shown a few examples out of many that demonstrate this. Leviticus says: "For it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul". (Leviticus 17:11)
Jesus, the Son of God washed the feet of His disciples. Moon struts around like a little banty rooster in a barnyard, living like a king while his followers live in poverty to support him. Jesus pardoned the woman taken in adultery. He offered living waters to the woman at the well who had lived with six different men. Moon refers to American women as "prostitutes". Members of Moon's own family beat their wives. The Bible says "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church, and gave Himself for it."
I want to offer a challenge and an invitation to members of the Unification church, some of whom I knew many years ago. My challenge is this: Let go of your pride. Admit that you have been following a false prophet and a false messiah for these many years. This won't be easy, because of your all consuming sense of your own importance, because of your pride in your education and your family heritage it will be very difficult, but I hope that somehow I may be reaching you if you read this.
It was not Jesus Christ who appeared to Sun Myung Moon. It was not Jesus Christ who appeared to Swedenborg. It was a devil, probably satan himself who appeared to them, claiming to be Christ.
St. Paul wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit:
"But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his slyness, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 4 For if he who comes should preach another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if you receive another spirit, which you have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, you might even be led along with him; 12 But what I do, I will also continue to do, that I may cut off the opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the things of which they boast. 13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works. (2 Cor: 3-4; 12-15)
Paul further gave this solemn warning:
"But even if we, or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel to you than what we have [already] preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed." (Gal 1:8,9)
It is obvious from Moon's life that his righteousness was a facade. And for those who follow him, when they wind up in eternity and realise their mistake it will be too late to do anything about it.
To those members of the Unification church who read this, I want to say to
you, lay aside your pride and come to the true Messiah. With
all of your flowery talk about having a "loving heart" and being so dedicated to
the cause of restoring humanity you yourselves need to be restored, but not
through the false teachings of Mr. Moon.
Although it may be a blow to your pride, you are no different then anyone else in the world. We are all sinners in need of God's grace through the sacrifice of His Son. You are not some part of a special, elite vanguard of privileged people chosen to bring in some new era of righteousness into the world. You have been following a madman, probably demon possessed. Admit this, and repent.
Now, here is the invitation. If you really want to know the truth, if you are
really hungering and thirsting after righteousness, then come to Christ, the
true Christ, Jesus Christ, the genuine Messiah, the Son of God, and find real
rest for your weary heart. Find the true peace that passeth all understanding,
find the real salvation that only the Cross of Calvary can bring. Renounce the
false teachings of Swedenborg and the false claims of Moon, renounce satan and
all of his works, and come to the Messiah of Israel, who loved you and died for
you, and who loves you still, and wants to welcome you home. Jesus said "Come unto me, all you who labour and are heavy laden, and I will
give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly
in heart: and you shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my
burden is light." (Matt. 11:28-29)
If your heart is till tender, if there is the slightest possibility of repentance in your soul, then open your heart up to the real Saviour, to Jesus, and ask Him to cleanse you from your sin through the blood that He willingly shed for you, ask Him to forgive you, and He will do that, and He will give you a new life, as He promised, eternal life, and then you will find that purpose that you searched for throughout so many years in vain.
Concerning the wiles of the devil and his deeds in this world, you don't always see demons flying around in the air, but you can perceive them through their activity in other people. As noted, you may see them in another persons' expression. You can see them in some so-called enlightened masters from the far east who desire to be worshipped as gods but will not give glory to the true God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. You can see them at work as the abortionist's scalpel slaughters innocent babies in the name of convenience or human progress. You can see them when crowds gather at certain political ralleys and fists are raised into the air in defiance of God (you will see fists raised into the air in a variety of organizations with no apparent ties politically or culturally, however the one common bond that they all will have would be rebellion against God. In Christian organizations hands are raised up with open palms in worship). You can see them in the actions of a suicide bomber who massacres innocent children, or when a terrorist cuts the throat of a social worker in a muslim country working for the welfare of it's citizens. Just as all good actions come ultimately from God, so all evil actions come from the devil: "Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, even as He is righteous. He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning". (1John 3:7-8)
However God in his mercy even allows some pagan religions and cults to do good and to perform acts of charity so that perchance, through their good actions they might come to know the God of truth. (Acts 10)
There are some "infidel" websites on the internet where hoards of "former" Christians gather to deride the faith that they once professed. When these poor, foolish deluded souls follow some infidel leader who, like Judas has betrayed his Lord and had the devil literally enter into him and made shipwreck of his salvation and the salvation of others who have followed him, they are unaware of the infernal glee among the demonic throng when they post their angry invectives against God and His Word. Just as there is rejoicing in heaven at the repentance of one soul, so there is infernal laughter among the inhabitants of hell when those who oppose Him and His Christ (the real Christ, Jesus) rail and blaspheme against God.
It is interesting when a psychiatrist will sit in his chair jotting down
notes from a conversation with a man on the couch as he describes his encounters
with demonic agents. The psychiatrist will blandly describe them as nothing more
than neurotic, delusional fantasies. In truth it is the psychiatrist who is
suffering from delusions, while a demon is whispering into his (spiritual) ear
that there is no God, there are no angels or demons, Darwin provided all the
answers, the Bible is nothing more than a book of fairy tales, heaven is a myth
to comfort those who are weak of heart, etc. while he takes down his notes,
entirely unaware that the man on the couch has a much more vivid and clear
picture of reality than he does.
Were the psychiatrist to even once admit to himself that any of this were in the least bit true, he would have to fly at once to the foot of the cross for refuge or else lose his mind in abject terror at the thought of the demonic host surrounding him. And truly, if our spiritual eyes were open and we could see the many evil spirits inhabiting this fallen world, and the daily battles going on between good and evil in the spiritual realm, we would be terrified ourselves except for those who have chosen to take refuge under the sheltering arms of Christ, and been redeemed through His blood.
When we trust in the Lord and obey His commandments, God Himself will come and dwell within us (John 14), and Scripture says "Greater is He who is in me, than he who is in the world". God watches over and protects those who are His own.
The Word of God gives us this promise of protection:
He who dwells in the secret place of the Most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty. I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; my God, in Him I will trust" Surely He shall deliver you from the snares of the fowler, and from the noisome pestilence. He shall cover you with His feathers, and under His wings you shall take refuge. His truth shall be your shield and buckler.
You shall not be afraid of the terror by night, nor of the arrow that flies by day, nor of the pestilence that walks in darkness, nor of the destruction that lays waste at noonday.
A thousand shall fall at your side, and ten thousand at your right hand, but it shall not come nigh you. Only with your eyes shall you look and behold the reward of the wicked.
Because you have made the Lord, who is my refuge, even the Most High, your dwelling place, no evil shall befall you, nor shall any plague come nigh your dwelling place:
For He shall give His angels charge over you, to keep you in all your ways. In their hands they shall lift you up, lest you dash your foot against a stone. You shall tread upon the lion and the serpent you shall tread underfoot.
"Because he has set his love upon Me, therefore I will deliver him. I will set him on high, because he has known My name. He shall call upon Me, and I will answer him:
I will be with him in trouble;
I will deliver him and honor him.
With long life I will satisfy him,
And show him My salvation."
When we trust in the Lord and in His Word and walk in obedience to Him, there is a spiritual "firewall", a hedge of protection that surrounds us keeping the evil spirits at bay. As Christians we don't have to be afraid of the devil. Treading the lion and serpent underfoot is a reference to our victory over the evil one and all his host, both visible and invisible, through Christ Jesus our Lord. We don't have to run and hide from the devil; he will run and hide from us. Scripture says "We are more than conquerors through Him that loved us." We have God abiding in us. The Word of God says that when we submit to God and resist the devil, then he will flee from us. We have authority over him as blood bought Christians and children of God. In Isaiah the Lord says: "No weapon that is formed against you shall prosper, and every tongue that rises against you in judgement you shall condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord, and their righteousness is of Me, says the Lord."
27. Edward Blyth, The Varieties of Animals, The Magazine of Natural History, Vol. 8, 1835, pp. 52-53.
28.Blyth, Seasonal and Other Changes in Birds, Note #1.
29. (ibid), 39.9.
30. Edward Blyth, Varities of Animals, Magazine of Natural History, Vol.8, pp.40-53, 1835.
31. Blyth, Seasonal and other Changes in Birds.
33. Edward Blyth, On the Psychological Distinctions between Man and Animals, Magazine of Natural History, Vol. 1,1837.
35. Blyth, Note #1, Seasonal and other Changes in Birds.
36. (ibid), Origin, Chapter Six: Modes of Transition, pp.87.
37. National Geographic, August, 1981, pp.153.
38. How the Decoy Fish Catches Its Dinner, Robert J. Shallenberger Ph. D. and William J. Madden, National Geographic, pp. 224-226, August, 1974.
39. Scott M. Huse, The Collapse of Evolution, pp. 99-100, Baker Books, Grand Rapids Mich., 49516, 1993, Referencing also Berkeley biochemist Duane T. Gishe's book, Dinosaurs: Those Terrible Lizards, Creation-Life Publishers, San Diego, Ca., 1976, pp. 62.
[i]Lehman, J.P., The Proofs of Evolution, Gordon and Cremonesi, New York, 1977.
NO ANSWERS IN EVOLUTION. Roland Watts, an irate evolutionist from a site called "No
Answers in Genesis" hosted by one John Stears, a disgruntled,
retired Australian bureaucrat, claims that Eiseley's charges (see beginning of
this chapter) have been discredited. There is such a flood of propaganda and
misinformation in the No Answers in Genesis site, along with
the misinformation in the links to other sites promoting evolution
there, that it would be too big a task to sort out all of
the errors and point to the logical and factual fallacies they promote here.
Watts claims that out of the 26 pages in this chapter (I never printed this chapter out and counted the pages myself, so this is the first time I knew how long the chapter actually was in hard copy, thanks to the untiring efforts of Mr. Watts), only the first two and a half pages deal directly with the accusation that much of Darwin's writings were plagiarized from Blyth, and that at no point do we really learn what Blyth actually said about natural selection. Apparently, the first two and a half pages were about all that Mr. Watts must have read, as a few paragraphs down there has been for quite a few years abundant information on Mr. Blyth's understanding of natural selection.
In Mr. Watts' critique, the source Roland refers us to regarding Eiseley is Richard Milner, who makes that claim in his Encyclopedia of Evolution: Humanity's Search for it's Origins, a thoroughly evolutionist work with a minimum of any facts actually documenting evolution.
Milner is a Senior Editor of Natural History magazine, a major mouthpiece for anti-creationist, evolutionary thought. This in itself does not discredit his research, although Milner is also a vigorous opponent of the concept of intelligent design, which after all is merely affirming that God had a hand somehow in the creation of species, so of course Milner would be opposed to Blyth's ideas.
Milner is also the author of "Charles Darwin: The Evolution of a Naturalist", which is heavily promoted on various "Skeptic" websites critical of Christianity, and is part of a series of books designed to promote evolution.
On the German Skeptic page where Milner's book is advertised they describe Darwin, and Milner's book on Darwin in very modest, humble, self effacing terms (Actually, the following description portrays Darwin in the typical ostentatious, overrated way of evolutionist fodder, typifying the almost vulgar overglamorisation of this petty, overrated man (Darwin) demonstrated by most of his admirers):
"Richard Milner offers readers a dazzling new portrait of this extraordinary man's life and work, from his early day in a small English market town, to his famous voyage on the HMS Beagle, to his years of unrelenting effort in search of truth about the evolution of life. Authoritative and capivatingly written, this book tells the compelling story of a man whose ideas changed the way we think about ourselves - and all living things."
This worn out yarn of Darwin as the great scientist is typical
and has been spun by evolutionists since 1860. There are a number of books
that have been published over the past few years that explode this myth. (See Chapter One and Chapter Three of The Darwin Papers for more
pertinent information, as well as the references) Essentially Milner and
Roland are defending their icon, their hero who supposedly disproved the
creation story. This entire thing is not about science, or even about science versus religion which is a straw
man, but about a philosophical prejudice against the God of the Bible.
Much of Milner's work is merely a rehashing of the same tired old garbage that we read in Dennet's book, Darwin's Dangerous Idea and Edward Larson's book, Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory .
Despite the ceaseless banter pouring forth from the
evolutionists propaganda mills claiming that Darwin proved evolution to
be a fact, the contrary is actually the case. Darwin never provided any
valid evidence in his entire Origin of Species or in his Descent of Man of
real examples of evolution ever occuring; he had no evidence of evolution
taking place in the present and he gave us no evidence that it ever
took place in the past either. This has been documented
in Chapter Four of this work, where the main errors in
Darwinian thinking have been dealt with, and in Chapter Five, where the paucity of the evidence in the
fossil record has been shown to be far to weak, in fact nearly non-existent, to
use as proof that evolution ever occured. Truth be told, the fossil
record is the evolutionists' worst enemy, and favors the creationist model much
Eiseley is certainly not the only source to document Darwin's dependence on Blyth's writings. A history tutor and author in the U.K., Andrew J. Bradbury, has written an excellent online book on the dubious nature of Darwin's "discovery", plainly demonstrating the Blyth connection.
On Darwin and Blyth Bradbury wrote: "Blyth recognised that Darwin had been feeding from him, as from so many others, like some intellectual leech", however Blyth was too kind and of too magnanimous a spirit to take any serious steps of reprisal.(Roland is going to complain now that I called Milner and Larson's books garbage and called Bradbury's book excellent. While the evolutionist books may be well written, it is not the style I am commenting on, but the substance of the argument. I can't apologise for that. They have a bright facade, but it is merely a facade, and if one truly learns to read and think critically one can pierce through their specious reasonings.)
By all accounts Blyth seems to have been quite a remarkable fellow. Nobody had a bad thing to say about him. By contrast, Darwin seemed to have been a "Hail fellow, well met" character with a streak of larceny in him. But with Blyth, in every new piece of evidence I discovered about the man there was nothing that reflected badly on his character. Since I documented this, Roland accused me of spreading propaganda. I challenge Roland to show one bit of evidence to the contrary concerning Blyth before he makes such a scurrilous charge.
Compare the glowing, almost drooling description of Milner's book on Darwin above, along with the gushing descriptions of Darwin on the No Answers in Genesis Page and the fawning tributes of praise to him on other evolutionist sites with the actual man, with what his more current biographers have to say about him - Bowlby, Browne, Desmond and Moore, de Beer, all recorded in Chapter One of The Darwin Papers, along with Darlington near the beginning of this chapter, and Miller in Chapter Three (evolutionists all, so there can be no "creationist bias" creeping in to taint their thinking), where the greasy little details of Darwin's life are finally, slowly dripping out - and then you tell me who the real propagandists are.
Blyth seems to have been a man of sterling character, completely opposite of Darwin, and since I have documented this Roland claims that I am spreading propaganda, without showing the slightest bit of evidence to back up his claim.
Most of Roland's arguments seem rather petty and spurious; for instance I originally failed to make mention of the fact that Eiseley was an evolutionist - a small oversight which would actually help my argument so I have since included this information; - also anyone who disagrees with Darwin apparently has "an ax to grind".
Perhaps so, but if it is a legitimate ax, then what is the
problem with that?
Roland makes the typical evolutionist accusations against creationists on his site. He roundly condemns myself and other creationists who have the temerity to question Darwin's theory and who would question the sacrosanct theory of evolution.
Roland's critique is such a ragged, cluttered, haphazard haystack of errors that it is hard to know where to start to correct them. He quotes me where I noted that natural selection does not originate anything original by itself, and that Blyth knew this, and that I noted "thus Blyth was correctly in line with what modern scholarship has to say about it," and then Watts makes the totally unsubstantiated claim that "Modern scholarship does not say this at all, in the context that most modern scholarship outside of the creationist fold is (sic) Darwinian in its thinking."
I would encourage the reader to FOLLOW THE LINK in "modern scholarship" above (the same link is in the original text earlier in this chapter), where it is indeed shown by modern scholarship, evolutionist at that, that natural selection does not originate anything at all of it's own. Also, if you will read the section in this chapter on Mark Isaak's hilarious rendition of the Bombardier Beetle's farcical evolutionary sequence, you will read from the lips (or keyboard) of Isaak himself, one of Watts' own evolutionist colleagues, that natural selection is merely a sorting process (chance is Isaaks god who created everything in the evolutionary scramble)
Natural selection, as I have noted above in this chapter (please Roland, read the chapter first before making your comments on it), is merely a sorting process, like that in a fruit and nut packaging factory, where the food is sorted according to size and ripeness and sent on its way to the consumer or else disposed of. Nowhere in any warehouse or cannery in the world is food actually grown or changed into anything other than what it was originally while going through the sorting process. Apples don't turn into oranges, walnuts don't turn into peanuts, there is not some novel change in the kind of fruit or vegetable that is being sorted and packaged. If Watts were ever to manage to get past the first few paragraphs of the chapter that he has written his FAQ on, he might begin to grasp this simple concept.
Roland gets irate when I quote evolutionists because I must be
quoting them out of context. He is also upset when I quote creationists because
they must be biased.
Sometimes you just can't win.
Flinging around wild charges such as Roland does ("Many creationists loathe Darwin", as if to disagree with Darwin is to loathe him; "Foard is a propagandist", "Foard is guilty of omission" regarding the so-called investigation and dismission of Eiseley's claim; "Foard uses innuendo to support his claim" regarding Darwin's hiding his notes to conceal his debt to Blyth - that was the claim of Eiseley and Hitching, noted evolutionist scholars, if I am guilty it is of getting my information from them, so now, at least according to Roland, Eiseley and Hitching are also guilty of inuendo, and perhaps they also loathe Darwin) discredit his own arguments more than they discredit anything he is supposedly rebutting.
In Roland's case it is an ad hominem attack; using
propaganda to attack one's opponent.
(Adjective: ad hominem ad 'howmi nem 1. Appealing to personal considerations rather than fact or reason.)
Roland wrote that "much of Foard's writing appears more to be
an attempt to raise sympathy for Blyth and his undortunate life than to attack
Now if, according to Roland, it was only the first two and a half pages of the chapter that deal directly with Blyth in the first place, then how can he turn around and say that most of the chapter is about Blyth? Again, any valid criticism of evolution or of Darwin, draws a strange response from Watts and his crowd. Merely document some valid arguments against evolution and Darwin and they view it as an "attack" and begin to circle their wagons in a near paranoid, manic attempt to fend off any criticism of their hero.
Watts concedes correctly that natural selection is an idea that goes back to the ancient Greeks, but then says that "It was Darwin and Wallace who demonstrated how the idea could be used to explain the origin of species and step outside of Biblical literalism."
I hate to have to be the one to break the news to Roland, but
the ancient Greeks were not Biblical literalists.
For that matter, neither were most of the writers on evolution or natural selection before Darwin.
Roland pads Darwin's resume' with the typical overstament of his accomplishment: "However, it was Darwin who did the hard work, collected the evidence and argued with it to demonstrate that the theory just could not be ignored. Until Darwin and Wallace came along, the ideas of the Greeks, Wells, Blyth, Lamark, Erasmas Darwin, Mathews, etc., were little more than curious or perhaps interesting ideas."
Evolution was little more than an interesting idea for
centuries, along with spontaneous generation, (the currently accepted
theory by evolutionists for the origin of life, called abiogenesis, disproved
over a century ago by Pasteur) it never gained any ground for centuries because
there was never any proof for it.
And now Darwin has been built up as the great pioneer in proving evolution, and yet he never came up with any valid proof for it either. In his entire Origin he has not submitted one single shred of evidence to support his theory. In light of this, we have to ask ouselves, in all seriousness, who are the real propagandists here?
Darwin has advanced numerous fantastic imaginary possibilities for the
theory of evolution, but with no actual facts to back up his claims. In his
entire Origin he does not give one single example of an evolutionary
transitional form, either from fish to amphibian, amphibian to
reptile, reptile to mammal, reptile to bird, or ape to man. He presents no
evidence of insect evolution either and hardly touches on the subject of plant
evolution. Indeed, he actually admitted that most of the available evidence,
both in contemporary living species and in fossil form argued against
And since Darwin's time evolutionists have still failed to bring valid evidence for their theory (Evolutionists will complain that some of the quotes on this link are dated. Well in that case, lets throw out Darwin's Origin of Species, which is much older than any of these quotes are. If your an evolutionist you probably don't have to pay any attention to them anyway, since they all must be taken out of context. Point of fact, a hostile witness, who admits what he doesn't want to have to admit is a fact, is considered one of the best sources of evidence in legal jurisprudence).
Roland writes "In dealing with Wells, the naturalist whom Darwin did later recognize as having been influential, Foard dismisses him as contributing nothing original because "the basic concept of natural selection had been around since ancient Greek time" (page 5). But Blyth was not an ancient Greek. So if Blyth "thought" of the idea of natural selection, then why does Foard not dismiss him equally? The answer is clear. Blyth was an "ardent creationist".
But that is precisely my point. There was nothing
original about what Wells or Darwin had written, the ancient Greek
philosophers were well versed in naturalistic evolution, the only reason to
mention Blyth is because Darwin did take the ideas of a creationist and
then turned them around to make them fit his evolutionary theory.
Far from "dismissing" Wells, I merely point out that he was simply one person in a long chain of evolutionary writers dating back to the ancient Greeks. He certainly didn't originate the concept of natural selection or evolution. If pointing this out is "dismissing" Wells, then we might just as well dismiss Darwin too, and good riddance with him. In point of fact, this is the main premise in Chapter Three; that the idea of evolution and natural selection has been around for centuries. Darwin was by no means an original thinker.
The origin of the evolutionary theory is not the result of some great breakthrough in technology or research. It is a mere philosophical presumption that has been around for over two millennia, lingering on the sidelines of true scientific thought, glibly accepted by those such as Roland because they were taught that it was a fact by their teachers in school and they never learned to think critically enough to question the dogma.
The reason that I don't use the ancient Greeks as direct references for
Darwin's ideas is because Darwin himself never mentioned them extensively, if at
all in his Origin. (In the forward to the 6th edition of his "Origin" Darwin
mentioned Aristotle as "forshadowing evolution". Darwin himself did not read or
speak Greek , which during his day was practically a pre-requisite for any
scholar to be taken seriously. By his own admission he was incapable of learning
any foreign or ancient languages, and he was also incapable of learning higher
mathematics. Blyth, on the other hand was a genuine scholar who probably did
read the ancient sources, but realised the inadequacy of the purely
evolutionary explanation for the origin of species enunciated by the
ancient Greek philosophers)
Given the dubious nature of his intellectual studies, it is highly improbable that Darwin had extensive acquaintance with the ancient sources of evolutionary thought, but they did influence his more immediate predecessors, and that is whom he relied on heavily for his ideas. Darwin makes numerous references in his Origin to other contemporary and recent evolutionists to bolster up his theory, as well as in his notes, but one can search in vain for even a scant reference to Aristotle, Plato, Dioscordes, or any of the ancient classical sources. Darwin was an intellectual lightweight with a remarkable way with words, nothing more (See de Beer's opinion of Darwin's academic career in Chapter One, and de Beer's opinion is by no means unique, nor is it written by some creationist who "loathes" Darwin; see Darlington above.).
If you investigate all of the links in the No Answers in Genesis
site you will find out that they do not demonstrate any
conclusive arguments or evidence for evolution: It's all smoke and
Even the Understanding Evolution link to the University of California at Berkeley, where the geologic column and the fossil record are presented as proof for evolution, does not present any real evidence from the fossil record that shows evolution took place!
First of all, if the geologic column were valid, it should be a world-wide phenomenon, but it isn't. There are only a smattering of spots in the entire world where the layers are found in the "right" order; even the Grand Canyon has the orders all out of place. We find lots of places where fossils of dinosaurs and ancient fish are right near the surface, not buried under tons of layers of newer strata (evolutionists explain this away by overthrusts, erosion, etc, however they have to do this in the majority of cases, thus what should be only an occasional anomaly actually becomes the norm in their explanations).
The ages of strata where fossils are found are assumed ages, the layers in the column were developed nearly two centuries ago largely by creationists who believed that there had been former periods of live on earth separated by great disasters, and in each of these different ages diverse types of extinct life forms existed. This was done long before any type of radioactive dating was possible, so we really don't know how old the fossils are, even today. These creationists incidently did not believe that the different layers represented evolution, and they also did not believe that these former ages represented millions of years of evolution.
They were progressive creationists, which is not the same thing as being a "theistic evolutionist".
There are continent wide layers of sedimentary deposits, however a more consistent explanation for their creation would be when seen as a result of the world-wide flood of Noah, not as layers laid down over millions of years of normal uniformitarian processes.
These early creationists may have been right in their basic theory, however later on the evolutionists piggy-backed onto this scheme and modified it for their purposes, and it has become the mainstay of most evolutionary thinking today.
As far as fossils being millions of years old, you can't use
radiometric dating for most sedimentary strata (even isotopic analyses is
fraught with difficulties and numerous "false" dates) , and that is where
virtually all fossils of dinosaurs, ancient fish, and all other flora and fauna
of life are deposited (see: How old is the earth?). The insanity of it all becomes apparent when you realise
ages of the layers are made up according to when evolutionists
suppose these ancient creatures lived, thus when you find a fossil of a
dinosaur, then of course, the strata it was found in had to be from the
Mesozoic era, because that is when they say dinosaurs lived!
Thus the geologic column has to validate the ideas of the evolutionists, because the rock strata are dated by the fossils found in them, and then the fossils in turn are dated by the strata that they are found in! It's like a two headed coin at a carnival side show. This method of dating borders on idiocy, and yet the Berkeley site calls this "science".
We now have valid scientific evidence from recent discoveries that have probably thrown the "millions of years ago" date for dinosaurs into the recycle bin of wrong ideas in history.
The examples they have of whale evolution and the horse series have been demolished years ago as any kind of reputable proof for evolution, however the Berkeley site still uses these hackneyed old examples as so called evidence. Aetiocetus, their best supposed proof for a so-called transitional form, was clearly a whale, and fully adapted to living in the water with a full set of whale characteristics that would be impossible for any kind of evolutionary transition to produce.
This fanciful tale of whales evolving from hippos
or pigs or sheep (the evolutionists say "sheep like" animals) or
some other sort of quadruped (Darwin originally thought that "whales evolved
from bears fishing along the coast" in his first edition of the Origin,
but removed this in later editions after wild laughter from his critics),
then wandering around in the surf and gradually developing flippers, losing
their hair and growing a thermodynamically conditioned outer skin for warmth and
protection in the ocean, while losing their ears and developing a
sonar echo location system by pure chance, with their breathing system
being moved from the nose to the blowhole in the top of the head through blind
evolutionary processes belongs more in the category of science fiction than
This fairy tale from a popular evolutionist site explaining evolution uses conjecture and myth to bolster their claims. They jump from land animals like Rodhocetus and Protocetus, animals very much like modern otters, to Maiacetus and Zygorhiza, both clearly fully aquatic and similar to modern cetaceans (whales and dolphins). They speculate that these creatures gave birth on land for some reason, and this is supposed to show that they descended from land animals. There has never been one iota of evidence that whales have ever given birth on land. Aetiocetus was a whale, a fully functional whale, according to evolutionists, so it must have had a fully functional blowhole, no kind of transitional nostril moving up it's face.
These sites show the speculative nature of whale evolution: (1), (2), (3), while these sites (1), (2), (3) show the utter failure of the horse series in any evolutionary sequence.
Most of the so-called transitional forms for whale evolution
amount to little more than mere artistically enhanced drawings of what really
amounts to a few scattered bones that they have dug up with dubious hypothetical
ancestry. Many people are led to believe that fossils imply millions of years of
age, but this is not true. Fossils form when the original bone is replaced by
minerals, usually under swift, hydraulic conditions and then rapidly buried
(aka, Noah's flood). We have found fossils from fence posts buried in the ground
that are only a couple of hundred years old, and fossils of other organic
material from flooded areas that are even younger.
Since there is no way to carbon date the fossils in the whale series, it is pure conjecture as to which of them might really be older in their farcical sequence, and there is a tremendous jump from the scattered remnants of their last land species to the first water species; it's all wild speculation, the sort of stuff that belongs with UFO theories.
One might as well believe that surfers would eventually grow blowholes and flippers. In fact, you could make a chart with scattered bones from California surfers (Surferceticus, 100 mya), place them next to some bones of large ancient otters (80mya - there's no radioactive dating involved, the dates are all speculation in the Berkeley site), then next add a few bones from some sea lions or a few bones from a walrus, and then, to finish it off, add a skeleton of a modern dolphin, and you would have a series just as scientific as the one on whale evolution. (Why yes, of course! That makes perfectly good sense!! Now, according to my theory, if surfers were to stay out in the ocean for millions of years . . .)
The Berkeley site is not only bad science, it is mythology
paraded as science. Worse yet, they have as one of their evidences the link to
the farcical Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ by Kathleen
Hunt at talk.origins, arguably, along with the story of the bombardier
beetle, fighting for first prize in the clown act of the entire evolutionist road show.
With all of the nice artwork and graphics used on the Berkeley site, all that they have done is simply state that evolution is a fact, that it has occurred, and insist that the fossil record demonstrates this, but they show no true transitional forms linking the major families of species, none throughout their entire site.
Essentially, Stears (and the evolutionists at Berkeley) has engaged in "reference bluffing" and "elephant hurling" on his website, where he has numerous links to supposed arguments for evolution, and yet none of the links actually support his case; however the links give the impression of sound background scholarship; and because of the shear amount of them (elephant hurling) most people will not take the time to actually follow them up and investigate their claims.
For a detailed expose' of the chicanery going on at No Answers in Genesis, this site would be a good starting point.
What Stears has done is a lot of nitpicking on creationist material where he has found a few minor inaccuracies or supposed errors on certain sites and blown them all out of proportion, as the Lord said, "straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel", but he has still presented no evidence for his theory, evolution, anywhere.
In contrast to No Answers In Genesis, and in contrast
to the University of California Berkeley site, this site at True
Origins has a wealth of genuine scientific
research demonstrating the impossibility that evolution has ever occurred,
or that evolution could ever even come close to producing a radically new
species, and it shows, even from a strictly scientific standpoint, that
creationism makes abundantly better sense for the origin of species than
I can say one good thing about No Answers in Genesis. It demonstrates in a very powerful way that the evolutionist propaganda machine is up and running at full speed, and that the militant adherants to the now defunct evolutionary theory (it was defunct from the very first, even from Darwin's day, but with the advent of the internet and the consequent break-up of the monopoly that evolutionists have held on the minds of young people through their ensconced position in academia, the truth is finally coming to light) march to the cadence of the Darwinian drum in lock-step, fanatic zeal.
A more appropriate title for his site would be No Answers in Evolution. Since the entire No Answers in Genesis site amounts to a pile of steer manure anyway, my advice would be to steer clear of Stears.
For those who do want to shovel around in his site, evolutionists or creationists, after you roll your pant legs up and put on your wading boots, I suggest you research all of the links in the No Answers in Genesis site, study carefully all of their arguments, and then use these logical fallacy techniques to understand where they have departed from the facts, and misrepresented opinions and half truths as the truth.
You can start out by finding out which fallacy is used in the beginning quote on this page. Is this quote by Charles Darwin fact, or is it opinion? Does he offer any proof? Evolutionists like to insist on the "fact" of evolution. Note the first word: "Probably". This statement sums up Darwin's opinion of his theory. Does probably mean certainly? "Well, evolution is probably true". Why is it "probably true", if it is probably true? Should we simply take Darwin's word on it? After looking at all the evidence, is evolution still "probably true" or not? Could you conclude that evolution is "probably false" if by Darwin's own admission the evidence does not support his theory?
If this statement is not found to be grounded in fact then, if
we find no evidence to support the notion that evolution is "probably true", if
we indeed find evidence that completely contradicts what Darwin predicted must
exist for his theory to be true, then would the entire premise of evolution also
You might want to make it a group project. I would even suggest a creationist web ring devoted to this. It could be a lot of fun. Someone gifted with imagination might even want to create a creationist/evolutionist board game, where the traps and lies of the evolutionists are exposed along the way, until you finally get to "Home", where you arrive at the truth. Whoever would find the most fallacies in evolutionist arguments would score the most points and win.
Good luck and good hunting.
Roland and his evolutionist colleagues don't actually want to know the real Charles Darwin, they are satisfied with the myth. Darwin has reached an almost cultic status among atheists, agnostics, assorted infidels and others who want to reject the God of the Bible. To have to come face to face with the man behind the myth would upset their world view, and that they will cling to as tenaciously as a junkyard dog will who will fight to protect a rusted out old car frame from intruders. After all is said and done, read Roland's site, read my entire book, and you decide who is spreading the propaganda: Fair and balanced.
There is little more to be said about Mr. Watts posting on the No Answers in Genesis site, except a plea to please update your site, take down the misinformation and phoney, misleading arguments, and come up with something truly original and relevant to the whole creation/evolution issue. Mr. Watts simply rehashes the common progaganda that Darwinist's typically repeat, and the same thing can be said for Mr. Stears, the originator of the No Answers in Genesis site, where Mr. Watts' article is posted.