THE DARWIN PAPERS

VOLUME I                                                                                        NUMBER IV  


DARWIN'S ORIGIN
OF SPECIES:

THE GRAND
TERGIVERSATION

"Do not be influenced by the importance of the writer, and whether
his learning be great or small, but let the love of pure truth
draw you to read. Do not inquire, "Who said this?"
but pay attention to what is said."
                  Thomas à Kempis'
                                         _The Imitation of Christ Bk. 1, ch. 4:


Special Millennium Issue 2000
Editor and Publisher James M. Foard
From The Nebulous Hypothesis
Copyright 1996

List of Christian Charities feeding, housing
and clothing Hurricane Katrina Victims,
Tsunami Victims, and suffering and
starving people and orphans
throughout the world.


List of Evolution based Charities and Charities
in Darwin's name feeding, housing and clothing
Hurricane Katrina Victims, Tsunami Victims,
and suffering and starving people and
orphans throughout the world.


Find out about Darwin's theory on how
flying fish might have evolved into birds

Read about Darwin's understanding of
the evolution of the eye here

See Darwin's explanation of how
the giraffe gained her long neck here

Read about some really Awful Astronomy HERE   


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


In the two  previous Chapters we have seen that Charles Darwin, though highly touted as the originator of the evolutionary theory, in fact did not originate anything at all. He borrowed all of his concepts from predecessors, and the theory of evolution had been around for centuries.
Now let us find out if Darwin's major work, The Origin Of Species , even lived up to it's name:
Did Darwin truly present any sound facts to show that species originate by an evolutionary process of natural selection?

Gordon Rattray Taylor, formerly Chief Science Adviser to BBC Television and the winner of numerous scientific awards, began Chapter Seven of his epochal and eye opening book, The Great Evolution Mystery titled The Unsolved Origin Of Species , with this remarkable statement:

"Since Darwin's seminal work was called The Origin Of Species one might reasonably suppose that his theory had explained this central aspect of evolution or at least made a shot at it, even if it had not resolved the larger issues [he refers to the chaos and failure of Darwinian theory gone into at length in the first six Chapters of his book] we have discussed up to now. Curiously enough this is not the case. As Professor Ernst Mayr of Harvard, the doyen of species, studies, once remarked, the 'book called The Origin of Species is not really on that subject,' while his colleague Professor Simpson admits: (2) 'Darwin failed to solve the problem indicated by the title of his work.'"

Taylor went on to say: "You may be surprised to hear that the origin of species remains just as much a mystery today, despite the efforts of thousands of biologists . . . But in the last thirty years or so speciation [the supposed descent of many species from a common ancestor] has emerged as the major unsolved problem."

In point of fact speciation has always been the major unsolved problem.

These are statements that you don't find in your average High School or College textbook, where we are assured of the "fact" of evolution, and that it has been proven beyond any doubt. Taylor himself was no creationist, he was firmly committed to the evolutionary hypothesis, but he honestly saw the almost reckless and inconsistent assumptions in Darwinian theory and wrote of them.

Darwin confessed in his Origin that he was totally at a loss to explain how life itself came into being in the first place: "Looking to the first dawn of life, when all organic beings, as we may believe , presented the simplest structure, how, it may be asked, could the first steps in the advancement or differentiation of parts have arisen? Mr. Herbert Spencer would probably answer that, as soon as simple unicellular organism came by growth or division to be compounded of several cells, or became attached to any supporting surface, his law "that homologous units of any order become differentiated in proportion as their relations to incident forces become different" would come into action. But as we have no facts to guide us, speculation on the subject is almost useless . . . But as I remarked towards the close of the Introduction, no one ought to feel surprise at much remaining as yet unexplained on the origin of species, if we make due allowance for our profound ignorance on the mutual relations of the inhabitants of the world at the present time, and still more so during past ages." (Darwin, Origin of Species: Chapter Four, Natural Selection-Survival of the Fittest: On the Degree to which Organization tends to Advance, 6th edition, 1872)

Since the title of Darwin's book was The Origin of Species by Natural Selection we might expect that natural selection would play a significant part in the process of evolution.

Harvard evolutionist and anthropologist William Howells, one of the deans of Twentieth century anthropology, wrote: "What Darwin did was to publish in 1859, after half a life of travel and of the most patient observation and study, the first consistent explanation of evolution in his theory of natural selection. This, and not evolution itself, is his monument. His reasoning and examples he was able to cite at first hand were devastating, and the impact on the world was great indeed."(3)

Amazingly, right after Howells' paean of praise for Darwin's theory of natural selection, it is astounding that farther down on the very same page of the book, Howells went on to write: "It can be said right away that this view of Darwin's is out of date. Evolution is not as simple as that, and natural selection, which once bore all before it, is no longer accepted by naturalists generally as the only key, or even the main one . . . The naturalists are, in fact, still pretty much in the dark . . . Moreover, some of the evidence of Darwin and his followers has been found faulty, and the reality of certain things which he assumed, such as the severity of the struggle for existence, is in doubt . . . Darwin was somewhat mistaken as to the source of the raw materials from which selection picks and chooses . . . You might, therefore propose to say that Darwin was wrong". (4)

Statements like these can sometimes be found hidden deep within articles with bold headings proclaiming the “fact” of evolution if one searches diligently for them, but they are never presented as frontpage items in National Geographic and Discovery along with the usual propaganda that evolutionists present as fact as they follow in Darwin's footsteps.

In light of Howells statement just prior to this that Darwin had made some great contribution to evolutionary thought with his idea of natural selection, these admissions are incredible and they are devastating to Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection.

Howells informs us: " Evolution is a fact, like digestion . . . There is much uncertainty along these frontiers of knowledge, of course, but there is no confusion about evolution itself . . .".
Howells then defines evolution as "descent with modification", making these telling remarks: "In itself, it is no more than the inescapable presumption that existing kinds of life, with all their advanced or special organs, have been derived by some natural process of change out of preceding forms . . . It does not pretend to explain how life began. That is another thing entirely. The human line, in fact, can be traced back only to the fishes (sic). Nor is it known just why evolution occurs, or exactly what guided it's steps, but Darwin produced the first really cogent answer, and in that way he made evolution respectable. (Howells, ibid) 

We see in typical evolutionist fashion how Howells can affirm in one breath that evolution is a fact, and then in the next breath state that it is merely a "presumption". 
This type of meandering logic is common with evolutionists when they attempt to define their favorite theory. They are very insistent that evolution is a fact, but then when challenged to provide real proof they will hedge on their statement and retreat into some grey, twilight world of rhetoric where facts and theories and fantasies are all bundled up into some incomprehensible jumble of pompous jargon. 

Howells stated that biologists and paleontologists who adhere to Darwin's ideas have no understanding from their theory of the real origin of life, they haven't the foggiest idea how the theory works or why (or if it works), but that Darwin made evolution sound respectable, dressed it up, sort of like putting an inexpensive lady into a very expensive dress.

When confronted with the lack of any evidence for evolution, evolutionists will claim that we can't ever really know if anything is a fact, and that the obvious ones like gravity and electricity and chemistry are all interwoven in some grey area where theories and facts sort of blend into each other with none of them being absolutely "provable", which would mean that we would have to throw out the entire corpus of scientific knowledge accumulated over the past 1000 years and longer.

When we build bridges and skyscrapers we use engineering formulaes that seem to be quite consistent. When an electrician assembles a radio he relies on certain principles that would appear to be facts of science. When we send a spacecraft up into the heavens to investigate the moons of Jupiter we must use reliable mathematical equations for the proper lift and orbit and thrust for it to arrive at it's target.
Heaven help us if a chemist in a research laboratory didn't believe in certain facts regarding the interactions of different chemical compounds and elements.This is all the result of logical, scientific research based on certain laws of physics and chemistry, based on the scientific method whereby we can verify theories through repeated experiment and proof. 

According to the logic of the evolutionists we have to throw all of that out now so that we can make room for their inane theory. Evolutionst will insist though that their theory is a fact of course, which has as much evidence as The Wizard of Oz in the real world.

First of all, let us define our terms. What was it that Darwin meant when he was addressing the subject of natural selection? He wrote in the Origin “Natural selection acts exclusively by the preservation and accumulation of variations, which are beneficial under the organic and inorganic conditions to which each creature is exposed at all periods of life. The ultimate result is that each creature tends to become more and more improved in relation to its conditions. This improvement inevitably leads to the gradual advancement of the organization of the greater number of living beings throughout the world . . .But if variations useful to any organic being ever do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterized will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life: and from the strong principle of inheritance, these will tend to produce offspring similarly characterized. This principle of preservation, or the survival of the fittest, I have called Natural Selection.” i

Notice that Darwin only mentioned the preservation of favorable characteristics, not the origin of those characteristics, but Darwin extrapolated natural selection to mean that indefinite variation could occur that would eventually cross the species barrier, which evolutionists have done ever since.

He had no evidence of this, for he wrote to F.W. Hutton two years after the publication of his Origin“I do not pretend to adduce direct evidence of one species changing into another,” however he stated that he preferred this theory because it suited his fancy. (Letter to F.W. Hutton on April 20, 1861, Complete Correspondence of Charles Darwin; also Online Correspondence of Charles Darwin, # 3122) In Physical Anthropology Philip L. Stein and Bruce M. Rowe of Pierce College, Los Angeles reveal that natural selection has nothing to do with the origin of any species, it only has the ability to preserve what already exists, merely eliminating those unfit for survival, thus reducing the gene pool, not increasing it: "Note that an animal does not evolve characteristics in order to survive, but must possess in advance characteristics that will allow it to survive

Howells agreed with this: "The implication that practice makes perfect in evolution, or that usefulness can call a bodily feature into being is purely figurative speech, a device which I shall have to use again for the sake of simplicity. There is actually no evidence or explanation for the phenomena of adaption: even natural selection could explain only the modification of organs or features that already exist." (6)

So we find that an animal does not evolve a new organ or characteristics in order to survive, it must possess in advance those characteristics that enable it to survive. Natural selection can only preserve and/or reduce the number of already existing kinds of organisms, it cannot originate a new type of organism. What is in many cases called speciation, or "micro-evolution" is in most cases merely variation within a created kind.

In Darwin's theory of the supposed "struggle for survival," the number and variety of species should be increased through natural selection, not reduced, but the facts show that just the opposite is the case: natural selection reduces the amount of genetic variation instead of increasing it.

Recent studies have shown that hybridization may result in some novel kinds of organisms, however even these are not outstanding types that vary dramatically from their parents; many of the offspring are sterile and there is little evidence of inovative genetic material ever being produced by these matings. These would be variations from an originally created ancestor within a family clade coming back together after being separated through ecological variation and living habits.
If we find there is potential within DNA to come up with novel favorable genetic variations more suited to environmental conditions, this still could not come about through chance, the information required for these variations coming about through chance mutations would pale against the mathematical odds for it to occur without an intelligent designer. Information requires a programmer to instill it.

What DNA might have would be comparable to a "zip" program in a computer; an inert, nested, compact "egg" full of information ready to be "unzipped" when the proper time arrives for it to be useful.
This would be similar to shuffling a pack of playing cards and coming up with new combinations. 
Each card in itself would represent a huge library of genetic information, but it would still be within discrete biochemical boundaries according to the laws of genetics. No matter how much you shuffled it there would never be information within a reptile's DNA for a wing to form, or for a fish to transmute into an amphibian.

You could shuffle a pinocle deck from now to eternity and you would never come up with a card that would read "If you pass Go, collect two hundred dollars".

Thus Darwin's main idea, the theory of natural selection, along with it’s abhorrent ideas of “survival of the fittest,” (which modern day evolutionists during the twentieth century developed into "ethnic cleansing") explains nothing at all in so far as how various species could originate in the first place.

Stein and Rowe, as well as Howells, were committed evolutionists, they are not attempting to discredit Darwinism, but hidden amidst all of the pretentious jargon in most texts on evolution, you may find the admission that there really is no good evidence to support their views, though sifting through most of the propaganda on the subject can be like looking for a needle in a hay­stack.

Many of these facts don't come into the possession of the general public through typical radio or television "educational programs", and they are usually left out of school texts. We thus find out that natural selection does not have the property of creating anything new, no new organs, wings, legs on fish, etc. thus no new species either.

We have also seen in earlier issues that even Darwin's one great claim to fame in regard to evolution, natural selection, was not his own idea at all, that the entire theory of evolution had been around for centuries and been fully worked out by his predecessors, with much of the credit for natural selection going to Edward Blyth, a forgotten scientist who was a confirmed creationist , and from whom Darwin took and twisted most of Blyth's ideas around from creation by an omnipotent power to inferring the evolutionary descent of all life from a common ancestor.

Now we see that natural selection, Darwin's great mechanism to produce new species, cannot originate any new organ or species; it can only preserve traits that already exist.

After finding out about the utter uselessness of Darwin's theory of natural selection to produce new species traits, we now come to the corpus delicti of our work, let us investigate Darwin's Origin to uncover any evidence he has shown us that might substantiate his theory of evolution.
In the first section of Chapter Ten of his Origin , (Chapter Nine of the 1859 edition) titled On the Imperfection of the Geological Record, Darwin wrote:
"So, that the number of intermediate and transitional links between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory [evolution] be true, such have lived upon the earth." (7)

Darwin clearly stated here that if his theory of evolution was true then there must have been uncounted intermediate links upon the earth between species.

He continued: "The main cause, however of innumerable links not now occurring everywhere throughout nature, depends on the very process of natural selection, through which new varieties continually take the places of and supplant their parent-forms."(8)

That's nice. We have no present evidence of evolution taking place, according to Darwin. His reasoning for this is nothing short of remarkable. Darwin has informed us that the reason why we don't see any evidence of evolution through natural selection taking place at the present time is because evolution through natural selection has destroyed all the evidence!

This is a novel concept! What an ingenious method for disposing of the corpse! Darwin has done an outstanding job of explaining all this away. When Darlington called Darwin equivocal, which means to deceive, to seduce, to say one thing and mean another, it seems as though he was merely describing the tip of the iceberg.

And Darwin's argument still only mentions the aspect of preserving beneficial principles, not originating any.

Darwin has given us no evidence on how beneficial modifications develop in the first place (the odds against the genetic accumulation of mutations to produce beneficial results are astronomically high, so much so as to be well nigh to impossible, see Chapter Eight of The Darwin Papers). His Descent of Man carries on this false idea of philosophic reductionism in his theory of the evolution of modern men, and Hitler and Stalin obviously took him at his word (as can be seen from Chapter 12, Chapter 13 and Chapter 14 of The Darwin Papers ). The full title of his book wasThe Origin of Species by Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Existence

So Darwin stated that there was no present evidence to lend credibility to his theory, no real living species slowly transforming from one kind into another:
"Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed; but the very process of natural selection constantly tends, as has been so often remarked, to exterminate the parent-forms and the intermediate links. Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains, which are preserved, as we shall attempt to show in a future Chapter, in an extremely imperfect and intermittent record
." (Origin, Chapter Six: On the Absence or Rarity of Transitional Varieties)

Crafty man that he was, Darwin did not say that evolution was not occurring at present, he just gave his rather frank and brutal reason as to why we do not see intermediate links occurring today (see Chapter Two of The Darwin Papers), thus explaining away the lack of present day evidence.

So the only evidence for evolution, according to Darwin, would come from the fossil record. However, we have a major problem with this as well. In the tenth Chapter to his Origin he admitted that there was no fossil evidence to show that evolution had ever taken place in the past either!
"So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon the earth. Independently of our not finding fossil remains of such infinitely numerous connecting links . . ."(10)

His excuse? They just hadn't looked long enough to find any fossils. (In Chapter Five of The Darwin Papers we will find out that no evidence has ever come to light from the fossil record to validate evolution since Darwin's day either.)

Thus we have a theory without any evidence. Darwin himself could not provide any past or present evidence for the existence of those elusive intermediate links that would demonstrate that his theory of evolution was true!
This fascinating and little known secret has been admitted among evolutionists for years but not been told to the general public, that in Darwin's entire Origin of Species he never came up with any evidence for the origin of any species!
Darwin placed his belief in some hypothetical future evidence as yet to be uncovered in the fossil record that he hoped would someday substantiate his theory. In the next Chapter we shall investigate the fossil evidence to find out if there has ever been any proof since Darwin's time that evolution has occurred in the past.

The implications of these admissions are staggering though. We have an entire culture built up around this man and his theory, a huge network of scientific publications and media events trumpeting his "discovery", when in fact he admitted that he had discovered nothing at all and had no evidence for his theory; he was making wildly absurd statements based on absolutely outrageous fantasies (i.e. flying fish developing wings) that he suggested might have happened, with no facts to back it up at all. He did not provide one plausible example for the origin of any species throughout his whole work!

Many papers and publications on evolution have very little actual facts documenting evolution (none, truth be told); quite a few deal in the phantasmoric realm of modern day psychology, which has so many differing schools of thought that you might as well hand a witch doctor a Ph.D. in psychology and let him practice on patients (He probably couldn't do much more damage to his unfortunate patients than modern psychologists and psychiatrists do).

Darwin's entire theory, as seen from Chapter Three, was merely a rehashing of an ancient Greek creation story spun by some of their philosophers who had an atheistic bent in their worldview.

In contrast to the meager amount of scientific evidence supporting evolution from Darwin's research, if you go to True Origins you will find an overwhelming abundance of articles based on actual scientific research that support creationism and entirely demolish the evolutionary viewpoint.

Let us continue on in our investigation of the process of speciation in the natural world with Darwin as our tour guide. He floundered on the matter of the origin of our domestic animals. In Chapter One of his Origin, in the sections The character of Domestic Varieties; difficulty of distinguishing between Varieties and Species; origin of Domestic Varieties from one or more Species, he wrote:

"In attempting to estimate the amount of structural difference between allied domestic races, we are soon involved in doubt, from not knowing whether they are descended from one or several parent species . . ."

Thus he stated in essence that he had no idea where our domesticated animals descended from. He went on to say, "In the case of most of our anciently domesticated animals and plants, it is not possible to come to any definite conclusions.."

So he shed absolutely no light on the issue. Of the second part of the section, Origin of DomesticVarieties from one or more species, Darwin again confessed his bewilderment:
". . . it is not possible to come to any conclusion, whether they are descended from one or several wild species..."

He summed up his observations on the evolution of our domestic animals with this definitive piece of information: "The origin of most of our domestic animals will probably be in doubt."

Darwin stated in the first Chapter of The Origin , in the section titled Variety of Domestication, that there were two factors involved in the evolutionary process: "The nature of the organism and the nature of conditions [environment]." He revealed his profound insight as to how these two factors influenced the evolution of species: "It is extremely difficult to come to any conclusion in regard to the extent of the changes which have thus been definitely induced," but "there can be little doubt about many slight changes-such as from the amount of food, colour from the nature of food, thickness of the skin and hair from climate, &."

Thus Darwin confessed his ignorance as to how variations from hereditary changes could truly bring anything like a new species into existence. We also have to realise that when he was talking about environmental conditions and hereditary conditions he was in essence talking about the same thing. After all, how could environmental conditions affect succeeding generations unless it was done through hereditary changes?

He did claim that environment could produce slight changes, which we know can come about through variation, such as in dogs and different types of peas, but he extrapolated this, as evolutionists have done time and time again in this manner, by drawing from this an unwarranted and unsubstantiated claim that
"Indefinite variability is a much more common result of changed conditions than definite variability." The "definite" results would be variations within species, such as larger dogs, etc. The indefinite results would be what he meant as genuine evolution.

He further stated "The direct action of changed conditions leads to definite or indefinite results. In the latter case the organisation seems to become plastic, and we have much fluctuating variability." 
(Origin, Chapter Five: Laws of Variation)

So Darwin stated his belief that plants and animals can become "plastic" due to changed conditions, they can "morph" into an entirely novel type of creature; differentiation can go on indefinitely until we have a brand new plant or animal, a new species with entirely different genetic structure, behavior, reproductive system, etc. On the face of it, this is a rather fantastic proposal! Any reasonable person would choke on this amazing piece of science fiction, yet evolutionists digest this with hardly a burp.

Did Darwin have any proof for this? He wrote "There is reason to believe that in the course of time the effects have been greater than can be proved by clear evidence. Such considerations as these incline me to lay less weight on the direct action of the surrounding conditions, than on a tendency to vary, due to causes of which we are quite ignorant." (Origin, Chapter Five: Laws of Variation).

Thus he had no proof, but he presented his assumption as fact, which he did time and again throughout his entire book, and this has been the same tactic practiced by evolutionists from his time ever on.

Darwin actually provided no "Laws of Variation" in this Chapter at all; this was not done until Mendel's experiments with peas after the Origin was written.  When he wrote his Origin he hadn't the faintest  knowledge of genetics.

After the Origin was written, Mendel's development of the genetic theory and discovery of the laws of heredity became known. Mendel's genuine scientific findings conflicted with Darwin's views though, and thus Mendel's work was ignored for many years until the early part of the twentieth century. Unfortunately much of Mendel's work was lost in a fire, and was never recovered.
When Mendel's theory was "rediscovered" more than forty years later, there was a temporary eclipse of Darwin's theory until those in the evolutionist camp were able to cover up the differences between Mendel's facts and Darwin's fabrications with some smooth rhetoric that only served to cloud the issue. Even to this day, evolutionists attempt to ride "piggy-back" on Mendel, trying to validate Darwin's moonshine tales by tying them in with Mendel's research. The Origin was also written before Pasteur made his historic proof of the law of biogenesis, i.e, that life can only come from pre-existing life, and that like produces like forms of life as well.

Pasteur, incidently, was a devout believer that God had created all animals after their kind, as spoken of in the book of Genesis, and that no new living creatures were being produced through evolution, either today or in the past. (See in the full biography of Louis Pasteur by his son)
Darwin had no knowledge of genetics when he wrote his book.

All that Darwin ever made reference to were minor variations within species. We know that there are definite limits to variability though, as dogs can only reach a certain size, since after that the smaller proportion of their hearts to their body weight becomes a disadvantage. Cattle can only be bred to certain limits in variety and size, the earlier cited authorities (Howells, Stein and Rowe) have shown that no new genetic material is produced by natural selection (or breeding - Mendel) either. Even so-called antibiotic resistant bacteria have not "evolved" into anything other than bacteria, and in fact they only shared genetic material with other bacteria that already had the antibiotic resistant gene, thus no new DNA, no new genetic material, was actually created, and no dramatically new species have ever shown to have evolved either.

As scientist Sylvia Baker has pointed out, simply because a man might start out jogging a mile every day in twelve minutes during his first week out, then by the second week he could jog it in ten minutes, etc, until after six months he could jog it in five minutes, that does not mean that after a year he could jog a mile in one minute! (Bones of Contention by Sylvia Baker M.Sc., Australian Creation Science and Christian Education Resource Centre; P.O. Box 302, Sunnybank, Queensland 4109, Australia, 1993
)

Darwin seriously undermined his theory of survival of the fittest when he stated: "How many animals will not breed, though kept in an almost free state in their own country (i.e. where they are perfectly adapted for survival but produce no offspring)..."

Still more evidence against his own theory, when he wrote: "Many cultivated plants display the utmost vigor and yet rarely if ever breed!" (11)

Continuing on: "When, on the one hand, we see domesticated animals and plants, though often weak and sickly, breeding freely under confinement: and when, on the other hand, we see individuals, though taken young from a state of nature perfectly tamed, long-lived and healthy...yet having their reproductive systems so seriously affected by unperceived causes as to fail to act, we need not be surprised at this system, when it does act under confinement, acting irregularly..."

So Darwin said that some plants and animals unfit for survival produce more offspring in confinement than some apparently more fit for survival, but that "the nature of conditions is of subordinate importance in comparison with the nature of the organism," i.e. environment doesn't really matter much in producing any new organisms or species in the first place.

Darwin finally summed up his understanding of the entire process of the descent of species: "The results of the various, unknown, or but dimly perceived laws of variations are infinitely complex and diversified. . . The laws governing inheritance are for the most part unknown."

In essence: "I can't make heads nor tails of this."

Speaking of tails, Darwin began Chapter Five of his Origin stating that "From the facts alluded to in the first Chapter, I think there can be no doubt that use in our domestic animals has strengthened and enlarged certain parts, and disuse diminished them; and that such modifications are inherited. Under free nature, we have no standard of comparison, by which to judge of the effects of long-continued use or disuse, for we know not the parent-forms; but many animals possess structures which can be best explained by the effects of disuse." (
Origin, Chapter Five: Laws of Variation)

This shows that, despite his own denials and the denials of his followers, Darwin did adhere to the old Lamarkian idea that use or disuse can either call a feature into existence or extinquish it, and typically we find out that Darwin was 100% wrong on this issue too.

Scientists have cut off the tails of rats for as many as 100 generations, yet the new offspring still grow tails.

In Chapter Seven of the Origin: Objections To the Theory of Natural Selection, Darwin mentioned that the giraffe supposedly gained her long neck after many generations while "browsing on the higher branches of acacias."(13) He gave us his explanation as to how this situation occurred by the process of evolution: "Why, in other quarters of the world, various animals belonging to this same order have not acquired either an elongated neck or a proboscis, cannot be distinctly answered: but it is as unreasonable to expect a distinct answer to such question, as why some event in the history of mankind did not occur in one country, whilst it did in another, we are ignorant . . . we cannot even conjecture . . . Why this should be so we do not know. . . whatever the cause may have been." ( 14)

This was all taken from one and the same paragraph in the Origin, where Darwin, lost in redundancies, confessed his absolute bewilderment, his complete ignorance as to how the giraffe developed her elongated neck! Darwin was always utterly helpless to answer any valid objections to his theory.

In much of the Origin, Darwin had the uncanny habit of restating what he had just said, where his style of writing took on the aspect of the deranged muttering of a person under the influence of an opiate; rambling on (and on) in an incoherent taradiddle of polysyllabic phrases, throwing in a muckle of observations of natural phenomena, along with numerous cited references to various authorities to lend it the weight of authenticity, and yet all bereft of any logical reasoning. There is not one single iota of genuine evidence for evolution in the entire Origin of Species. He gives no examples of the origin of any species at all. He talks about variation within species kinds, such as the different breeds of horses and dogs, but this is a far cry from actual evolution of one specific kind, such as reptiles turning into mammals, or of fish turning into amphibians, or swamp moss evolving into a flowering rose bush.

Conduct an experiment if you will. Go to
this
or any other sample Chapter from his Origin of Species. Read through any section of it for a minute or two, but read it out loud to yourself or to anyone else in the room. Then after a few minutes, set the book down, and ask yourself, "What did I just read here?" When you have verbalised it out loud, you will realise that Darwin's Origin has as much consistency to it as Brad Pitt's deranged character had in "Twelve Monkeys". The similarity is startling.

Darwin's whole book amounts to nothing more than a grand omnium-gatherum of meandering gibberish
, and yet it has held evolutionists spellbound for over one hundred years. There is not one iota of genuine science or scientific evidence for evolution in Darwin's Origin and no evidence since then has ever turned up to prove that evolution has occured.

Returning to the giraffe, others have pointed out that it would be reasonable to expect all browsing animals that live near forested regions to have long necks just like giraffes; horses, deer, goats, etc., at least from an evolutionary viewpoint that might make sense.

Horsefeathers you say?

A wing is a marvelously intricate instrument for flight, composed of delicate feathers and hooks and barbules to give the bird every advantage for soaring in the air, but of what advantage would a half formed wing be in survival value after it was no good anymore to use as a forelimb for climbing, running, and defense, yet before it had been fully developed into an appendage for smooth and swift flying?
In the Chapter Difficulties Of The Theory ( which would have been a vastly better title for his entire book than The Origin of Species ) after a very prolonged and obtuse dissertation on the different varieties of birds, Darwin wrote: ""We are profoundly ignorant of the cause of each slight variation or individual difference . . ." etc. of the various species of birds and other animals.(15)

Darwin does give us his amazing theory on how wings may have formed. He wrote: ". . . It is conceivable that flying-fish which now glide far through the air, slightly rising and turning by the aid of their fluttering fins, might have been modified into perfectly winged animals." (!)(16)

Going on in this manner, according to Darwin, if you and certain members of your family began to run about through the neighborhood waving your arms and screaming out bird sounds, well who knows? Your descendants could very well have wings after a few thousand years, or at the very least be sprouting feathers after a few generations.

As far as the real evidence of wings forming in this way, after a brief diversion, he wrote: ". . . Thus to return to our imaginary illustration."

These types of arguments are typical throughout the entire Origin.

Darwin also demonstrated his ground-breaking insight on the origin of lungs: " . . .all vertebrate animals with true lungs are descended by ordinary generation from an ancient and unknown prototype".(17)

Darwin often admitted his complete ignorance on how evolution might have occurred, but he continued to insist that it did occur, without offering a shred of proof. Whatever subject Darwin was addressing; the fossil record, embryology, or the different races of man, he first would advance a premise, then offer at best an imaginative explanation to support his theory, often running on for quite a few pages, then he would throw in a few observations of some natural occurrences on a related topic, then rework his theory, restate it again, state that it must be so, and that this is how it must have happened, yet he never presented any real evidence to prove his thesis.

Nevertheless after a couple of pages of repetitious jargon, the reader has become so befuddled by the sheer amount of stuff and nonsense that it looks like something profound has been said, when in fact there has simply been a great deal of verbal sophistry.(18)

In a classic maneuver to turn the tables on those questioning his logic, he wrote: "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."(19)

It seems to me that the burden of proof should be upon Darwin to prove his theory, after all, if someone were to say that if it could be actually proven that space aliens aren't plotting to take over the earth, then their entire theory would absolutely break down, it might be kind of hard to actually disprove such a theory, but who in their right mind would follow such a person?

Darwin plied this same technique noted above, appearing to answer an unanswerable objection to his theory, with his amazing story of the evolution of the eye, and present day evolutionists are even taking his pathetic argument and trying to perpetuate the myth that Darwin somehow actually proved that the eye could have and did evolve through random natural selection.
An eye is an incredibly intricate organ, if every part of it were not working in perfect harmony, fully developed from the very beginning, then total blindness would be the result, a half formed eye would be useless, and so when Darwin wrote in the Origin: (20)

"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",
then any person of reasonable intelligence might think, "Well, here, that is settled, Darwin has finally admitted the utter, miserable failure of his theory," but such was not the case with our man Darwin.

In a remarkably cunning turnabout, Darwin used this argument against his theory as evidence for his theory. The key to his uncanny strategy is in the use of the word "seems" in the above quote, from which he launches a devilishly clever ploy to convince the reader that it did
occur (actually "might" occur, Darwin was always shrewd in the way he couched his language), and he took the unlucky reader on a rambling story of just how it "might" have happened:
"Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable to our imagination, can hardly be considered real."

On the basis of developing a rambling "just so" story of how something might have happened, constructing a simplistic scenario entirely crafted from his own imagination while skipping over the multitude of complex chemical and physiological changes that would be involved in this extraordinary process, and coming nowhere near to offering any real, definitive, fossilised or actual living proof that it occured, Darwin had the brazenness to write "The difficulty" for the evolution of the eye " . . . can hardly be considered real", and evolutionists are claiming that Darwin did prove his case, which has about as much evidence to back it up as the cow jumping over the moon!

In fact if you examine his argument carefully, you will realise that Darwin actually painted himself into an evolutionist corner. He stated that " if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist ;" and of course they have not been shown to exist in nature in the sequence required for his theory to be true.

Notice that three times in one paragraph he uses the word if to substantiate his theory: "if numerous gradations . . . if further . . . if any variation", and he has the hubris to preface those remarks with "reason tells me"!

Whatever "reason" Darwin is using is not reason based on empirical evidence, nor on statistical probabilities. It would require an assemblage of progressive biochemical events running on in regular order that a master computer programmer would find a daunting if not impossible task in coordinating, let alone for random natural selection to produce.
Each and every step in this amazing process would have to be the "right" one, all in order one after another, never some biochemical misstep that would throw the whole thing out of whack. And this would not be like some row of dominoes cascading over each other, since in Darwin's scenario chance and natural selection would not guarantee that each next step, and the next one and the next one ad infinitum out of the millions of possibilities, would necessarily always be the right one, or even very rarely be the right one.

Reason has nothing to do with this line of philosophical mumbo jumbo at all, it's simply a bunch of pseudo-scientific balderdash, yet Darwin presupposes on the basis of these three "ifs" that the "difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable to our imagination, can hardly be considered real".

This exraordinarily slippery and clever pundit with words has wound quite a web for us here, and this is just one single paragraph out of his entire Origin! The whole book is fraught with this type of duplicitous language, thus is it any wonder that Darwin has cast such a spell over those who have surrendered genuine reason based on facts to the surreptitious ramblings that constitute virtually the entirety of his book? Evolutionists have been desperately trying to patch up this gaping hole in his argument with stories about snails and with imaginative experiments with computer models designed with a pre-arranged purpose to produce an optical device (nothing random here), but they have fallen far short of the indomitable roadblocks to this event occuring through natural selection.

But Darwin has more than one argument up his sleeve to demonstrate that the impossible is actually possible, and he helps those who cannot see with the clear eye of logic that he was gifted with to understand that despite the utter improbability of it, the evolution of the eye makes perfectly good sense, and he uses the incredible comparison that since the sun only appears to rotate around the earth, but in fact it is the earth that revolves around the sun, then this is obvious proof to substantiate his rediculous theory!

However, attempting to equate a fanciful story of the eye evolving with the entire science of planetary motion, thus to compare Darwin's yarn, lacking any facts at all, about how the eye might have evolved with Copernicus's scientific evidence that the earth, despite appearances, revolves around the sun, which later provided the basis for Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion and for Newton's Laws of Celestial Mechanics, is extrapolation of such ludicrous proportions that, using Darwin's method of reasoning, one might just as well use the example of the sun's apparent rotation to propose that leprechauns keep their pot's o' gold at the end of rainbows (more on this later concerning Newton's Law of gravity and Darwin's "theory" of evolution).

Nevertheless, based on this simplistic yarn present day evolutionists have made the incredible claim that he somehow did prove this, based entirely upon his own speculation, without one iota of factual evidence!

Nilsson and Pelger's so-called "computer model"
used by evolutionists to demonstrate the "evolution" of the eye is such a preposterous fraud that scientist David Berlinski has called it a Scientific Scandal (to view the original article from this link, type in "Berlinski" in the archive options box on the site. A fee is requested at this site to read the article. Apparently, Berlinski himself is no creationist, but a fellow evolutionist of Nilsson and Pelger who has taken a justifiably critical stance on their "research", so he has no creationist ax to grind). Since this has become a current hot topic among evolutionist fantasies, let us follow Berlinski's investigation of their "research" in more detail.

To begin with, Berlinski points out that they have given no data on how they arrived at a figure of "1,829 1-percent steps" for the evolution of the eye from some some simple small invagination; they skip over the multitude of biochemical changes that must take place at every one of the steps that would require greater complexity; and they assume at the beginning of their paper that each and every single step in this random process would be a positive one, not a negative or even a neutral one !

Here, I will quote Dr. Berlinski, who so thoroughly demolishes the argument of Nilsson and Pelger that for any self-respecting evolutionist - as well as the PBS Website that promotes this canard (if you ever wondered whether PBS is truly impartial or actually has an agenda, just read their brief description of Nilsson's work from the link, then read Berlinski's critique) - to continue to repeat such an unbelievable claim requires such a willful neglect of facts or gullibility of such enormous degree that the only analogy that I can think of would be the Red Queen declaring to Alice " You may call it `nonsense' if you like . . . but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"

Berlinski notes:
"Then there is Nilsson and Pelger's data-free way with statistics. What is the basis of the mathematical values chosen for the numbers they use in assessing how rapidly transformation spreads in a population of eye patches? The coefficient of variation is the ratio of the standard deviation to the mean. The standard deviation, one might ask, of what? No population figures are given; there are no quantitative estimates of any relevant numerical parameter. Why is selection pressure held constant over the course of 300,000 years or so, when plainly the advantages to an organism of increasing light sensitivity will change at every, step up the adaptive slope? Why do they call their estimates pessimistic (that is, conservative) rather than wildly optimistic?

Finally, Nilsson and Pelger offer an estimate of the number of steps, computed in 1-percent (actually, 1.00005-percent) intervals, that are required to transform their initial patch. At one point, they convert the steps into generations. But a step is not a temporal unit, and, for all anyone knows, each step could well require half again or twice the number of generations they suggest. Why do Nilsson and Pelger match steps to generations in the way they do? I have no idea, and they do not say.

WE ARE at last at the main course. Curiously enough, it is the intellectual demands imposed by Darwin's theory of evolution that serve to empty Nilsson and Pelger's claims of their remaining plausibility.

Nilsson and Pelger assert that only 363,992 generations are required to generate an eye from an initial light-sensitive patch. As I have already observed, the number 363,992 is derived from the number 80,129,540, which is derived from the number 1,829--which in turn is derived from nothing at all. Never mind. Let us accept 1,829 pour le sport. If Nilsson and Pelger intend their model to be a vindication of Darwin's theory, then changes from one step to another must be governed by random changes in the model's geometry, followed by some mechanism standing in for natural selection. These are, after all, the crucial features of any Darwinian theory. But in their paper there is no mention whatsoever of randomly occurring changes, and natural selection plays only a ceremonial role in their deliberations."
           (Discovery Institute, A Scientific Scandal by David Berlinski, 2001)
Nilsson and Pelger with their farcical "proof" of the evolution of the eye may have unwittingly done more service for the cause of creationism, along with every evolutionist who repeats their nonsense, than they may ever realise. I refer the reader to Chapter Two of The Darwin Papers where this exact same type of Mad Hatter reasoning masquerading as science in the name of evolution is dealt with in Mark Isaak's Tale of the Bombardier Beetle.

Darwin devoted an entire Chapter of his Origin to objections to his theory; objections that did not come from ignorant wild eyed fanatics, but from sober, serious men of science, many of them defending the Christian idea of created "kinds" of species, and he did not present one iota of valid evidence to answer any of these objections either , except to use "imaginary illustrations" or extrapolations of the kind just mentioned; in most cases he had no response at all- he simply listed them and wandered on with his diatribe. This is absolutely incredible.

As in much of his writings Darwin has proven to be a master at obfuscation and clouding the real issue at hand. In his responses to critics, the way he danced around the issue was reminiscent of a tap-dancer on a stage in a Wild West Saloon, dodging bullets fired off by rowdy cowboys while preforming his act and not missing a step.

I have mercifully been concise in my brief excerpts from his writings; the reader is free to pick up a copy of the Origin and see for themselves that reading through Darwin is like wading through quicksand. After you have slogged your way through a veritable swampland of verbosity, in the end, if your not careful, you might not realize that he hasn't actually written anything of substance at all; just a huge swanning twaddle of assorted gallimaufry about "variation" and natural selection.

His penchant for erudition lent a pseudo-intellectual facade to his writings and again made it appear as though he has said something of importance, when in fact he has said absolutely nothing of significance at all. One has to be cautious about how one handles him, its kind of like handling a snake, the earlier description of him by Darlington, his equivocation, suggests someone being disingenuous, or "slippery", having the ability to charm, to lie, to be evasive, delude, to suggest something that isn't true with intent to deceive. Plato said, "Everything that deceives may be said to enchant."

When all the facts are laid out on the table we have discovered that Darwin's Origin is entirely devoid of any evidence to back up his theory of evolution; the whole thing is merely a prolonged tergiversation of cunning rhetoric mixed in with observations of various natural phenomena with no genuine facts to substantiate his premise.

This is rather astounding when one looks at the tremendous amount of credit given to this man by the scientific community for his "great discovery", when we see that time and again throughout Darwin's entire Origin he had to admit that he had never seen evidence for evolution at all, whether it was occuring in the present or had occured in the past in the fossil record!

In light of this, we must ask ourselves why have so many people, both in the scientific community and in the popular media and cultural outlets, so slavishly devoted themselves to this man and to his theory? And the truth may be a bitter pill to swallow but we are left with one and only one primary reason for this: The real impetus behind the theory of evolution was never a scientific one; all along it was merely meant to write God and His creative process out of the picture; this was the main impetus behind Darwin's motive and his work, with the so-called "scientific" evidence for evolution lacking in Darwin's day and lacking ever since.

It has simply been propped up through a ceaseless propaganda campaign maintained by his supporters in the media and the educational outlets who deftly camouflage the vacuous nature of his theory from the general public.
The motive for belief in evolution is not scientific - it never was; it was and is simply born out of hostility to the Revelation given through the Bible concerning God's sovereignty over the affairs of this creation and over the history and destiny of mankind. This is why we have the near delirious enthusiasm for Darwin and evolution by the entire motley crew of anti-God and antichrist forces, whether they be atheists, liberals, witches, sodomites, nazis, communists - take your pick.

Remember the story of Snow White and her wicked stepmother? The stepmother was enamoured with her own beauty and out of jealousy plotted to kill Snow White. She gave Snow White a poisoned apple. The apple looked good to Snow White; it was beautiful and shiny and red-but it was laced with poison. So it is with the lies of the evolutionists-they lace the truth with the lie of evolution to seduce the minds of our youth. And once you have taken a bite of that apple and swallowed the lie of evolution, like a computer virus, it will work its way into your entire belief system and poison your understanding of the world.
The stepmother worked her wiles through deception, which is how evolutionists work their wiles today. In the Bible the devil caused the fall of man through deception and lies, and in the last book of the Bible, the book of Revelation, the devil is called the deceiver of the whole world (Rev. 12:9, 20:10). He is also called a liar and the father of lies (Jn 8:44). St. Paul warned against being decieved by science "falsely so called" (1Tim 6:20, see endnote #1 in Chapter Six on the words "science" and "gnosis") or false science, and to be watchful of cunning schemes of man (Eph. 4:14) and to "beware lest anyone spoil you through philosophy and empty deceit." (Col. 2:8)
Evolution is a false philosophy that is in opposition to the truth of God's word and we need to be on guard against being deceived by it, and not be swayed from the truth by the cunning plots of ungodly men.

This brings us to anothertactic that current evolutionists use to bolster support for Darwin's theory.
Evolutionists sometimes attempt to lend validity to Darwin's theory by comparing it to other theories and laws of science, such as the electrical theory and the Law of gravity (This is actually simply a repetition of Darwin's ploy to compare the evolution of the eye with celestial mechanics. It is merely one more strategy to pull the wool over they eyes of an unwitting audience). Again, like Darwin, present day evolutionists demonstrate here a failure to grasp the difference between a genuine
law of science that has demonstrable facts to back it up and a bogus hypothesis that hasn't even made it in scientific terms to the theory stage yet (even though Darwin's hypothesis is granted the status of a theory, it lurks within the same class of theories as the hollow earth theory and Elvis alive and well on Mars).

In fact, Darwin's "theory" isn't even a very good hypothesis , since hypothesis means an "educated guess", or a supposition that has certain criteria that would lend it credence, which evolution has not.

In genuine science, first a hypothesis is advanced as a possible explanation for the occurence of certain natural phenomena. It is then tested, and if certain results lend credibility to the hypothesis, it becomes a theory After a theory has been ratified by repeated tests, if it is found to be a universal and constant explanation for these phenomena, it moves from being a mere theory and becomes a law of science, or else we develop certain laws of science that work within the definitions of that theory. Thus we do have certain "laws" of gravity, indeed, we have the Law of Gravity, but Darwin's inane "theory" is never referred to as the law of evolution, because there is no evidence, no scientific data to substantiate it's premise.

To try and equate Darwin's "theory" with the Law of Gravity is intellectual dishonesty of the highest order, it's an insult to genuine scientific inquiry.
Obviously, if you jump off of a tall building you are going to fall down. Dishes fall off of tables; it takes thrust for a rocket to gain the momentum to overcome the earth's gravitational field and enter orbit. These are pretty plain facts that show us that gravity is a fact. But the evidence for evolution is still missing! We have no demonstrable facts showing that it ever occurred.

Evolutionists make this same hazy claim with electricity, asserting that because we don't actually see electrons, that means that electricity is merely a theory, and then they try to elevate the so-called "theory" of evolution to the same status as electricity. Again, the problem with this is we have certain laws of electromagnetism, we can see them work! We make batteries, we have computers, we study the relationship of voltage, current, resistance and conductivity in electrical circuits, we actually witness lightning, we can measure electricity and make predictions based on these measurements.
To equate the Law of Gravity, first summed up by Isaac Newton, with Darwin'stheory shows the utter desperation and intellectual bankruptcy of evolutionists in trying to pawn over their evolutionary world view as a valid scientific one.


This tactic of evolutionists, mixing facts up with evolutionary fantasy, much like Snow White's apple mixed with poison, is often used in student textbooks, where perhaps 90% to 95% of the material in a book on biology might be genuinely factual, but then 5% or 10% of evolutionary supposition is slipped in with it. Thus the student, after studying genuine facts of science, is not aware of the sleight of hand technique, and assumes that because the majority of the material in the book is true, that the theory of evolution, since it is in the same book, must be true as well.
An old saying goes: Eighty percent of the truth is more dangerous than one hundred percent of a lie. This is a very subtle and clever tactic, mixing facts with fiction, and it is one which was used, incidently, when the serpent seduced Eve and when the devil tempted the Lord.

Regarding Darwin's viewpoint on design and on God's role to play in this grand miracle called life, it can be said without qualification that his own theology was pretty much a muddled mess. After he had written the Origin he had a voluminous correspondence with a great many people, and one thing that is obvious is his hedging, his hemming and hawing on the subject of God's sovereignty, depending on whom he was writing to. With his more intimate associates he freely confided that he held no faith in the Christian revelation, while on the other hand when he was writing for public consumption or corresponding to others who were men of the cloth he cloaked his thoughts in equivocal language. While it can be said with certainty that he never proposed any evidence at all from actual observations of evolution ever occuring now or ever occuring in the past - none - in his private correspondence it becomes obvious that his true reason for believing in evolution was not from a scientific viewpoint at all, but from a philosophical prejudice, from his questioning of God's wisdom and justice, using the exact same argument that the devil used in tempting Eve; casting aspersion on God's love and providential care of His creation and of His creatures.

In essence, Darwin is attempting to slander God, to draw people away from loving and trusting in Him, although this is done in a very clever and subtle way. Although Darwin claims that he did not intend to write atheistically, essentially, when one examines his arguments, despite his claims to believe that a designer might have originally started the whole ball of wax, in truth his entire viewpoint is one of practical atheism. He would relegate God to the position of some phantom grandfather sitting back watching the whole show while being wholly disinterested and uninvolved in the entire process. His bemoaning that he did not intend to write atheistically drips with hypocrisy and sounds about as sincere as the sobbing apologetics of Dr. Smith from the old "Lost in Space" television series when he had been tripped up in one of his nefarious schemes:

The following quotes from Darwin's correspondences should throw some more light on the issue:

  1. "With respect to the theological view of the question. This is always painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae [wasps] with the express intention of their [larva] feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed. On the other, I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance. Not that this notion at all [original italics] satisfies me. I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton. Let each man hope and believe what he can. Certainly I agree with you that my views are not at all necessarily atheistical. The lightning kills a man, whether a good one or bad one, owing to the excessively complex action of natural laws. A child (who may turn out an idiot) is born by the action of even more complex laws, and I can see no reason why a man, or other animals, may not have been aboriginally produced by other laws, and that all these laws may have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator, who foresaw every future event and consequence. But the more I think the more bewildered I become; as indeed I probably have shown by this letter. Most deeply do I feel your generous kindness and interest. Yours sincerely and cordially, Charles Darwin" (Darwin to Asa Gray, [a minister] May 22, 1860)

  2. "One word more on 'designed laws' and 'undesigned results.' I see a bird which I want for food, take my gun and kill it, I do this designedly. An innocent and good man stands under a tree and is killed by a flash of lightning. Do you believe (and I really should like to hear) that God designedly killed this man? Many or most persons do believe this; I can't and don't. If you believe so, do you believe that when a swallow snaps up a gnat that God designed that that particular swallow should snap up that particular gnat at that particular instant? I believe that the man and the gnat are in the same predicament. If the death of neither man nor gnat are designed, I see no good reason to believe that their first birth or production should be necessarily designed." (Darwin to Asa Gray July 1860)
    [Here Darwin is clearly expressing an atheistic viewpoint, this goes far beyond any type of argument for "theistic evolution"; Darwin is attempting to write God entirely out of the picture, making the same plea that any atheist would make against God's sovereignty. This has nothing to do with science, but everything to do with rejection of God's rule. Darwin in essence is using the old "village atheist" argument that since we don't live in a perfect world, this would mean that God is either incompetent or uninvolved, and if He were uninvolved then for all practical purposes He would not exist either. Darwin is confusing God's overall absolute sovereignty with His permissable will. Within the muslim world there is the belief that God is in absolute control of everything at all times. Thus if you walk down the sidewalk and stub your toe it is because you were meant to stub your toe and that God caused you to stub your toe. This error is known as philosophical determinism. They believe that every single aspect of life is predetermined by God and meant to happen, whether good or bad. That is why they believe that they are to arrange their entire lives according to a strict code of sharia in order to be worthy of heaven. Grace is a foreign concept to them. God in essence is a grand puppet master who is calling all of the shots, including which shirt they wear on any given day. Evolutionists have taken this concept and falsely applied it to Christianity, and then said, "See, God is a despot, look at all of the cruel things that He must be causing." So they use this as a wench to insert their argument that God is either non-existent, or had nothing to do with the process, which is also practical atheism under the misnomer of "theistic evolution". The truth is that God at different periods in history has sovereignly intervened in the natural order of the universe, such as during the creation week when He created and set in order the marvelous motion of the celestial bodies and created the different species of animals; at certain times in the history of mankind, throughout the history of Old Testament Israel, and during the incarnation of Jesus Christ and afterward among the Apostles. And He will interevene again sovereignly when the Messiah returns to earth. But God is not at all times manipulating every event with an iron fist. True, as St. Paul said, "In Him we move, and live, and have our being," and Scripture says "God works all things out for good to those who love Him." All things are also upheld "by the Word of His power." But He is not enforcing His will like some despot; He has set certain natural and moral laws into place, and when man transgresses these laws, such as the law of gravity, he pays the consequence. God has also delegated authority to angelic orders who administer His justice. He has in a sense "stepped back" from His creation while events occur, according to His divine permission and according to His overall plan, yet His Spirit is still at work in the creation, and is still at work in the hearts of men. Man was to have been the titular head of creation under God and as such was intimately involved in the natural process. When man fell, the entire natural order of things was thrown "out of sync", accidents happen, diseases occur, and the devil and his angels cause havoc as well, but all of this is, while not specially caused by God, under His overall sovereignty, and has a predetermined end, the establishment of the Kingdom of God. Regarding Darwin's appeal to misplaced compassion by blaming God for the death of a bird, let me relate my own experience with the death of an animal. I had a wonderful, loving, intelligent rat named George for a pet who developed a lung infection, which rats often do. I tried desperately to save his life over a two month period with numerous trips to the vet, shots, medicine, placing his cage in the sunlight where he could get the healing effects of the rays of the sun on his skin, but all my efforts were to no avail. One night while I was sleeping in my recliner with George on my lap, he leaped up around midnight and was unable to breath. He began gasping for air and was panicking, as did I. He panicked so much I had to set him down, and he ran around the middle of the room for about ten minutes in absolute terror while I prayed to God. Finally he just collapsed in front of me and died. When he died he looked perfectly peaceful and natural laying there on the rug; it was impossible to tell that he was dead, except that he was no longer struggling. I picked him up, kissed him on his head, told him I loved him, and wrapped him in a towel and put him in his little wooden house that we buried him in. I had never felt so helpless in my entire life. All I could do was say "God have mercy, Christ have mercy" over and over. God did not intervene and save George's life. But I did not blame God for his death. It was sin that killed George, the sin that all men inherited from Adam and that caused death and suffering in this world. What did become clear to me was the tremendous implication of man's sin, and the devastating effects of our sin on the entire natural order of things, including poor, innocent animals like George, and the consequences that we all have to pay for our disobedience to God, and to His Law, and our absolute dependence on His grace to be redeemed from the penalty of the Law.]


  3. "Your question what would convince me of Design is a poser. If I saw an angel come down to teach us good, and I was convinced from others seeing him that I was not mad, I should believe in design."
    ["A wicked and adulterous generation seeks after a sign". Darwin essentially admits his unbelief in God's interaction with the creation here, he was no warmhearted "theistic evolutionist", and he said that no amount of scientific evidence except for a miracle from heaven itself would cause him to believe in a Designer, God, being in control of the universe
    . Darwin was in essence tempting God, daring Him to reveal Himself with some great display of power, yet the Lord said that "If they do not believe in Moses and the prophets (Genesis-Malachi), neither will they believe even if one rose from the dead". Even a sign from heaven, were it given to Darwin and his ilk, would be rationalised away, since they do not believe in God's infallible Word.
    Regarding angels appearing to people from heaven, we have had plenty of cults and strange sects started by people claiming to have seen angels coming from heaven, but whether or not these angels were of God, we have St. Paul's warning, and what this has to do at all with scientific evidence is also problematical! Even if Darwin were to have had his own angelic vision to convince him, what of the second, third and fourth generation after Darwin who would have to take his word of some vision for their faith, and what about those who were not with him to see this "vision" he said he desired to see in order to verify faith!
    Darwin clearly appealed to the supernatural here as a necessity if he were to believe in a Designer, and yet he and all the other scoffers ridiculed the true Source for revelation in the first place, the testimony of the prophets and the apostles in the Word of God. In his arrogance Darwin demanded nothing less than a vision from God Himself for his own personal satisfaction were he to believe (E.T. Babinski called Darwin "a genuinely humble and gentle person"!). As it is said, prophesied, "I come in My Fathers' name and they will not believe. If another (antichrist) come in his own name, then they will believe.", "And because they did not receive the love of the truth, God shall send them a strong delusion, that they should believe a lie".]

    Darwin continued: "If I could be convinced thoroughly that life and mind was in an unknown way a function of other imponderable force, I should be convinced. If man was made of brass or iron and no way connected with any other organism which had ever lived, I should perhaps be convinced. But this is childish writing." (Darwin to Asa Gray, Sept. 17 [1861?])

  4. "...With respect to Design, I feel more inclined to show a white flag than to fire my usual long-range shot. I like to try and ask you a puzzling question, but when you return the compliment I have great doubts whether it is a fair way of arguing. If anything is designed, certainly man must be: one's 'inner consciousness' (though a false guide) tells one so; yet I cannot admit that man's rudimentary mammae [nipples]... were designed. If I was to say I believed this, I should believe it in the same incredible manner as the orthodox believe the Trinity in Unity. You say that you are in a haze; I am in thick mud; the orthodox [creationist Christian] would say in fetid, abominable mud; yet I cannot keep out of the question. My dear Gray, I have written a deal of nonsense. Yours most cordially, C. Darwin" (Darwin to Asa Gray Dec. 11, 1861)

  5. E. T. Babinski, an evolutionist who has publicly forsaken Christ (may Christ have mercy on his soul) quotes an article clearly showing the philosophical underpinnings of Darwinism: "Did God ordain [Yea hath God said?], 'Darwin asked, "that the crop and tail-feathers of the pigeon should vary in order that the fancier might make his grotesque pouter and fantail breeds? Did he cause the frame and mental qualities of the dog to vary in order that a breed might be formed of indomitable ferocity, with faws fitted to pin down the bull for man's brutal sport?" Surely no one could admit divine providence in these matters! Darwin concluded, then, by parity of reasoning, that "no shadow of reason can be assigned for the belief that variations, alike in nature and the result of the same general laws, which have been the groundwork through natural selection of the formation of the most perfectly adapted animals in the world, man included, were intentionally and specially guided.' (Darwin in Variations of Animals and Plants Under Domestication, II [D. Appleton and Company, 1875], P.415, as cited by Ric Machuga in his article, "Clockwork Origins?" in Books & Culture: A Christian Review, Jan./Feb. 1996, P. 19.)

These are all philosophical arguments from an agnostic viewpoint (truely, despite his denials, an atheistic one); none of them have anything to do with any empirical, scientific evidence for evolution. It should be glaringly clear here that the main motive of evolutionists is not a scientific one; they are not interested in finding out the truth of the matter as much as they are interested in attacking God, in attempting to dethrone Him from His place of eminence and power, as it is prophesied, "The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and against His anointed, saying, Let us break their bands in sunder, and cast away their cords from us." (Psalm 2)
The rebellious of heart only see in God's loving statutes and commandments, given for our benefit, cords and bands restricting their impious schemes.

 Evolutionists often like to refer to some "conflict" between science and religion. What exactly do they mean by that? Are they saying that "Love your neighbor as yourself" is somehow in conflict with a scientific worldview?

Does "Thou shalt not commit adultery" hinder scientific progress in astronomy, physics, or chemistry?

And we have to look at the other side of the coin as well. When evolutionists say that science is antithetical to religion, then what they are actually saying is that atheism, no religion, is somehow identical with science or is proven by science. But this is a matter for philosophers and theologians, not for men who spend their time weighing bits of earth on scales and mixing chemicals together.

When they say that religion conflicts with a scientific worldview, does this mean that the Scriptures oppose the laws of mathematics, or gravity? After all, some of our greatest mathematicians and scientists, Pascal, Newton, Faraday, Kepler, Boyle, to name merely a few, were also great men of faith as well. Within the Hindu tradition Aryabhata, Bhaskaracarya, and Varahamihira were all great mathematicians who believed in God. Avicenna was a noted Moslem who lived near the beginning of the second millennium who was considered the father of modern medicine. Many great people of science throughout history have been strong believers in a Creator God. As far as religion hindering science, are evolutionists attempting to claim that people like St. Francis, Gandhi and Mother Teresa were holding back the advancement of science? They were all famous religious people.

Then what do they really mean when they pontificate on the conflict between science and religion? Well, to narrow it down a bit, what they are really saying is that there is a conflict between evolution and religion, and then they expand evolution to mean all of science itself. They make evolution a synonym for the scientific process. They make a great scientist out of Darwin and elevate him to the same level as other genuine scientists, despite the fact that evolution has never produced any "Laws" of science such as the laws of gravity and thermodynamics.

Was Darwin really such a great scientist? His Origin of Species is never referred to directly in a chemistry class involving experiments or measurements of different chemical reactions; or a biology class with actual lab experiments in process, except in second hand reference; or in a physics class where the mass and weight of elements are being discussed.
His book is of absolutely no help at all in any really hard science, except to present the supposed explanation of how life descended from a common ancestor, with all of the evidence for that missing as well!
He made no discoveries about the cell, about human anatomy, in chemistry, physics, electromagnetism, or in medicine. He work is never referred to as a required text in any biology classes for any medical student. One can go through an entire college curriculum from freshman to graduate level in the study of anatomy, physiology, geography, and geology and, even though Darwin is referred to in many of these classes and lauded as the man who developed some new idea of human descent, one never has to actually read Darwin's Origin of Species at all to get a Ph.D in any of these fields. His book is entirely unecessary to learning any of these disciplines.
All that he contributed was some idea that we all came from apes and from a common ancestor, a philosophical presumption, but he has given us no laws, no great scientific formulas, not one wit of information on the structure of internal organs or on geological processes. None of these sciences was advanced one iota by his "theory".

Evolutionists frequently make the claim that those who wish to challenge their dogma are trying to mix science with religion, and that is not to be tolerated and is nearly equivalent to heresy. There are some problems with this argument though, which will be gone through:

There are people who call themselves "theistic evolutionists". They believe in evolution, but they believe that this was "God's method" for creating the different species of life that we find here on earth.
These theistic evolutionists who decry any mention of intelligent design and who claim to believe in God are basically saying, "Well, yes I believe in God, BUT He had nothing to do with the creation of the universe". They are for all reasonable purposes practical atheists wearing the moniker of theists, whatever religious denomination they claim to belong to. They are saying that you have evolution and the material universe and science and TRUTH over here in this section, and then you have religion and God and prayer and primitive superstitious MYTH over here in this section, and we must be very careful not to mix the two.

This is an entirely false dicotomy though. For one thing, evolution is as much a myth as any pagan story of gods and demons and nymphs and satyrs. Secondly, there is nothing at all less scientific in affirming that the hand of God was at work in the creation of the universe; that He did and does and will always have a hand in the creation, maintanence, and ultimate demise of the cosmos than in denying His involvement in creation. We need not spurn any mention of God to gain scientific respectability, this is not a wave-your-hand magic wand type of thinking in investigating natural history.
The magic wand type of thinking is really more in line with the evolutionists claims. They make specious statements about the evolution of various forms of life, affirming that it was all brought about by Darwin's tawdry and simplistic fable involving natural selection and extinction, which are just the opposite of any process of bringing new varieties of life into the world, but they never provide any real evidence. The evolutionists have turned genuine science inside out with their fantastic fables, and then they make the unproven claim that their stories are more in line with science than the Bible is, which is like saying that you can use certain colored liquids to water plants with and then have flowers that will bloom with the same color of the liquids used on the plants. (This was indeed what Darwin claimed to have accomplished while he was still a youth to the other boys in his school. He was notorious for his braggadocio while making up fantastic fibs about his accomplishments in natural science).

The anti-creationists, the evolutionists have another real problem here: If someone can be a believer in God and also believe in evolution, that this was merely "God's method" for creating life, would this not be mixing religion and science also, which they are so quick to accuse the creationists of doing;We see here that evolutionists haven't got any problem mixing religion and science, if of course you agree with their viewpoint.
But you can't have it both ways. If the strict, doctrinaire evolutionist is going to warmly welcome "theistic evolutionists" into their camp, what we see is that the whole "science vs religion" argument was merely a prop in the first place: it was really meant to keep any debate about the theory of evolution silenced, since by that argument the theory of evolution is equated with all of science itself and is elevated to the status of an absolute truth, thus evolution is a dogma that is not meant to be questioned. So whenever someone wants to accept evolution, then of course they can keep their religious outlook too, it is only when the theory of evolution is challenged that religion then becomes some great obstacle in comprehending truth.

The above thesis can be born out by a second example. Buddhism is one of the oldest religions known to mankind. It is over one thousand years older than the muslim faith, and it is four hundred years older than Christianity. Buddhism declares itself to be an atheistic religion (There will be objections from those who will claim that Buddhism is an agnostic religion, not an atheistic one, because of the Buddha's equivocal teaching on God, and because of the Buddhist teaching on higher spiritual realms. However, Buddhists of all stripes-Theravada, Tibetan, Chinese and Japanese- all state quite clearly-and this can be seen from a multitude of resources on the internet-that they do not believe in an all powerful creator God. While there may be some Buddhists who try to harmonise the idea of God with Buddhism, the truly hard-core Buddhists proudly wear their atheism as a badge of the uniqueness of their faith, and quite frequently deride faith in God as primitive, anti-scientific, and erroneous. )
 
Buddhists do not believe in a sovereign, all powerful God who created the heavens and the earth.
Buddha was merely an enlightened man who perceived the truth, according to their faith.

They believe in what they call the twelve conditioned links of causation through which sentient beings exist in this universe of samsara, or continuous rebirth (or "turning"). Millions, probably billions of people world-wide have followed the basic tenets of the teaching of the Buddha.

Now, since Buddhists are not creationists, they do not believe in a Creator, would this imply that in an evolutionist framework Buddhism is to be tolerated, or even welcomed?

If so, then again, we have no conflict for the evolutionist here, there is no great outcry from the evolutionists that Buddhists are trying to mix religion and science. For we can see from Buddhism that the atheistic viewpoint, the idea that there is no God, is just as much a religious viewpoint as the theistic viewpoint, and it is merely a tactic of the evolutionists to silence dissent on the issue by complaining that creationists are trying to inject a religious viewpoint into the realm of science because they believe in a Creator God.

In fact we have seen this happen, when the Dalai Lama has spoken at international scientific forums, where he was initially greeted with skepticism by the majority of atheistic scientists, but after a few opening remarks informing them how "We Buddhists are just like you, we don't believe in a God either" (bored, yawning heads suddenly jerk to attention) he was lauded with fawning praise by his former critics. Thus again evolutionists have no problem with science and religion, if the religion does not challenge their theory of evolution.
(Some have tried to sidestep this by claiming that Buddhism is merely a "philosophy", not a religion in the sense that Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism are, and so Buddhists are not attempting to mix science and religion. There is some truth to this in regard to original Buddhism. If it had remained confined to the Four Noble Truths and the pali Tripitika as found in Theravada Buddhism it could have been referred to merely as a philosophy, and the Buddha himself in the Hinayana tradition could be looked upon more as a philosopher than a prophet. However with the development of the Mahayana version of Buddhism this claim is so patently false it barely deserves an answer. As someone who formerly lived in a Mahayana Buddhist temple and partook of the rites and ceremonies, who memorized dharanis (mantras) that were over two pages long and that took up to five minutes to recite; who bowed before the larger than life size golden Buddha images daily, I can tell you that Buddhism is no mere "philosophy". Philosophers don't take vows of celibacy and live in monasteries and wear monks robes and light insence to their deities, which both Theravada and Mahayana Buddhist monks do. Buddhism is a false religion, but it is a religion nonetheless.)

I want to offer a challenge to my Buddhist friends who are  following the Dharma of Shakyamuni. There is much wisdom in the Buddhadharma. There is much good teaching there. I would never have studied and practiced Buddhism unless I had found much in it that I agreed with and admired.
It was a good teaching before the Incarnation of Christ, however I believe that it was a provisional teaching until the gospel was to reach the far east. So my challenge is this: Read the New Testament with an open heart. Study the words of Jesus. Compare the New Testament with the teachings of Buddha. And even if you don't believe in God, conduct an experiment. Ask God if He's real to reveal Himself to you. Be open to the teachings of Christ. And once you compare the two, Buddha and Christ, then make your decision. If you want to go ahead and follow Buddha after that, then that is your choice. But if you find out, as I did, that you are in need of a Saviour to forgive you and free you from your sins, then Jesus is waiting, knocking on the door of your heart, asking you to let Him in. And once you ask for His forgiveness, He will answer your prayer, and fill you with His Spirit, and comfort your wayward heart, as He has said: " Come unto Me all you who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest".
All are welcome, regardless of race, caste, intellectual achievement, or social status. We are all equals at the foot of the Cross.
There was in fact a concerted effort led by Darwinists and others who had rejected Christianity during the early part of the twentieth century to introduce Buddhism and other eastern religions into the West, particularly into the United States, as a Darwinian alternative to Christianity, complete with religious trappings, even bringing in "missionaries" from these other religions to help replace Christianity as the dominant faith, believing that Buddhism would be more compatible with modern "science", i.e. evolution.

Martin J. Verhoeven has given us an interesting insight into this amazing scheme, showing how such well known names as D.T. Suzuki, Vivekananda, and Anagarika Dharmapala were actually financed by wealthy western investors, not the least of whom was Paul Carus and the Rockefeller Foundation, to bring religion, especially Christianity, more in line with what they called modern science. According to Verhoeven, Carus "wished to conduct a Darwinian experiment of 'survival of the fittest." His goal: to bring Buddhist missionaries to America where they could engage in healthy competition with their Christian counterparts in the East, and thus determine the "fittest" to survive". Verhoeven writes :
 "After the 1893 Chicago Parliament of World Religions, one Paul Carus, a Chicago-based editor of the Open Court Press, invited some of the influential Japanese Buddhist delegates to a week-long discussion at the home of Carus's father-in-law, Edward Hegeler. Both deeply felt the spiritual crisis of the times. Both were trying to reform Christianity to bring it in line with current thought; in short, to make religion scientific [compatible with evolutionary theory]. It occurred to them that Buddhism was already compatible with science [for anyone who has read the Jataka Tales, the stories of the pre-incarnate Buddha living in different lives and as different creatures as a Bodhisattva, or read some of the fantastic literature of divine beings supplicating the Buddha for answers to philosophical questions, or for that matter the accounts of the Naga King and the Buddha, stories that are believed in by Buddhists worldwide, it is hard to understand how anyone could consider these fanciful tales scientific. They are believed in by faith, along with the concept of reincarnation, just as Christians believe in the concept of the Trinity. JMF] and could be used to nudge Christianity in the same direction. Toward this end, Carus wanted to support a Buddhist missionary movement to the United States from Asia. His thinking was to create something of a level playing field. Carus had witnessed the most ambitious missionary undertaking in modern history that send thousands of Protestant missionaries abroad to convert the people ‘sitting in darkness.' He wished to conduct a Darwinian experiment of 'survival of the fittest." His goal: to bring Buddhist missionaries to America where they could engage in healthy competition with their Christian counterparts in the East, and thus determine the "fittest" to survive.

With the aid of his wealthy father-in-law who put up money, they sponsored a number of Eastern missionaries to the United States: Anagarika Dharmapala, from what was then Ceylon, now Sri Lanka; Swami Vivekananda, from India representing the Ramakrishna Vedanta movement; and Soyen Shaku, a Japanese Buddhist monk, and Shaku's young disciple D.T. Suzuki. During his stay in the United States in the late 1890s and early 1900s, Suzuki lived in the small town of LaSalle/Peru, Illinois. He was in his twenties then, and for about eleven years he worked closely with Paul Carus translating Buddhist texts into English and putting out inexpensive paperback editions of the Asian classics. Suzuki later became the leading exponent of Zen in the West, when he returned in the 1950s on a Rockefeller grant to lecture extensively at East Coast colleges.  He influenced writers and thinkers like Carl Jung, Karen Horney, Erich Fromm, Martin Heidegger, Thomas Merton, Alan Watts, and the "beat Buddhists"—Jack Kerouac, Alan Ginsberg, and Gary Snyder. Suzuki died in 1966 in Tokyo. His influence in the West was profound—making Zen an English word, translating Asian texts into English, stimulating a scholarly interest in the Orient among American intellectuals, and deepening American respect and enthusiasm for Buddhism. The historian Lynn White Jr. praised Suzuki as someone who broke through the "shell of the Occident" and made the West's thinking global. His introduction to the West came about through the hands of Paul Carus

These early missionaries of Buddhism to the West, including Carus himself, all shared the same modern, reformist outlook. They translated Buddhism into a medium and a message compatible and resonant with the scientific and progressive spirit of the Age. They selected passages of text to favor that slant, and carefully presented the Buddhist teachings in such a way as to appeal to modern sensibilities—empirical, rational, and liberal. Americans wanted religion to "make sense," to accord with conventional wisdom. Then, as now, our primary mode of making sense of things was positivist—reliable knowledge based on natural phenomena as verified by empirical sciences. So firmly entrenched is the scientific outlook that it has for all practical purposes taken on a near-religious authority. Few, then or now, critically question our faith in science; we presume its validity and give it an almost unquestioned place as the arbiter of truth.        

Thus, the early missionaries of Buddhism to America purposely stripped Buddhism of any elements that might appear superstitious, mythological, even mystical. Dharmapala, Suzuki, and Vivekananda clearly ascertained that Americans measured truth in science, and science posed little theological threat to a Buddhist and Hindu worldview. After all, Buddhism had unique advantages for someone who rejected their faith (Christian) due to its authoritarianism and unscientific outlook:

1) Buddhism did not assert or depend upon the existence of a God

2) Buddhism was a superstition-free moral ideal; it conformed to the scientific view of an ordered universe ruled by law (Dharma)—a system both moral and physical where everything seemed to work itself out inexorably over vast periods of time without divine intervention (karma)

3) Buddhism posited no belief in gods who could alter the workings of this natural law

4) Buddhism was a religion of self-help with all depending on the individual working out his/her own salvation

5) "Original" Buddhism was seen as the "Protestantism of Asia," and Buddha as another Luther who swept away the superstitions and rituals of an older, corrupted form and took religion back to its pure and simple origins

6) Buddhism presented an attractive personal founder who led life of great self-sacrifice; parallels were drawn between Jesus and Buddha as the inspiration of a personal figure exerted strong appeal to seekers who had given up on theology and metaphysics

Thus, Buddhism was packaged and presented in its most favorable light viz a viz the current spiritual crisis in the West; and, not surprisingly, Buddhism seemed immensely reasonable and appealing to Americans. Darwinism might be undermining Biblical Christianity, but it only enhanced Buddhism's standing.

In fact, Darwin's theory of evolution, which struck the most severe blow to the Judaeo-Christian edifice, was taken up as the leading banner for Buddhist propagation. With Darwin the concept of evolution became enshrined in the popular mind. Everything was evolutionary—species, races, nations, economies, religions, the universe—from the micro to the macro. Social Darwinists even saw evolution operating behind the vicissitudes of free-market capitalism. As the constant interaction of stimulus and response in nature, evolution seemed to match nicely with the notion of karma—the cyclical unfolding of events governed by the law of cause and effect. So Anagarika Dharmapala could announce in Chicago to his largely Judaeo-Christian audience that "the theory of evolution was one of the ancient teachings of the Buddha." As it was in nature (at least in the new natural world of Darwin), so it was in the Buddhist universe.

Most people drawn to Eastern religions did not examine very closely the supposed identity of Darwin's evolution and the Buddhist concept of karma. They were content, even predisposed, to imagine them the same. Buddhists ardent to convert Americans to Buddhism, as well as Christians eager to find some correspondence between modern science and their beleaguered faith, were happy to say, “Yes, the similarities are close enough;  look, how the ancient Eastern religions anticipated our modern science!" Vivekananda, the charismatic and eloquent Ramakrishna delegate from India, met only hurrahs of affirmation when he proclaimed to a Chicago audience that the latest discoveries of science seemed "like the echoes from the high spiritual flights of Vedantic philosophy."

This facile view that Buddhism and science were cut of the same cloth accorded nicely with the longing to reconnect the sacred and the secular. It held out hope that religion could once again assume its rightful place alongside (if no longer in the lead of) the emerging disciplines of biology, geology, and physics. It also fit neatly with the presumed "unity of truth" that Victorians held to so dearly—there could only be one truth, not two. The very nature of reality demanded that the truths of science and religion be one and the same.  Carus called his new system of thought "the Religion of  Science," and Max Muller called his new theology "the Science of Religion."

This trend linking Buddhism to science continued, even accelerated, into the 20th century. Einstein's work and further developments in the new cutting-edge physics seemed to provide even further evidence that science and Buddhism were merely different rivers leading to the same sea. Where the old theologies crumbled under the juggernaut of science, Buddhism seemed to hold its own, even thrive. The early (and even contemporary) exponents of Buddhism pushed this idea. It remains an area of great promise and interest; but it is not one without difficulties.

One of the first to question this marriage, interestingly, was also one of its earliest  proponents, D.T. Suzuki. When Suzuki came to the United States to collaborate with Paul Carus, both were outspoken advocates of the link between Buddhism and science. Suzuki’s early writings make virtually no distinction between Buddhism and science. For Suzuki, Buddhism was eminently modern and progressive, compatible with the latest discoveries in Western psychology and philosophy. It was, in a word, scientifically sound."

Dr. Martin J. Verhoeven, Religion East and West, Issue 1, June 2001, pp. 77-97


Verhoven himself realised though, that these early enthusiastic rushes to equate Buddhism with science were a bit premature: Buddhism had no more claim to unqualified scientific veracity than Darwin's theory had with science:
"Many scholars and believers, both recently and at the turn of the century, jumped at this passage as confirmation that ancient Buddhist wisdom validates modern science. Early popularizers of Eastern religions in America like Anagarika Dharmapala, D. T. Suzuki, Paul Carus, and even Vedantists like Vivekananda, generally waxed enthusiastic about the compatibility of Eastern spirituality and Western science. They saw in passages like the Kalama Sutta proof positive that the Buddha prefigured the modern scientific outlook. Buddhism seemed eminently scientific: detached skeptical investigation of empirically testable phenomena; no faith, no dogma, no revelation. Experiments carried out by and confirmed by individuals regardless of time or place suggested "intersubjective testability"—one of the hallmarks of the scientific method. I do it, you do it; anyone can do it and obtain the same results. That Buddhism and science should be so nearly identical was understandably immensely appealing; it is also misleading.

The challenge from these eminent Buddhist teachers to the nearly ex cathedra authority generally accorded to science should give pause to anyone attempting a facile identification of Buddhism with science. Their aims and methods, though tantalizingly parallel, upon closer analysis diverge.
Correspondences do exist, but fundamental differences inhere as well. To gloss over them not only encourages sloppy thinking, but approaches hubris. So we must ask: to what extent is our conception of science as the arbiter of knowledge culture-bound, even myopic? Could our near total faith in science blind us to an inherent bias in such a stance: we presume that the logic, norms, and procedures of the scientific method are universally applicable and their findings are universally valid. Science may not only have limited relevance for interpreting Buddhism, but may distort our very understanding of its meaning.

Thus, in a quest to reach an easy and elegant reconciliation of faith and reason, we may unwittingly fall prey to "selective perception"—noticing and embracing only those elements of Buddhism that seem consonant with our way of thinking and giving short shrift to the rest. Overplaying the similarities between science and Buddhism can lead into a similar trap, where our dominant Western thought-way (science) handicaps rather than helps us to understand another worldview. In Buddhism, this is called "the impediment of what is known." (ibid)
Many parts of Buddhism are no more scientific than Andersons's Fairy Tales. The modern scientific method originated from Christianity not Buddhism, chiefly through Aquinas and Bacon and other Christian academics down through the centuries. Although Siddhartha (Buddha was his title) did state that we should not rest our belief solely on the authority of others, there are still large areas of Buddhism such as their concepts of enlightenment and nirvana, that are by definition entirely out of the range of any type of scientific discussion. Their cosmology is composed of stories of the previous lives of the Buddha in various animal roles during his pre-reincarnations; stories of heavenly beings with flowers in their hair living as gods for trillions of years, stories of the various hells one is sentenced to for rejecting the Buddha's teaching which are all far out of the purview of any strictly scientific worldview.
Buddhism became popular in the west because it was meant to replace traditional Christianity with an atheistic belief system that appealed to those who rejected the God of the Bible.

I am not necessarily attempting to impune the faith of millions of people who are Buddhists. Buddhism has one of the purest, noblest sets of morals of any pagan belief system. When you compare the lifestyles of many Buddhists to those of some of my fellow Christians, it should put many of these Christians to shame. Their understanding of psychology is very advanced and predates modern western psychology by thousands of years. I am merely pointing out the rank hypocrisy of those in the evolutionist community who try to throw up some great barrier between religion and science, when in actuality they are merely trying to impose their own atheistic belief system on everybody else in the name of science. (Note: pagan : 1. A person who does not acknowledge God. 2. Not acknowledging the God of Christianity and Judaism. Subnote: By their definition of God and their practices, both
Islam and Mormonism would be categorized as pagan religions.) Buddhism, even with it's high ideals, is still just one of a number of counterfeit ways to salvation in today's world. While it promises liberation, in drawing the soul away from knowledge of the true God, it ultimately leads to deception and spiritual slavery, with the final result being the loss of one's soul. 

“Galaxies are not distributed randomly on the sky. There are clear gaps where the plane of the Galaxy obscures our line of sight. It can be shown beyond doubt that the probability of obtaining by chance the observed distribution of galaxies on the sky is negligible.”

Cambridge Encyclopedia of Astronomy


The truly hardcore advocates of evolution want nothing to do with "theistic evolution"; that is merely window dressing meant to molify those who claim to believe in God but want to appear culturally fasionable by keeping up with the latest trends in evolutionary thought. Thus, if the evolutionist follows the strict school of the Gould and Dawkins line of thinking, they will tolerate no mention of God at all, not only from the "young earth" creationists who believe in Noah's Flood, but even from those who might go along with millions of years of the earth's existence- those who advocate "intelligent design". So all of life and everything in the universe is narrowed down to purely naturalistic phenomena, and in essence they are equating science with atheism, which is what the Stalinists did in communistic Russia, and they are relegating religion (at least theistic religion) completely out of the picture.
Now we have hit on the crux of the matter, for here we are really not delving into the realm of strict science at all, but the real issue is whether or not there is a God, however again this is something for philosophers and theologians to debate, not for men who spend their time weighing bits of earth on scales and mixing chemicals together.

There is an unspoken assumption in all of this, which is that the Bible is not to be trusted, and that Darwin provided all the answers. Religion, again we are speaking of theistic religion with God involved in the creation process in a sovereign manner, is equated with fantasy, or myths, and evolution is equated with Truth, absolute, dogmatic, almost revealed truth; the evolutionary theory becomes a sacred dogma that is to remain unquestioned by enquiring minds. Evolution is to be enshrined in the public conciousness as the one and only, universally accepted explanation for the origin of life and of human existence, and any questioning of this is considered to be scientific heresy.

The problem with this is that evolution is itself a faith, albeit at it's heart an atheistic faith (theistic evolutionists are fooling themselves, essentially their god is the same god who leaves presents under the Christmas tree, a make believe and impotent grandfather who smiles serenely from somewhere out in the blue yonder but has no actual hand in the processes of life) and it has not been demonstrated scientifically that evolution is even a valid hypothesis for the explanation of life itself or for the origin of the different species of life in the first place!

Evolution is not really supported by the facts of science at all (shreiks of "heresy" coming from the evolutionists!). Darwin never proved it; even his theory of natural selection explains nothing except that some species survive and some don't. All of the supposed millions of transitional fossils from the past leading up to the various species of life that we find on earth are missing!
There is also no evidence of evolution going on in today's world at all. None. The so-called instances of evolution such as the fruit-fly, the peppered moth and "mosquitoes developing resistance to DDT" are such pathetic examples that they barely deserve mentioning.

There have been many scientists in the past, founders of some of our greatest scientific disciplines, who were devout Christian men and women, and they had no problem with a religious outlook and a scientific outlook. Some of our greatest institutions of learning- Harvard, Yale, Brown, Princeton, Notre Dame, Cambridge, William and Mary, to name a few- were founded by Christian denominations, by dedicated Christian men and women for the glory of God. In many cases this is clearly stated in their founding charters. The university system itself was developed and kept alive by the Church throughout the early middle ages and up to the beginning of modern society.
Are we really to believe that only an atheistic viewpoint has led to the advancement of science or is identical with science itself? God forbid, yet this has been the prevailing outlook promoted by evolutionists, liberals, and their lackys in the major educational institutions and media outlets.

Thus we see a clever propaganda campaign by the Darwinists, meant to silence opposition to their views, and this tactic is to smear those who believe in a theistic viewpoint, and who dare to question the sacred tenets of evolution, as scientific illiterate and opposed to the pursuit of truth, when in fact it is the evolutionists who are opposed to having the glaring failings of their theory put to the test of empirical investigation, and brought to the light of truth, where it will be shown to be the fraudulent sham that it is.

I t is truly ironic that modern defendants of Darwin try to present the case that most of the objections to his theory of evolution came from "ignorant religious fundamentalists", but that science was somehow on his side.

A careful examination of the historic facts show, however, that this was not the case at all. (21) Jacques Barzun mentioned a whole list of prominent scientists that is literally a Who's Who of great minds of that era who arrayed themselves against Darwin's theory, among whom were the distinguished scientist Sir John Herschel, who contemptuously derided Darwin's theory as "the law of higgledy-pigglety."(22)
Whewell of Cambridge, author of History of the Inductive Sciences, had such a low opinion of Darwin's work that he would not allow it into the library of the college.

Barzun lists "Sedgewick the geologist, Owen the anatomist, Harvey the botanist, Andrew Murray the entomologist-who firmly declined to accept the theory." (23)

Sedgewick was the Professor at Cambridge who taught Darwin the elements of field geology. After he read through the Origin he wrote to Darwin: "I have read your book with more pain than pleasure. Parts of it I admired greatly, parts I laughed at till my sides were almost sore; other parts I read with absolute sorrow, because I think them utterly false and grievously mischievous."(24)

Richard Owen was the Superintendent of the Natural History Department of the British Museum and perhaps the worlds greatest living authority on comparative anatomy at the time. He was also the man who coined the word "dinosaur," meaning "terrible lizard" in 1842. He examined and identified the haul of fossil bones that Darwin sent back from South America during his voyage on the Beagle. (25)

Owen absolutely detested Darwin's work and was a most vociferous critic of the Origin.

Darwin, ever the impartial scientist, wrote to Hooker on January 3, 1863 expressing his feelings for this man who had so criticized his theory: "I am burning with indignation . . . I could not get to sleep until past three last night for indigestion." On January 10 Darwin again described his feelings towards Owen in a letter to Huxley: "I believe I hate him more than you do."

Louis Agazzis, the prominent professor at Harvard and founder of modern Ichthyology, the study of ancient marine reptiles, and the father of the study of glacial geology, strenuously objected to the theory of evolution.

St. George Mivart, the distinguished Professor at St. Mary's College in Kensington argued (correctly) that a complex characteristic such as the structure of the eye, or the long neck of the giraffe, would not have any survival value in its incipient stages if it developed through adaption and evolution.

Evidently, Mivart had other objections to Darwin's theory too. Darwin whined to Wallace on January 30, 1871 that "Mivart is savage or contemptuous about my 'moral sense.'"(26)

Louis Pasteur has been regarded by many as the greatest scientist of the nineteenth century. He disproved the evolutionary theory of spontaneous generation with his experiments and developed the theory of biogenesis , i.e. life can only come from pre-existing life. This is contrary to the theory of  abiogenesis , that life can spring from non-living matter, which evolutionists still believe in to this day, despite Pasteur's experiments disproving it and their own lack of any proof for the theory (see note #  V  in Chapter Three).
Pasteur also developed the pasteurization process for milk, developed the rabies vaccine, developed the modern theory and practice of inoculation against diseases based on the pioneering work on vaccination, vaccinia , by Edward Jenner, and he brought to us the understanding that germs spread disease through the air and by contact with other contaminated organisms. He delivered an impassioned speech in 1861 against the theory of evolution, vehemently arguing that life could never have originated by a purely naturalistic process.

In 1872 Darwin was refused membership in the prestigious Zoological Section of the French Institute for which they gave the following reason: " . . .the Origin of Species and still more the Descent of Man, is not science but a mass of assertions and absolutely gratuitous hypothesis, often evidently fallacious. This kind of publication and these theories are a bad example, which a body that respects itself cannot encourage." (From Life and Letters of Charles Darwin Vol.111, pp.224, note.)

Afterward he was admitted in 1878 as a corresponding member of the Botanical Section, which, according to Bowlby (pp.415) Darwin considered as a joke because of his "slender knowledge of botany."

Among many more well known scientists who strongly objected to the idea of evolution on purely scientific grounds, both in Darwin's day and continuing on up until the present time besides those already mentioned, were some of the founders of modern scientific fields of discipline (and who were devout Jews and Christians and believers in divine creation) such as Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, Matthew Maury, Lord Kelvin, Benjamin Silliman, Gregor Mendel, and Henri Fabre, etc.

The list can go on and on, however this brief summary has been presented to show that the artificial distinction between faith in a Creator and science, which the liberal media has continuously attempted to foist upon the public in their often skewed presentation of the issue whenever they attempt to handle it, has no basis in actual historical fact.

Even Darwin himself in his Origin mentioned more than a few scientists who objected to his theory. In the section of the Origin titled, Difficulties with my Theory he wrote:"Another distinguished zoologist, the late Professor Claparede, has argued . . . there are parasitic mites belonging to distinct families and subfamilies . . . which are furnished with hair-claspers. These organs must have been independently developed, as they could not have been inherited from a common ancestor. . .".( 27)

W e have seen that many prominent scientists did not at all believe in evolution and presented sound scientific facts to refute Darwin and his nebulous claims. But what of the reaction to the Origin in parts of the religious community?

Surprisingly enough, there was actually much public support for Darwin from leaders of the Christian establishment!

In the section An Historic Sketch prefacing the Origin mention was made of the Reverend Baden Powell, who wrote Essays on the Unity of Worlds in 1855. This was an early attempt to show that species were introduced into the world, in the words of Herschel, as "a natural in contradistinction to a miraculous process," on a regular basis as opposed to Divine Creation.

Barzun mentions the prominent preacher Kingsley, who sent Darwin a congratulatory letter on the publication of his book. Josiah Strong was a noted Congregationalist Minister of the last century who developed a rather racist, vulgarized Darwinian mixture of Scripture and evolutionary theory.

Other prominent churchmen who should have upheld their duties as defenders of the faith, not only compromised with the theory of evolution, but actively embraced it. Among those in England were Frederick Farrar, James Orr, Charles Kingsley and Henry Drummond. They persuaded many of their followers to accept evolution. In America A.H. Strong and Henry Ward Beecher strongly championed the idea of evolution as a valid idea whose time had come.

After Darwin's death in 1882 he received monumental eulogies from clergymen of all stripes. According to Desmond and Moore, the widely read Church Times praised Darwin so much that they were "lost for epithets- patience, ingenuity, calmness, industry, moderation. Others added the Pauline graces perseverance and faith, and depicted him as a 'true Christian gentleman.'" (Desmond and Moore, pp. 675)

The Bishop of Derry gave Darwin a glowing funerary tribute, to rounded applause from his audience, in a speech to the South American Missionary Society, while Desmond and Moore report that the Nonconformist and Independent lamented the loss of Darwin's great 'moral influence'.

After some clever wrangling by his friends Huxley and Hooker, they managed to obtain for Darwin the honor of an official burial in Westminster Abby. According to Desmond and Moore, "Some even inverted the honor of official burial. Westminster did not bestow dignity on the naturalist [Darwin] from Downe - his body was hallowed already. 'The Abbey needed it more than it needed the Abbey'", sermonized The Times. "This saintly man, who had 'borne the flag of science' . . .gave the Abbey 'an increased sanctity, a new cause for reverence' on being laid beneath its stones." (Desmond and Moore, pp. 676)

A fund was raised to erect a statue of him at the Natural History Museum, that great "Temple of Nature" as the London Times called it. Darwin's former colleague Wallace was "conspicuous by his absence" from the Memorial Committee for Darwin (Desmond and Moore, pp. 675) and contributed nothing towards the fund for his statue. We can hardly wonder why.

Sadly enough, even today (October, 1995) a prominent writer and Professor from a professedly evangelical college has written a book recently attacking creationist scientists and theologians, and he has had the strong endorsement and backing of one of the nations leading Christian magazines. That such theological turncoats would be in the prominent positions that they hold within the Christian community only demonstrates that the same scribes and pharisees, the "whited sepulchers" who refused to believe Moses and the prophets, thus in their hearts not really believing the words of the Lord Himself, (Lk. 16:31), still exist and they will continue to exist as the tares among the wheat until the final harvest.

T he contrast between Darwin’s idea of evolution of all life from a common ancestor and the Biblical statement that God created all species unique and separate is emphasized by many evolutionists. They try to imply that Christians were offended by the notion that humans had certain characteristics in common with animals, and that this repugnance was the reason why they have not accepted the doctrine of evolution. A quote from World Book states: "Darwin's work has had a tremendous impact on religious thought. Many people strongly oppose the idea of evolution-and the teaching of it-because it conflicts with their religious beliefs.   For example, they claim that the theory of evolution disagrees with the Biblical account of the Creation. Some people argue against the theory of natural selection because they believe it diminishes the role of divine guidance in the universe. Darwin suggested that human beings are similar to other animals in many ways. This idea contradicts the belief that God created human beings and gave them special emotional and intellectual gifts." ii

  This is not entirely true. Of course, no one, Christian or non-Christian, would dispute the fact that human beings are similar to animals in many ways, that was not the issue at all (indeed, similarity was used by creationists as an argument for design by a Creator, even in Darwin’s day), however the notion that humans descended from apes by a purely naturalistic process would have serious theological consequences.

Even noted evolutionist scholar Richard Leakey himself admitted in the Preface to Human Ancestors iii:
" . . . paleontological histories of our species are not morally neutral . Through their concern with whence we came, the articles in this collection encourage the reader to consider what we are and what we might become." 

Thus any theory of man's place in the scheme of the universe, especially one taught in public schools, should be of primary importance to those concerned not only with the physical and psychological well being of their children, but with their moral and spiritual well being as well. 

M any writers persist in perpetuating the myth that religion has somehow kept man in ignorance until the dawn of Darwin and others of his persuasion, and that evolution is somehow the result of recent scientific progress but that belief in a deity, particularly the Judeo-Christian Deity, is somehow primitive. 

Quotes like this one from Wallace, King and Sanders are a common example: “By that time [the end of the 17th century] the mathematical laws that govern the movements of the earth and planets had been worked out by Kepler and Newton, and the conviction began to grow that the universe was governed not by divine whim, but by fixed laws.”   (Wallace, King, and Sanders, Biosphere, The Realm of Life, pp. 5.)>

This is a gross misstatement of the historical facts of the case, and I can only assume that either Wallace and Sanders (Professor King is since deceased) were terribly ignorant of Newton and Kepler’s viewpoints, or they were simply bending the facts of history. 

This quote from Sir Isaac Newton should suffice to dispel this fantasy that religion had somehow hindered the advancement of science. Newton is generally recognized as one of the most brilliant mathematicians in history, he is acknowledged as the father of modern differential calculus, and much of our understanding of celestial mechanics is owed to him. He stated in the General Scholium, the conclusion to his major work, Principia Mathematica: ". . . it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions, since the comets range over all parts of the heavens in very eccentric orbits; . . . This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."   Further on he states that "This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God, or Universal Ruler . . .The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect; . . "

Thus Newton stated that coordinated, wonderfully intricate design in the universe could not have existed without their creation by a Designer, i.e. God. He assuredly did not attribute all of this to the Creator's mere whim, as Wallace, King and Sanders imply, but he believed that this grand universe with it's marvelous, intricate fixed laws was thoughtfully, carefully, and lovingly planned out according to a masterful divine plan. The Incarnation of the Son of God and his sacrifice on Calvary was not done at the notion of some whim .

  Newton concluded his work Optics with this grand statement: "God is able to create particles of matter of several sizes and figures, and in several proportions to space, and perhaps of different densities and forces . . . and make worlds of several sorts in several parts of the Universe. At least, I see nothing of contradiction in all this. As in mathematics, so in natural philosophy, the investigation of difficult things by the method of analysis, ought ever to precede the method of composition.   This analysis consists in making experiments and observations, and in drawing general conclusions from them by induction, . . . And if natural philosophy in all its parts, by pursuing this method, shall at length be perfected, the bounds of moral philosophy will be also enlarged.   For so far as we can know by natural philosophy what is the First Cause, what power He has over us, and what benefits we receive from Him, so far our duty towards Him, as well as that towards one another, will appear to us by the light of Nature.   And no doubt, if the worship of false gods had not blinded the heathen, their moral philosophy would have gone farther than to the four cardinal virtues; and instead of teaching the transmigration of souls and to worship the Sun and Moon [false religions], and dead heroes, they would have taught us to worship our true Author and Benefactor, as their ancestors did under the government of Noah and his sons before they corrupted themselves."

 Thus Sir Isaac Newton concluded two of his major scientific works with what amounted to a sermon to his faith in God and testimony that science and religion go hand in hand. It is eminently obvious that belief in a Supreme Being did not keep Isaac Newton wandering about in superstition and dogma, nor did it keep him from a remarkable scientific career. He also testifies to the pure faith of "Noah and his sons" before it was corrupted into a belief in reincarnation and the false worship of the Sun and Moon and false gods.

 It is a strange tribute to the scientific genius and religious faith of Isaac Newton that after Charles Darwin died on April 19, 1882, he was buried next to Newton in Westminster Abbey.

Kepler, the discoverer of the laws of planetary motion (1609), also was a mystic, deeply religious, who found in the precise mathematical relationships of the planetary orbits in the formulation for his Third Law of planetary motion (1619) a vindication for his belief that an Intelligence had formed the Universe, and that it was not simply the result of stellar gasses accidently mixing together. Kepler called his Third Law the Harmonic law, and actually composed notes on a musical scale representing the “song” of the planets. I don’t know how familiar Wallace and Sanders were with Newton’s Principia or with Keplers beliefs, but I would suggest that if they are to consider any subsequent editions to their book that they read up a little bit on their history before attempting any further analysis of the subject.

            There were other interesting relationships discovered during this time that drew attention to the idea that the planets and their courses through the heavens could not have occured by chance.

            A most obvious one that had been known for centuries was the fantastically improbable fact that the moon is precisely the right size and at the right distance from the earth to appear to the observer on earth to be the exact same size and shape as the sun is, relative to its size and distance from the earth! Thus we can have a perfect solar eclipse, where the disk of the moon appears to exactly cover the sun during this celestial event!  

            In 1772 the Titius-Bode law was formally developed by Johann Bode. He discovered that if you take the numbers 0, 3, 6, 12, 24, etc., doubling each number in sequence, beginning with the number 3, and then add the number 4 to each result, then apply this to the distances of the planets from the Sun, using the earth as a standard for 10 astronomical units, this remarkable formula gives the mean distances from the Sun for all of the planets, except Neptune. So Mercury has a mean distance from the Sun of 3.9 astronomical units (0 + 4); Venus has a value of 7.2 a.u., (3 + 4); Earth has a value of 10.0 [(2 x 3) + 4]; Mars would have a value of 16 [(2 x 6) + 4)], while in actual distance it is 15.2 a.u.; between Mars and Jupiter, the asteroid belt fits into the fifth position, 28 [(2 x 12) + 4], with 27.7 astronomical units. Jupiter is 52 astronomical units from the Sun, which is [(2 x 24) + 4], which fits into the formula perfectly. Saturn has a distance from the sun of 95.4 A.U., where the formula gives it a value of 100. This Law predicted the orbits of   Uranus and Pluto before they were discovered. Nine years after this Law was formulated, Uranus was first spotted in the heavens, and it came within a fair range, 191.8 A.U. whereas the formula put it at 196 [(2 x 96) + 4].

 Neptune was the only planet that did not fit the equation, although when Pluto was discovered, it fit in remarkably close, 394.4 A.U., where the formula put it at 388 [(2 x 192) + 4]. This amazing relationship does not bode well for those who imagine that this universe came together by mere chance.

 Even today, the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Astronomy, noting the simmetry of the galactic clusters, stated “Galaxies are not distributed randomly on the sky. There are clear gaps where the plane of the Galaxy obscures our line of sight. It can be shown beyond doubt that the probability of obtaining by chance the observed distribution of galaxies on the sky is negligible.” Not only were Newton and Kepler devout believers, but many eminent men of science before and since   Darwin’s era on to the present day have been reverent believers, whether they were Christians, Jews, Moslems or Hindus (There have been many great Jewish, Moslem and Hindu mathematicians and scientists in history). In fact quite a few of the founders of our scientific disciplines were devout believers in God. Gregor Mendel, an Austrian Catholic Monk, was the discoverer of the genetic theory, and was totally opposed to Darwin’s theory. Linnaeus and Cuvier, already mentioned, were very devout men. Pasteur, regarded by many as the greatest scientist of the nineteenth century, was a committed Christian and vigorously opposed to Darwin’s theory of evolution. Pascal, Boyle, Faraday, Maxwell, all fathers of modern scientific disciplines, were believers in special creation of life and the universe by God. They were all familiar with the current evolutionary concepts of their day, but they did not adhere to them, clearly seeing from a scientific basis the fraudulent aspects of evolutionary thought.

Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626), regarded as one of the greatest minds in history, the father of the modern scientific method, began his work Advancement of Learning with a quote from 1Corinthians: "'That we be not spoiled through vain philosophy . . . that experience demonstrates how learned men have been arch-heretics, how learned times have been inclined to atheism, and how the contemplation of second causes doth derogate from our dependence upon God, who is the first cause."

Bacon said that educated men in educated times, because of their knowledge of "second causes" i.e. naturalistic sciences, have been inclined to deny our dependance upon God as our Creator. He further stated: "To discover then the ignorance and error of this opinion and the misunderstanding in the grounds thereof, it may well appear these men do not observe or consider that it was not the pure knowledge of nature and universality, a knowledge by the light whereof man did give names unto other creatures in Paradise, as they were brought before him, according unto their proprieties, which gave the occasion to the fall [the fall of man]; but it was the proud knowledge of good and evil, with an intent in man to give law unto himself, and to depend no more upon God's commandments, which was the form of temptation.   Neither is it any quantity of knowledge, how great soever, that can make the mind of man to swell; for nothing can fill, much less extend the soul of man, but God and the contemplation of God...."

This is from the founder of the modern method of scientific investigation.

Bacon blamed the fall of man on man's pride and rebellion, not on knowledge itself, in fact he attributes his belief in God as the reason why man can and should acquire knowledge and wisdom: ". . . God hath framed the mind of man as a mirror or glass, capable of the image of the universal world, and joyful to receive the impression thereof . . . For that nothing parcel of the world is denied to man's enquiry and invention, he doth in another place rule over, when he saith, [quoting Solomon] "The spirit of man is as the lamp of God, wherewith he searcheth theinwardness of all secrets.' If then such be the capacity and receipt of the mind of man, it is manifest that there is no danger at all in the proportion or quantity of knowledge, how large soever . . ."

He further stated that even though some learned men become atheists, this should not be seen as assuming that the knowledge of second causes [naturalistic sciences] should be discouraged, but much the rather, encouraged, thus, "But further, it is an assured truth, and a conclusion of experience, that a little or superficial knowledge of philosophy may incline the mind of man to atheism, but a further proceeding therein doth bring the mind back again to religion."

  He concluded his Advancement of Learning with this notable tribute to the benefits of knowledge:
"To conclude, therefore, let no man out of a weak conceit of sobriety, or an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God's word [divine revelation, i.e. the Bible], or in the book of God's works [natural sciences]: divinity or philosophy: but rather let men endeavour an endless progress or proficience in both."
 

T wo more figures that it would be appropriate to touch upon were Copernicus (1473-1543) and Galileo (1564-1642). In many scientific articles, we find statements such as, "Copernicus opened up the new concept, contrary to the Church’s view, that the Earth was not the center of the universe," or “Galileo opposed the Christian idea of a geocentric (earth centered) universe for a heliocentric (Sun centered) universe", and that “Copernicus proved that the earth was not flat.”  

 First of all these are only half truths, and it is historically inaccurate, to say the least, that Christianity was the source for the prevailing scientific belief in their day that the earth was the center of the universe, or that it was mainly religious opposition to their discoveries. As these kind of statements are repeated on and on let us find out the real story of these two men.

 In regard to the accusation that Christian’s held to the flat earth view and Copernicus disproved it, the Copernican controversy had nothing whatsoever to do with the so called “flat earth” view : it was a controversy over whether the earth revolved around the sun or not. Educated men since the time of the ancient Greeks knew that the earth was round-this was never a controversy at all-and the two men who were responsible for discovering the New World and circumnavigating the globe, Columbus and Magellan, were both committed Christians.

Twenty years before Copernicus’ book on the heliocentric theory was published in 1543, Magellan started out on his voyage that eventually led to the first circumnavigation of the world in 1522. Magellan never completed the voyage, having given his life in an attempt to convert the Philippinos to Christianity, which was in large part successful, and one of his five ships, the Victoria, finally made it back to Spain on September 8, 1522. Four of Magellan’s ships had Christian names, and Magellan had given a large sum of money to a community of Christian monks before his embarkation asking them for their prayers for his voyage.

Magellan’s voyage was both a scientific triumph in navigating the globe and a triumph in courage and faith in successfully quelling a mutiny of three of his five ships, and traveling over three times the distance that Columbus did into unknown and treacherous seas. He is one of the greatest heroes in history. Thus the first voyage around the world was led be a deeply devout man inspired by his Christian faith.

The view that held that the Earth was the center of the universe did not come from the Church originally either, but from the Greek philosopher Ptolemy, whose works held a primary place in learning from the time of the Roman Empire down through medieval times. Much of what Ptolemy said was right, but he was obviously wrong about some things as well.

Copernicus was not the first man to proclaim the heliocentric view and to oppose the geocentric theory. The Greek philosopher and mathematician Pythagoras and his followers held that the Sun was the center of the universe, and his ideas were quite well known for centuries, although Ptolemy’s viewpoint won out in popular academic circles by the middle ages in the universities of Europe. Copernicus had already been familiar with both schools of thought when he challenged through mathematical proof the Geocentric theory. Nearly a century later Galileo confirmed Copernicus’ finding by peering out at the vast heavens through a telescope. Let us take note of the fact that Copernicus dedicated his main work to Pope Paul lll and it was received well by the Christian world before he died. It was later condemned by Pope Urban in an attempt to settle a theological debate between the Dominicans and the Jesuits, and to quell protests by Protestants that Catholics did not believe in the Word of God literally. Copernicus had a warm relationship with the Church and had little opposition to his theory during his life, and spent much of his life as a canon of the Church. When he died he was buried with full Church honors in Fruenburg Cathedral.  

Concerning Galileo, though, we read in Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol.19, pg.640: "The Aristotelian professors, seeing their vested interests threatened, united against him.   They strove to cast suspicion upon him in the eyes of ecclesiastical authorities..." however "a number of ecclesiastical experts were on his side." Thus it was not solely Church authorities who opposed him, this was a scientific dispute among jealous scholars who were defending their own mistaken viewpoints. Unfortunately, some in the Catholic Church were afraid what this rift would do in their battle with Protestantism, and a few of these ranking Church authorities did side with the Aristotelians against Galileo (Protestant leaders such as   Luther and Calvin also spoke against Galileo as well). In addition, because the Pope had been personally offended by some things that Galileo had said regarding Papal authority and Galileo had mocked the Pope in a work of fiction, Galileo had to fight against Church censorship for much of the rest of his life. It should be remembered that both Galileo and Copernicus owed their educations to Christian Universities, which were the centers of learning and of preservation of Greek thought throughout Europe during the middle and late-middle ages.

It is regrettable that certain ecclesiastics, in their mistaken zeal to preserve orthodoxy had worked against this man of science, sadly enough, even Copernicus’ books were banned for fifty years in the century after his death during the excesses of the Spanish Inquisition, but as we have seen, this was not the norm and Christian institutions have been celebrated for producing many eminent men of learning throughout history, though this one case has been paraded by skeptics as being a typical instance of the false dichotomy of "science vs. religion," which as I have briefly demonstrated, and could bring many more examples to light, have never truly been in conflict with each other.

Even though evolutionists and atheists have used this controversy to attack the Christian faith for centuries, the truth is this was not a controversy between people who believed in God versus people who didn't believe in God; faith in Scripture itself was never an issue. It was not between believers and non believers, there were clerics on both sides of the coin. They were all "people of the Book". It was a controversy between Christians who believed that the earth was the center of the universe and Christians who believed that the sun was the center of the universe. Both sides believed in the divine inspiration of Scripture, there was merely a conflict on how to interpret the Scripture, but neither side ever called into question the authority of Scripture itself. One side had it wrong, but the other side, equally Christian , had it right. So if you want to paint one side as the intolerant "bad guys" you also have to acknowledge that the "good guys" were Christians too.

We should not forget that Galileo and Copernicus were both intensely religious, and actually based their academic careers on the Christian scholastic methods of Aquinas and Bacon, noted Christian monks; they were all great men of science and devout Christians and we owe them a tremendous collective debt.

AWFUL ASTRONOMY: Phil Plait is a self proclaimed professional "debunker" who has lumped creationism in with some other very strange theories and has described creationists on his websight in language quite similar to the language that I have used to describe Darwin and evolutionists above and in Chapter Six. Since we have used nearly identical language to describe two groups of people with entirely opposite points of view; I would encourage the reader to examine the evidence, read what the evolutionists have to say and read what the creationists have to say, and then decide which of the two camps really has their facts straight and which camp fits the description better.

At any rate Mr. Plait is a very curious debunker, since he refuses to debate those who hold any of the views that he is supposedly debunking, at least in regard to creationism.

Granted, to his credit Mr. Plait has debated a few really strange "out there" people mentioned on his site; for instance he boasts about winning a debate with Nancy Lieder, a woman who claims that she was contacted by aliens from the star Zeta Reticuli who call themselves Zeta Reticulans (nicknamed "Zetans") who informed her telepathically that there was a large, unseen planet in our solar system on a collision course with earth.

Seriously now, to publicly brag about putting somebody in that state of mental collapse to route in a debate says as much about Mr. Plait as it does about his deranged opponent. The same can be said about the remaining collection of lunatics on his site, of whom he takes great pride in having exposed. It wouldn't take someone with much more than a first grade education to do what Mr. Plait so fulsomely boasts about having done with this pitiful assemblage of kooks.

So after taking on this small band of unfortunates, Mr. Plait has launched an attack against creationists as well, whom he refers to as "pseudoscientists", but he refuses to debate them.

One wonders why Mr. Plait would not debate, for instance, Russell Humphreys, a creationist with a B.S. in Physics from Duke University and a Ph.D. in Physics from Louisiana State University who "worked for Sandia National Laboratories since 1979 in nuclear physics, geophysics, pulsed power research, theoretical atomic and nuclear physics, and the Particle Beam Fusion Project. He was co-inventor of special laser-triggered "Rimfire" high-voltage switches. Dr. Humphreys has received another US patent and two awards from Sandia, including an Award for excellence for contributions to light ion-fusion target theory" (Source:
Instutute for Creation Research).

Or would Mr. Plait debate Danny Faulkner who has a has a "B.S. in Math from Bob Jones University, an M.S. in Physics from Clemson University and a M.A. and Ph.D. in Astronomy from Indiana University. Dr. Faulkner has been Professor of Astronomy and Physics at the University of South Carolina, Lancaster since 1986. His research interests include stellar astronomy, especially binary stars. He has been published in the Astrophysical Journal, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and the Information Bulletin on Variable Stars." (
ibid)

Would Mr. Plait debate Otto Berg, who "has a B.A. in Physics and Chemistry from Concordia College, Moorhead, Minnesota. He was on the research staff and also a consultant for three years to the NASA Goddard Space Center at the University of Maryland. He has also been a consultant since 1991 to the NASA Goddard Space Center at the Calvert Institute, Maryland for nucleation and growth processes related to the formation of presolar grains and planets. Mr. Berg is also a retired member for the NASA Meteoroid Environment Panel and the International Committee on Space Research, Meteoroid Panel. He received an Honorary Doctorate-Honoris Causa in 1994 for major contributions in space research and received the 1977 NASA Exceptional Achievement Medal (only two conferred in 1977)"
(ibid)

Would there be the remotest possibility that Mr. Plait would be willing to debate Ian G. Macreadie, Ph.D. in Molecular Biology? Dr. Macreadie "received a B.Sc.(Hons.) and a Ph.D. from Monash University in Australia. His fields were genetics, biochemistry and molecular biology. He completed his Post Doc training at Southwestern Medical School, Dallas, Texas. Dr. Macreadie is a Principal Research Scientist of CSIRO Health Sciences and Nutrition and an Adjunct Professor of RMIT University. He has played key roles in identifying the structure and function of several mitochondrial genes. After joining Bimolecular Research Institute of Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), he developed a novel yeast expression system that led to the production of an IBDV vaccine.
Dr. Macreadie has used yeast systems to produce biologically relevant proteins of human AIDS and major infectious cellular pathogens such as malaria and P. carini. These systems are being used to rapidly screen for new classes of drugs. Major links have been established with key international groups with similar objectives.
Dr. Macreadie is author of over 70 research publications and five patents. His awards include a 1990 Fulbright Senior Scholar Award, 1996 Frank Fenner Research Award. Dr. Macreadie was also a co-recipient of the 1997 CSIRO Chairman's Medal for their outstanding contributions to our knowledge of the structure and biology of the Birnaviridae family of double-stranded RNA viruses, leading to the development of a prototype recombinant vaccine against infectious bursal disease of poultry. He was also Honorary Secretary of the Australian Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology from 1997-2000."(ibid)

These men are all creationistsjust a few of the men listed in the above site (ICR) with impeccable scientific credentials whom Mr. Plait refers to in such derogatory terms but then will not publicly face to defend his accusations. Never mind that they all have Ph.D.'s in a variety of scientific fields and have worked for top notch research laboratories around the world; they are all "pseudoscientists" according to Mr. Plait because they will not kowtow to the standard party line with the near reverential awe for Darwin's "theory" like nearly all doctrinaire evolutionists do.

Now I don't want to say that Mr. Plait is afraid to defend his case against real scientists, however he does sort of remind me of the young braggart in the old west who goes about boasting that he is the fastest gun in town, but then is nowhere to be found when Matt Dillon shows up. 

There is of course a pseudoscience involved here, but the pseudoscience is evolution, not creationism, and Mr. Plait cannot make any kind of valid defense for his theory except to hurl unsubstantiated charges against his opponents, in essence resorting to name calling.

Well, two can play at that game, and perhaps an appropriate sobriquet for Mr. Plait would be "Old Duck and Run". At least this is a rather apt description of Mr. Plait; much more accurate than his unfair characterisation of the previously mentioned highly educated gentlemen.

I don't want to accuse Old Duck and Run of not having the intestinal fortitude - call it guts if you will - to face qualified creationist scientists; but of simply not having the facts, and he is clever enough to duck the issue with the typical false stereotyping of creationists as pseudoscientists, which is merely a slander instead of a valid argument. A scientist is one who takes data, tests it and evaluates it, and comes to a reasoned conclusion based on the facts. Many creationists are former evolutionists who have done just that, and have come to realise that there is no scientific foundation for the theory of evolution. For a list of qualified scientists who are creationists please check out this site.
Apparently, anyone who disagrees with Duck and Run Plait is a pseudoscientist (Mr. Plait does have a strange assortment of oddballs listed on his site, and they are virtually all to a man evolutionists, like Mr. Plait himself is. It is evolutionists, not creationists, who believe in the face on mars, UFO's, the hollow earth, the faked moon landing and a whole list of other fantastic, outlandish theories).

There is another curious quirk about Old Duck and Run's site, at least regarding his vain attempt to take on the whole evolution/creation debate. Mr. Plait's website is called Bad Astronomy. Darwin's theory began as a quaint little fairy tale about how fish turn into amphibians that turn into reptiles that turn into mammals. It involves things like natural selection, the struggle for survival, and it concerns the supposed origin of living species through these events. His book is called The Origin of Species. His book is not called The Origin of Galaxies or The Origin of the Solar System.

These are non-living events, outside of the sphere of any struggle for survival or natural selection in the biological realm. Hence, Mr. Plait has clearly expanded on Darwin's little story, made it into a cosmic event, explaining how universes and stars and galaxies form, and yet what in the world has this got to do with evolution, which originally was merely meant to explain the descent of species through natural selection?

Nothing whatsoever, except that they both share one common element: the denial of a supernatural Agent involved in the formation of any of this vast creation. Since Mr. Plait has elevated evolution into this great cosmic creation myth, we may assume then that he is clearly not some sort of warm hearted "theistic evolutionist" who laps up the soft sell that evolution was God's "method" for creating species, since the origin of galaxies has nothing whatsoever to do with that. In other words, for Mr. Plait to rule out the hand of a creator from any involvement in creation, then he has clearly played his hand, we see him for what he really is, a stark, dyed in the wool atheist who wants nothing to do with God at all, whether or not it involves organic evolution.
Now, in the cosmic scheme of things, Mr. Plait's entire life on earth, from start to finish, is barely equal to the length of one synapse, in other words, his entire existence lasts for less than the billionth part of the blink of an eye compared to the vastness of eternity. And yet from his vantage point he is able to proclaim that there was no type of God involved in this grand process ("The fool has said in his heart 'There is no God'").
This is like an ant standing on the top of an anthill in the middle of a forest shouting "I'm the king of creation".
No Mr. Plait, you are not, and someday you will meet the real King of Creation, as we all shall, who wonderfully and wisely made us and this entire creation by the Word of His power, and at that time He will divide up the sheep and the goats, and you will be on one side or the other, for there will be no middle ground.
Since Mr. Plait seems to be very determined to elude his opponents, much like the neighborhood sissy peeking out from behind his mother's apron in the doorway of his house while making faces at the other kids outside, let us bring the battle to him, with these two excellent links showing that there is ample evidence attesting to the Hand of the Creator in the formation of our universe.  If it were possible to obtain government benefits for being "theologically challenged", perhaps Mr. Plait could collect a huge windfall. Who knows?  
Link1; Link2. 

Having said that, I need to state that God does love Old Duck and Run, despite his erroneous views. God loves evolutionists, God loves Buddhists, God loves atheists: He sent his Son to die for them, "Christ died for us while we were yet sinners." We are saved by opening up our hearts to God's truth, through repentance and faith in His Son, and through believing in His Word and obeying it. The Word of God is very specific: "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free." The truth is the gospel, from Genesis to Revelation. Now, it says in the book of Revelation that only those who trust in Jesus and keep the commandments of God shall enter into the heavenly city, "But there shall by no means enter it anything that defiles, or causes an abomination, or a lie, but only those who are written in the Lamb's Book of Life." (Rev. 21:27)

Again it is written, "But outside [the holy city] are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie." (Rev. 22:15).
This is very important. This is not simply, "Well, maybe evolution was simply God's method etc. etc", or "It doesn't really matter what you believe, as long as you are a nice person."

This is not what the Bible says. We are saved by believing in and obeying the truth, God's Word, and in Him who is "The way, the truth, and the life". Jesus said "I, Jesus have sent My angel to testify to you of these things in the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star." (Rev. 22:16)
And then there is this serious warning: "For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."(Rev.22:18-19).

So it is very important that we listen to the truth, and believe it and follow it. And we have read that whoever believes in and practices a lie, in this case evolution, but also any belief system that sets itself up in opposition to God's Word or as equal to God's Word, then we will be denied the right to enter into the holy city, and enjoy eternal life. Our very souls are in the balance. Jesus said: "He who believes in Me has eternal life". You can have that eternal life simply through a step of faith. Ask Him to forgive you of your sins, invite Him into your heart, believe in His Word and follow Him, and at the end of your life you will be welcomed into the City of God, your heavenly home. The choice is yours, but after the moment of your death you will have no more choice. Do it now, while you still have time, don't delay, no one knows the hour of their departure from this earth. God is offering you salvation, don't reject it, surrender your heart to Him now, He wants to come in.

Getting back to the devil’s advocate, Darwin’s work had a strong influence in the developing science of psycho-analysis. This is interesting, as Freud used hypnotism in many of his early experiments. I am mentioning this because of the work of Mesmer, who pioneered many of the techniques of hypnotism, and from whom we get the term “mesmerize”. In the Soviet and Chinese attempts at brainwashing, they tried to induce the subject to reach a passive state of acquiescence in order to be susceptible to certain suggestions and ideas that they would not otherwise consciously accept.

One of the ways this was attempted was through constant repetition of certain phrases and “keywords”.

In Darwin’s rambling, inconcise style of writing he again and again suggests the theory of evolution, without presenting any really cogent facts (see Chapter five of The Darwin Papers on The Fossil Record where I discuss what Davidheiser had to say on the constantly repeated theme of the fact of evolution by evolutionists). His obtuse repetitive style is actually an example of a masterpiece on how to literally disorient somebody with a mass of innuendo, meaningless phrases, and jargon until they are almost “pliable” enough to believe whatever it is you would have to say. His writing style is much like the mumbling of a person on drugs or frighteningly similar to somebody under the classic spell of spirit possession.

I saw a remarkable similarity between Darwin’s writings and a character in one of C.S. Lewis’ books, Perelandra, in which a mad scientist had literally lost his wits to the evil one, and was attempting to seduce the “new Eve” by a prolonged rambling, banter of metaphysical psycho-babble.

Darwin’s technique is as old as Genesis: “Yea hath God said?”

Jacques Barzun wrote “No sooner, it seemed, had mid (nineteenth century) materialists destroyed the last remnant of belief in the hereafter than appeared Spiritualism, psychical research, Theosophy, Christian Science, Yogi, and innumerable shades of New Thought.”( pp.115 Darwin, Marx and Wagner).

Many of the modern, humanistically based techniques in psychology are really pseudo-sciences, spawned, much like Darwin’s Origin, by the speculations of the so-called father of the modern technique of psychotherapy, Sigmund Freud.

 It is amazing that Freud is still given so much credit for having been a grand innovator of some new scientific field of inquiry, since he was an admitted cocaine addict when he did his research (see The Cocaine Papers , by Sigmund Freud) who confessed in writing in 1897 that most of the evidence for his psychoanalytic hypothesis had been cleverly doctored up by none other than himself; he admitted that if something fit in with his theory, even if it was false, he wrote it down as though he had real evidence for it, and if anything conflicted with his theories, he omitted the material. (See Man is a Moral Choice , by Albert H. Hobbs.)

Biologist Jane H. Ingraham has written, “No single aspect of Freudian doctrine has ever been scientifically validated, nor can it be in the true sense of science ( The New American Nov., 24, 1986, pp.38.).

Freud was an ardent atheist and a Darwinist. He said that his materialistic views and his rejection of the idea of a Creator God were among his primary reasons for developing his theories. In his New Introductory Lectures on Psycho-Analysis delivered at the Vienna Psychiatric Clinic during the winter terms of 1915-1916 and 1916-1917, particularly in his Lecture 35, A Philosophy of Life, he made clear his intention to replace Christian world values with a purely materialistic world view, what he called (ironically enough) a “scientific” world view based on materialism and evolutionary principles.

While not wishing to go into detail, Freud did state as his opinion that both views of life, the Christian outlook and his own psycho-analytic outlook, could not both co-exist in the world at the same time, and he went so far as to say that people should not even have the freedom to choose which viewpoint they would want to believe; that religious faith was a form of mental illness, which he dubbed psychosis, and that faith in God should be replaced by his own theories.            

On religious faith, Freud wrote: . . . but we cannot overlook the fact that it would be wrong and highly inexpedient to allow such things to be carried over into the domain of knowledge. For in that way one would open the door which gives access to psychosis, whether individual or group (church gatherings) psychosis . . . It is inadmissible to declare that science is one field of human intellectual activity and that religion and philosophy are others, at least as valuable, and that science has no business to interfere with the other two, that they all have an equal claim to truth, and that every one is free to choose whence he shall draw his convictions and in what he shall place his belief.”
(Ibid, Lecture 35, Vienna).

Freud’s advocacy of “thought policing” to cleanse society of those who do not adhere to his beliefs is a blueprint for the final days when man will attempt by his own means apart from the grace of God to institute a “perfect society”, and those who do not tow the official party line will be banned from the public arena of discussion. Freud’s vision of the ideal society is a frighteningly banal world of sterile intellect and unbridled instinct, of passion divorced from love, of order with none of the classical virtues of piety, charity and compassion, they would be relegated as mere adult neurosis stemming from childhood guilt.

Freud’s ideal citizen is a monstrous distortion of the half-human/half-Vulcan Spock of Star Trek, only instead of embodying the best and noblest virtues of the Vulcan and human sides to his character, he would be a dialectic human monster, coldly manipulating events and people to satisfy the lusts of his own id, or ego, with none of the constraints of religious virtue.

 Freud was a materialist in his beliefs, but there is an equal and opposite extreme, which was the one followed by Karl Gustav Jung. He delved into the spiritual realm, going against the proper guidelines and the warnings   that are found in the Bible.

Although he coined the term “collective unconscious” for the spiritual realm that he was dabbling with and claimed that he was merely addressing psychological “archetypes”, he was in fact involved in occultism, which ultimately lead to his own bouts with insanity. It is extremely dangerous, even prohibited by the Scripture, to try and attempt any contact with spiritual beings, dead ancestors, angels, etc. We are meant to live by faith and trust in the triune God: God the Father, Jesus Christ the Messiah, and the Holy Spirit as revealed in the Bible.

The modern pseudo-science of Freudian Psychology should never supersede the Bible, the Word of God, as the primary source for man’s condition, and for his healing.

It is interesting to trace the gradual transmogrification of the word “science” during this period from its original meaning of observation->hypothesis->experiment->analyzation of data->deduction to hypothesis->deduction->observation- sans experiment , thus the word science came to be identified with a certain philosophic predisposition and facts were merely collected to support some particular bias, as in Freud’s doctored up theories.

Let us for one final time dust Darwin off before we put him back on the shelf next to the other strange exhibits and oddities where he belongs, and summarize the study of Darwin and Darwinism, or evolution, as the two terms are practically interchangeable. It would seem that in finding out more about the man hidden behind the carefully crafted legend, it would not appear that Charles Darwin contributed very much at all to the theory of evolution, he certainly did not originate the idea.

Shorn of the contrived and fawning adulism showered upon him he is rather more like the sorry sovereign of "The Emperors New Clothes" instead of the much heralded "discoverer" of evolution, as he is being gradually whittled down by the very facts from his own biographers and by these same admiring followers in the evolutionist camp, so that in fact what we are finding is a man of quite ordinary academic accomplishments with an ability to spin tales and present other peoples ideas as though they have come from his own novel discoveries.

As we saw in Chapter one and in Chapter three, Darwin was not a noted scholar in school, in fact he was a rather poor student, given to making up fibs as a youth. He also had a poor academic career while in college, and at the outset of his voyage on the Beagle he had almost no scientific understanding or background at all, but he was full of various theories of evolution that he had acquired as a youth from his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, and from the writings of others. What he is given credit for was his theory of natural selection and of adaption, which were not his original ideas either, and for supposedly showing that the origin of species was, according to the words of Sir John Herschel, "a natural in contradistinction to a miraculous process."

Though he has been highly touted as the originator of the evolutionary theory, in fact Darwin originated nothing at all, and borrowed all of his concepts from predecessors.

Next we will look at Darwin's final refuge for his theory to have any credit, the fossil record, and find out what he had to say on this issue, as well as any discoveries since his time, that might validate his theory, in the next issue of The Darwin Papers .

1. Excerpted from The Nebulous Hypothesis: A Study in the Philosophical and Historical Implications of Darwinian Theory 1996 by James M. Foard, Oregon. Regarding a controversy about 1 Tim 6:20, this same Greek word gnosis is used in many other parts of the New Testament and it is used in Luke 1:77 to mean knowledge of salvation.

Also in Luke 11:52, Rom. 11:33, and 1Cor 8:1 it is used to mean nearly the same thing as in Luke 1:77, knowledge of God. Gnosis meant knowledge, or "knowledge of" or "the study of", which is one of the definitions that the modern word science can still mean, even though the word science is generally equated  with "the scientific method", which it can refer to, but not always. Hence 1 Tim 6:20 does not refer exclusively to the gnostic heresies. See the endnote #1 in Chapter Six for further commentary. Paul did not give Timothy an exhaustive list of all past and future heresies here, but evolution can certainly be included in this general statement.

2. Taylor, Gordon Rattray, The Great Evolution Mystery, Harper and Row Publishers Inc., 10 East 53rd Street, New York, N.Y., 10022, 1983, Introduction; pp.140.

3.Howells, William, Mankind So Far, American Museum of Natural History Series, Vol.5, Doubleday and Co., Garden City, New York, 1949, pp.6.



4.Howells, Mankind, pp.6-8.

5.Stein and Rowe, Physical Anthropology, 3rd. Ed., Los Angeles Pierce College, McGraw-Hill Books Inc., Set in Baskerville by Ruttle, Shaw & Wetherill, Inc., R.R. Donelly & Sons, Printer and Binder, 1982, pp.27.

6.Ibid.

7.Darwin, Charles, Origin of Species, Great Books of The Western World, 6th edition, Darwin, Vol.49, Chapter Ten, On the Imperfection of the Geologic Record, pp.153,Encyclopedia Britannica Pub., 1952, under the editorial advise of the faculty of the University of Chicago.

8. (ibid),pp.152

9. (ibid)

10.Darwin, Charles, Origin of Species, Chapter 10: On the absence of intermediate varieties at the present day-On the nature of extinct intermediate varieties.

11.Darwin, Origin, Chapter One: The Origin of our Domestic Varieties from one or more Species.

12.Darwin, Origin of Species, Chapter One: Effects of Habit and the use or disuse of Parts-Correlated Variation-Inheritance.

13.Darwin, Origin, Chapter Ten: Miscellaneous Objections: Supposed Incompetence of natural selection to account for incipient stages of useful structures, pp.104,(Benton, 1952).

14.Darwin, Origin,(ibid) pp.105, (Benton 1952).

15.Darwin, Origin Chapter Six: Difficulties of the Theory: Organs os Small Importance. pp.94.

16.(ibid), Origin, Chapter Six: Difficulties of the theory: Transitions in habits of life, pp.84.

17.Darwin, Origin, Chapter Six: Difficulties of the Theory: Modes of Transition, pp.88.

18.Even Darwin's staunchest defender, Huxley, never really grasped what Darwin was talking about, and according to Barzun (Darwin, Marx and Wagner, pp.37) he thought the work "hopelessly tangled."

19.(ibid), Origin, Chapter Six: Modes of Transition, pp.87.

20.Darwin, Origin, Chapter Six: Organs of extreme Perfection pp.85.

21.In 1872 Darwin was refused membership in the prestigious Zoological Section of the French Institute for which they gave the following reason: " . . .the Origin of Species and still more the Descent of Man, is not science but a mass of assertions and absolutely gratuitous hypothesis, often evidently fallacious. This kind of publication and these theories are a bad example, which a body that respects itself cannot encourage." (From Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol.111, pp.224, note.) Afterward he was admitted in 1878 as a corresponding member of the Botanical Section, which, according to Bowlby (pp.415) Darwin considered as a joke because of his "slender knowledge of botany."

Evolutionists are not content to merely let their theory remain within the domain of biological systems. For them it has become a cosmic theory. Somehow what began as a failed argument for speciation has developed into a grand story explaining how the sun and the moon and stars all came into being, sans the Creator. They still have quite a few problems arranging the facts to suite their atheistic predilections.
The theory of cosmic evolution runs counter to one of the major laws of physics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics developed and proposed by Classius, which states in so many words that all systems when left to themselves are tending towards a state of randomness, in other words, biological and other organic systems should not be increasing in complexity (without an intelligence to organize and direct their operation) Although some have argued that this is only the case in closed systems, the issue of whether the Universe is finite or infinite is still a matter of philosophical debate, but even with an open system, mere introduction of energy would need a directing and organizing intelligence to arrange mere atoms and molecules into anything as complex as a living cell. A tidal wave washing through an electronics store would not produce a very useful computer.
Evolutionists have used the example of a water turning into a snowflake to bring some sort of validation to their theory, since a snowflake has a more orderly, complex configuration than does water. But which came first in the original scheme of things, the snowflake, or the water drop? After all, if water was originally in a frozen state somewhere out in deep space and later became a liquid over the course of time when approaching (or re-approaching) a heat source, such as a star in the early history of the universe, then water would be going from a more ordered state to a less ordered state. And we have seen nothing further ever develop in this scene, except that quite frequently the snow melts and turns back into water in a recurring cycle. I'm also curious how natural selection plays any process in this state of affairs. Are snowflakes more "evolved" and struggling with raindrops to survive? In addition, when water is turned into a snowflake, there is a loss of thermal energy , not an increase of it. In other words, it is the opposite of what evolutionists are trying to claim in their scenario, which is that the introduction of raw energy into lifeless chemicals created life (Frankenstein theory). What we do see when energy is introduced, without a guiding intelligent force or information system already in existence to direct it and purposely apply it, is an increase in disorder . That is why we try to keep vegetables cold in a refrigerator. Left out in the sun, they would putrify much faster.

22. Bowlby, J., Charles Darwin: A New Life, W.W. Norton &Company, New York, pp.344.

23. Barzun, pp.33.

24. Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, ed., Francis Darwin, 1885, Vol. ll, 247-250, letter arrived at Darwin's residence in Ilkley in November or December of 1859.

25. More Letters of Charles Darwin, ed. Francis Darwin and A.C. Seward, 1903, Vol.1,226-228. Another former instructor at Cambridge of Darwin, the Reverend John Stevens Henslow, did not support his work but remained a lifelong friend of Darwin. In the month before Henslow's death in 1861 he asked to see Darwin, however the latter refused, saying that the visit to the dying man might upset his stomach. (From Unpublished materials on Darwin, Cambridge University, pp.115)

26. Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol.111, pp.136.

27. (ibid). Erasmus and his ideas were quite popular in France before the Revolution. Erasmus left France shortly before the French Revolution erupted, having sowed his seeds (along with those of the other freethinkers) quite effectively, afterwards returning to England to watch the results from the safety of the British isles. One can quite clearly trace the seed of Jacobin thought on down through the writings of Marx and into the late nineteenth and early twentieth century utopians, among whom were H. G. Wells and Upton Sinclair, common examples during the period of the English Fabian Society.

Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Chapter Four: Natural Selection: ON the Degree to Which Organization Tends To Advance, Summary of Chapter.

ii World Book Encyclopedia, 1983, Volume 5, iii Human Ancestors, Scientific American, 1979, from Leakey and Isaac’s Preface to the Book.

iv Charles Robert Darwin, pp. 33 Scott Fetzer Company, Chicago, London.

v The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of Astronomy, Editor in Chief, Simon Mitton, M.A., Ph.D., University of Cambridge, Institute of Astronomy, Trewin Cobblestone Pub., Ltd., 1977, pp.353.

vi Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol.19, pg.640, 1986