VOLUME I                                                                                        NUMBER IV  

DARWIN'S ORIGIN
OF SPECIES

I do not pretend to adduce direct evidence of
  one species changing into another.
                                        Charles Darwin, 1861

Special Millennium Issue 2000
Editor and Publisher James M. Foard
From The Nebulous Hypothesis
Copyright 1996
Email your comments to:
THEDARWINPAPERS

"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.

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 he had never really come up with a plausible example for the origin of any species .

Darwin even 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 4, 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 could therefore, at least expect that natural selection would play a significant part in the process of evolution.

Harvard evolutionist and anthropologist William Howells, who was 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)

After Howells' paean of praise for Darwin's theory of natural selection it is rather astounding that farther on from the same page of the book Howells wrote: "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)

In light of Howells stating just prior to this that Darwin 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.

Let us look at the cover jacket of Howells book, Mankind So Far for a typical example of the claims that are made by the adherants of evolution: "The Story of Man in all of his stages of development is the theme of this brilliant book by W.W. Howells, an outstanding American anthropologist. There has been, perhaps, no more romantic story ever pieced together than this scientifically impeccable and highly readable account of the emergence of that physical type which we call man. "

This sounds as though we have some pretty good documentation for human evolution, however Howells makes this pronouncement near the beginning of his book : " We are totally bewildered, of course, about the beginnings of life and the reasons for our existence . . . " (Howells, Mankind So Far, ibid.)

Statements like this, although not frontpage items in National Geographic and Discovery, are usually hidden deep within articles that have bold headings proclaiming the “facts” of evolution. They can be found when one searches diligently for them, but they are not always presented along with the usual propaganda that evolutionists present as fact as they follow in Darwin's footsteps.

To continue, 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) 

I am wondering how Howells can affirm with one breath that evolution is a fact, and then in the next breath state that it is merely a "presumption".
I shouldn't be wondering any more - this type of meandering logic is all too common with evolutionists when they try and define their favorite theory. They will often insist that evolution is a fact, and then when challenged to provide proof they hedge on their statement by saying that we can't really "know" anything to be a proven fact. Is that so? 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. 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.
When confronted with the lack of any evidence for evolution, evolutionists will say 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. Remember the story of Benjamin Franklin and the kite in the lightening storm? Well, we have to throw that old story out now according to the logic of the evolutionists, 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.

To return to Howells, he basically said 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.

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. Of course 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 ."( 5)

Howells stated pretty much the same thing: "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 reduce the number of already existing species, it cannot originate a new species. In Darwin's theory of natural selection in the supposed "struggle for existence," the number and variety of species should be increased, not reduced, but the facts show that just the opposite is the case, natural selection reduces the amount of genetic variation, not increasing it.

So the main idea that most people credit Darwin with, along with it’s abhorrent ideas of “survival of the fittest,” the theory of natural selection, explains nothing at all in so far as how various species could originate in the first place.

It must be remembered that Stein and Rowe, as well as Howells, were committed evolutionists, they are not attempting to discredit Darwinism, but hidden amidst all of the hoopla 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 actually 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 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 are finding out that natural selection has nothing to do with originating any new organ, only preserving traits that already exist!  

Let us now come to the corpus delicti of our work, let us investigate Darwin's Origin to uncover his profound insights into the process by which one species will evolve from another.

In the first section of Chapter Ten of his Origin , (Chapter Nine of the 1859 edition) titled 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 interesting. There is no present evidence of evolution taking place, according to Darwin. And his reason for this? 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 of natural selection!

What a novel concept! What an ingenious method for disposing of the corpse! Well, he does 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 would seem that he was merely describing the tip of the iceberg. As Spock would say to Captain Kirk when confronted with an alien anomaly, "Fascinating".

And Darwin's argument only mentions the aspect of preserving beneficial principles, not originating any, he presents 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 Chapters 12 and 13 of The Darwin Papers ). The full title of his book was The Origin of Species by Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Existence . "

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 )

It should be noted that 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), 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 only excuse was that they hadn't looked long enough to find any fossils. In other words, we still just have a theory without any evidence. We see that Darwin himself could not provide any current evidence or past evidence for the existence of those elusive intermediate links that would demonstrate that his theory of evolution was correct. 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 be true, and we have seen from earlier chapters that his theory is merely a rehashing of an ancient Greek creation story spun by some of their philosophers who had an atheistic bent in their worldview.

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 understanding of 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. He did claim that environment could produce slight changes, which we know does not change the genes of a species at all, 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." (This statement clearly shows that Darwin did indeed follow in the footsteps of Lamarck, despite the denial of his most ardent defenders)

So Darwin stated his belief that 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. Although he demonstrated no evidence for this, he presented his assumption as fact, which has been the same tactic practiced by evolutionists from his time ever on.

We know however that there are definite limits to variability, 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 have shown that no new genetic material is produced by breeders 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 new species were created 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, thus in so many words he said that his theory of adaption and modification of species was a lot of hot air.

Darwin's Origin ought to be required reading for all prospective trial lawyers. It is a classic example for the defense of a theory that has absolutely no evidence to back it up, but is simply a prolonged jumble of rhetoric and clever observations of various natural phenomena, with no actual facts to substantiate his premise.

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." (12)

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

Speaking of tails, scientists have cut off the tails of rats for as many as 100 generations, yet the new offspring still grow tails. It must be remembered that Darwin wrote his book with no knowledge of genetics. The Origin was written before Mendel's development of the genetic theory and discovery of the laws of heredity. Because Mendel's findings conflicted with Darwin's views, Mendel's work was ignored for many years. When it 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.

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.)

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 ever having occurred at all, neither in the present, nor in the fossil record!

In light of this, we must ask ourselves why so many people, both in the scientific community and in the popular media and cultural outlets, have 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.

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 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 muttering of a person under the influence of an opiate, rambling on (and on) in incoherent, meandering gibberish, tossing around a whole list of technical terms, yet without any logical reasoning.

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 though 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, I would dare to say that, according to Darwin, perhaps if you and certain members of your family began to run about through the neighborhood swooshing 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, according to Darwin.

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 own complete ignorance as to 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 proven that space aliens aren't actually 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 was forced to confess 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 , "

"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."

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 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. 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)

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 mountain of verbosity, in the end if your not careful you might not realize he hasn't actually said anything of substance, just a lot of prattle 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."

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. I find it amazing that we have used nearly identical language to describe two groups of people with entirely opposite points of view; so 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 of the 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 fifth 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 he 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 creationists,  just 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 am not one of those who would accuse Mr. Plait of being a spineless spokesman for the evolutionary cause who is not man enough to defend his case (and there are some who have done just that); I think that it is unfair and unkind to characterise him in such a manner, but he does remind me of the young braggart in the old west who goes about boasting that he is the fastest gun in town, and 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 can not make any kind of defense for his theory except to hurl unsubstantiated charges against his opponents, in essence resorting to name calling (now if I were the kind of person to resort to name calling, which thankfully I am not, I would say that an evolutionist who goes about hurling accusations against creationists and then refuses to debate them is like a frightened sissy peeking out from behind his mother's skirt, afraid to face the other kids in the neighborhood while sticking his tongue out at them and shouting angry invectives, but I don't think that referring to Mr.Plait in this way would add much of substance to any real kind of debate and hence I steadfastly refuse to resort to this type of underhanded tactic).
I wouldn't accuse Mr Plait of not having the intestinal fortitude - call it guts if you will - to face creationists; 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 Mr. Plait is a pseudoscientist (Mr. Plait does have a strange assortment of oddballs listed on his site: and they are 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 Mr. Plait's site, at least regarding his vain attempt to take on the whole evolution/creation debate. Mr. Plait's site 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.

This brings us to another tactic 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. They demonstrate here a failure to grasp the difference between a genuine theory that has demonstrable facts to back it up and a cloudy 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 falls far short of the mark).

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, thus we do have certain "laws" of gravity, indeed, it is called the Law of Gravity, but Darwin's  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.
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's theory 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 desparately 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