1
EVOLUTION – FACT OR FALLACY
A Realistic look at the theory of Evolution
EVOLUTION: WHAT IS IT?
In short, the theory of evolution boils down to this: It claims that all forms of
life derived by gradual modification from earlier and simpler forms, or from
one rudimentary form, to its present status. It teaches a process in which
something complex is developed, by itself, from a simple beginning. It
accepts the principle of successive transformations from a lower to a higher
form of matter and life.
The theory of organic evolution teaches that the plant and animal kingdoms
evolved from lower forms of life to what they are today.
The theory of cosmic evolution claims that from lower units of matter (atoms
and molecules) the vast material stars, moons, planets, galaxies and universe
were formed, by themselves.
IS IT FACT OF FALLACY?
Let’s answer this question immediately: Evolution is a fallacy.
The theory of evolution is exactly that – a theory. A large cluster of
theories, to be exact. That it subtly moved from ‘theory’ to ‘fact’ in the minds
of people is one of the biggest misconceptions in our history (right up there
along with the flat earth-theory). Although thousands of books have been
written about it, not one fact about evolution has really been proved.
Evolution became a house of cards built up of theory upon theory,
supposition upon supposition, and conjecture upon conjecture until people
thought and believed it to be proven, to be true. But a theory does not
become truth until proven so. That the theory of evolution is very dubious is
made quite clear when the supposed ‘evidence’ is examined again, a new look
taken. But, a new look at the real evidence, not the evidence based on
conjecture. As one researcher has put it: “… tons of conjecture and very
little evidence”.
SOME POINTS ON WHICH EVOLUTION FALTERS: 
The problem of First Cause. Evolutionary theory begins with the
supposition that some matter or substance were already in existence
somewhere at the start of time. ‘Some tiny bag of chemicals twitched
and became animated’, someone adroitly observed. Evolution does not
try to account for how these original chemicals (or the ‘bag’ for that
matter) came to exist, how molecules got their so-called inherent
powers, or how there came to be definite laws governing these
molecules so that they could produce, without failure, all things as we
now have them. Their theory does not indicate what created these
1
2
original substances in the first place. In fact, evolutionists do not
deny First Cause, they just can’t explain it.

The problem of Nothing creating Something. If it is argued that there
needn’t have been a First Cause, that no matter or substance were
needed at the beginning, that there were nothing to start with – then,
while the evolutionists reason that nothing working on nothing created
Everything, true science have long ago accepted that nothing working
on nothing create … Nothing. Nothing cannot create Something. Only
Something can create Something.

Ah, the evolutionists say, but there were already something there,
some dead matter. Well, science has proven that dead matter cannot
generate life. This is a problem for the evolutionists. Life can only
come from pre-existing life. Numerous experiments were done
with test tubes filled with various organic matter. The end result was
the same every time - all life-germs in the tubes were completely
destroyed – not one vestige of life appeared. All attempts and tests to
get the living from the dead utterly failed. Evolution’s theory of
spontaneous creation and generation has had to be given up. It is
now recognized that life can only come from life and all life is
dependant upon other life: the lower upon the higher, the simple
upon the complex, the powerless on the powerful, the unintelligent
upon the intelligent, and so on.
On this point the evolutionists also say random events did this or that.
That’s very unlikely. For random events to produce even just a single
protein – a difficult job under any circumstances – would seem a
stunning improbability. As astronomer Fred Hoyle described it: “It
would be like a whirlwind spinning through a junkyard and leaving
behind a fully assembled jumbo jet”.

While the evolutionists talk about evolvement through resident forces
or impersonal eternal energy, science have long since come to the
conclusion that the exact opposite is true: regeneration on a large
scale is only possible by outside power, external intervention. (“These
are very close to religious questions” said cosmologist, Dr. Andrei
Linde). Whether this intervention is divine, human, or alien, it is clear
that higher intelligence plays a factual role in improving a lower lifeform. As Bill Bryson so aptly puts it: “It is rather as if all the ingredients
in your kitchen somehow got together and baked themselves into a
cake – but a cake that could moreover divide when necessary to
produce more cakes”. No matter how one looks at it, it is evident that
no life-form can create or improve itself by itself. The vast creations of
matter and life had to come into existence by a superior power, not an
inferior force.
Charles Darwin’s argument that plants and animals have within
themselves tendencies to vary of their own accord in many and all
2
3
directions to an unlimited degree, has been disproved many times.
(Interesting to note that Darwin never used the phrase ‘survival of the
fittest’ anywhere, he preferred ‘descent with modification’. The choice
of words ‘descent’ and ‘modification’ is quite apt). Ironically,
considering that Darwin called his book On the Origin of Species, the
only thing he couldn’t explain was how species originated. Gregor
Mendel’s experiments prove conclusively that plants and animals, even
under man’s selective skills in breeding, do not tend to vary in all
directions and to an unlimited degree; but that the variations are
within strict limits and work according to fixed laws producing
unvarying results. The theory of natural selection and of inheritance of
acquired characteristics has failed of proof.

Evolution teaches that one specie evolved into another, that a hop or
leap was made from one specie to another. That is simply not the
case. When interbreeding is attempted between different kinds of
specie there is an impossible gulf which cannot be crossed. It is a law
of nature that each species has power only to reproduce its own kind.
No one thing could break this law and produce any other thing. The
sponge is still a sponge, and has not become an oyster, octopus, a
turtle, frog, fish or crab. None of these have ever reproduced anything
except their own kind. No lowly earthworm has ever turned into a
lizard, a spider, scorpion, snake or crocodile. No insect, bird, or animal
has ever changed from its own kind, or reproduced another kind,
which was fertile and could produce a new kind. The crossing of a
donkey (containing 62 chromosomes) and a horse (with 64
chromosomes) will get an offspring with a reproductively useless
number of 63 chromosomes. The mule, as we all know, is sterile and
thus the unnatural pairing of donkey and horse ends there – by natural
law.
Life multiplies abundantly. One bacterium in 24 hours can produce
281,500,000,000,000 descendants. An oyster lays 100,000,000 eggs in
a season; 2,000 young spiders can be found in one cocoon; a
loggerhead turtle lays 1,000 eggs at a time; a pair of mice can produce
1,000,000 offspring in a year; an elm tree produces 1,584,000,000
seeds. But, out of the billions of yearly reproductions of nature, not
one monkey’s tail has been produced by anything except a monkey.

Another problem area the theory of evolution face is the law of nature
that nothing reproduces anything greater than itself. No single specie
has evolved from a lower to a higher plane of life. One thing is certain:
all intelligence and matter could not have come from one or any
number of molecules of unintelligence. The most that has ever been
done by the evolutionists is to demonstrate the law of improvement of
a specie through breeding and cultivation. Many people confuse
evolution with this simple law of improvement. But the law of
improvement cannot produce a new specie. The intelligent and
innumerable self-producing specie of creatures, each with its own
3
4
eternal and consistent traits, distinct flavours and infinite combinations
of chemicals, could never be the product of unintelligent matter. No
amount of unintelligence could produce intelligence or intelligent
beings, anything greater or higher than itself.

All species exist in great variety, and the so-called ‘proofs’ of
evolutionists are merely variations, or minor changes within the same
species. When Charles Darwin observed these changes and variations
he postulated that all species evolved from another. But in the ensuing
150 years, closer observation brings forth another conclusion: out of
billions of living organisms and fossils there is no evidence of the
slightest tendency to evolve out of the original kind to which each
belongs. There is only evidence of development and normal growth but these are not ‘evolution’. Improvement of a species and new
varieties within the species does not indicate an evolutionary system.
That theory teaches transmutation, a change in nature, substance,
form, and alteration of essence by a slow and gradual process of
transforming from one species to another, and from the lower to the
higher. This has never been the case.
In nature we find endless variety within each species or kind,
but no change or jump from one species to another. In fact, the
only ‘jump’ that was made was in the evolutionists’ conclusions.

The problem of what came first: the egg or the chicken. An egg cannot
produce an egg. The power of reproduction is only in things that
are already in existence, already living. Since reproduction is a
prior condition to evolution, it cannot be a product of it. The power of
reproduction is not in the embryo, but only in the mature parent. Only
the parent can produce the egg. It is also true that the egg is not
improvable by itself. Improvement can come only in and through the
mature form. Therefore, the parent form of life must have been
created in the beginning to have produced an egg from which alone
the offspring can come. (This bringing us right back to First Cause,
Nothing cannot create Something, Higher intervention, Intelligent
Design, etc.)

Evolutionists’ main argument is that man and monkey are so similar
that they must have come from a common ancestor. This is neither
sound logic nor sound science. Resemblance proves nothing but
resemblance. Similarity proves nothing but similarity. Resemblance and
similarity run throughout all nature in things that have no connection
with each other. Resemblance and similarity on some points is to be
expected: we live on the same planet, existing in the same air and on
similar foods. All animals and men have the same kind of faculties to
breathe, eat, and perform other bodily functions, but such similarities
do not prove close relationship. To use a simple yet telling example:
the wheel is the same in the wagon, the car, locomotive, and plane.
But such similarity does not prove that the wagon evolved into an
4
5
automobile, then into a locomotive and finally into a plane. We know
that life was drawn up from the same set of blue-prints, and so of
course there will be a lot of similarities and dove-tailing, but that surely
does not indicate or proof evolution.
The dissimilarities between man and lower animals, not only in body,
but also in brain, spirit and mind faculties, prove that they are not
vitally related. The differences between man and monkey are so wide
that any single bodily part is sufficient in itself to prove whether it is a
part of man or part of a monkey.

The important point of Degeneration. Nature has shown that, if
neglected and left alone, it will degenerate, go back, degrade – quite
simply, a process of de-evolution is actually more in line with true
nature, than evolution.
The forms of vegetables, plants and animals that man succeeds in
improving by human selection and cultivation revert rapidly to type as
soon as man’s directing skill is removed. In all man’s selection and
cultivation he can work only within the limits of the species. No
change into new species has been produced either by natural or
artificial selection. The iron law of sterility stands guard at this frontier
and everything continues to reproduce after his kind (see page 3).
There is a certain potency of development implanted in all things, but
such potential powers are not through resident forces as evolution
teaches, but only through outside intervention and intelligent help.
Man can develop the wild rose into the American Beauty, or the wild
pony into a thoroughbred, by selection, better environment, breeding,
etc. But it is most significant, the above improvements do not
continue to increase, or even persist, when things are left to
themselves. The rose reverts to a wild rose if left alone, and the horse
goes back to its degenerate type the very minute man’s skill and
intervention is taken away. If one takes a flock of highly developed
pigeons, with all their shades of colour and variety of markings, and
turn them lose in the forest to see if they will improve (even just retain
their new-found changes), or degenerate – you will find in a few years
that they have all returned to one type. Compelled by an unfailing
natural law, all will revert to common colours in stead of being a
variety with beautiful markings. This is the same with all vegetation
and animals. Once higher intervention is removed, degeneration and
regression sets in. The offspring of Pavlov’s dogs, or any circus
animal, forget their parent’s tricks and lessons. Improvements brought
about by care and selection in breeding and training will be gone,
proving the law of evolution a failure. And that, in actual fact, quite
the opposite is true.
Thus the theory that hair is just elongated scales of pre-historic
animals, the legs of all animals developed from warts on aboriginal
amphibians, ears came about by the air waves calling to spots on early
reptiles, eyes are but accidental development of freckles on blind
5
6
amphibians that responded to the sun – all this is rejected as farfetched and untrue. Even Darwin conceded that “it seems, I freely
confess, absurd in the highest possible degree, that natural selection
could produce such an instrument as the eyes. To this day the eye still
gives me a cold shudder”.
In Chemistry, which is closest to the deeper facts and forces of
inanimate matter and life, there is no evidence of a surge upwards.
Not only are the laws of chemical affinity static and unchangeable as to
their operations, but there is a disintegrating tendency downward in
stead of upward that seems to characterize all matter. The tendency
of atoms of high atomic weight to break up into other atoms of lower
weight seems to be the universal modus operandi in all matter.
This is true of man as well. If he neglects himself he will revert to a
worse and lower type of man. If the mind is neglected it will
degenerate into imbecility and ignorance. So with the conscience and
soul, if neglected it will spiral down to lawlessness, ruin and depravity.
“Wind back the tape of life to the early days, let it play again from an
identical starting point, and the chance becomes vanishingly small that
anything like human intelligence would grace the replay”. – Stephen
Jay Gould. The chances of the evolutionary process to be at all
anywhere near successful, is so astonishingly slim that it defies
believability.

Fossil remains have been referred to as one of the strongest proofs of
evolution. But evolutionists themselves acknowledge that this socalled proof is extremely fragmentary, limited and obscure, due to the
fact that only a few fossil remains have been found. More likely it will
never be found, simply because it just isn’t there. When asked about
the size of the total world archive of bones, Ian Tattersall, curator of
anthropology at the American Museum of Natural History, replied:
“You could fit it all in the back of a pick-up truck”.
The Piltdown Man consisted of 3 bits of skull bone, a piece of jawbone, and a tooth. From these scraps, anthropologists constructed a
man and named his era the Dawn-man. Later it was acknowledged
that the jaw-bone and tooth did not belong to the skull. The Java man
was built from a skull bone, leg bone and two molars. The Heidelberg
man was built from a jaw-bone, the Peking man only from skull
fragments, and the Nebraska man from a single tooth, later found to
be the tooth of a pig. Ian Tattersall again: “In Georgia, Europe,
you’ve got hominid skulls dated to about 1.7 million years ago, but
then you have a gap of almost a million years before the next remains
turn up in Spain, and then you’ve got another 300,000 year gap before
you get homo heidelbergensis in Germany – and none of them looks
terribly much like any of the others. Nobody can even quite agree
where truly modern humans first appear in the fossil record. Between
Iraq and Vietnam – that’s a distance of some 5,000 km’s - there have
6
7
been just 2 human fossils. It’s not surprising that palaeontologists
have trouble connecting the dots”.
Take away the plaster of Paris used to build all these ‘men’ and the
bones are exactly what is left: pieces of bone that do not form any
missing man or proof of a missing man. “A mountain of theory built on
a molehill of evidence” as journalist Geoffrey Carr suggested.

The problem of the word “link” as in “missing link”. Although
evolutionists manufacture multiplied drawings of beings, rising from a
molecule, through various stages of vegetation, to a gorilla and urang
utang, and then to man – adding guess upon guess of how life was in
each stage – there is actually no proof of any of these ‘links’. There is
no proof of man in various stages from a molecule to a
monkey to a man. The fact is that no single example of any link of
evolution from any one species to another is found.
From monkey to man: Here the word ‘link’ is at its weakest, a total
misnomer. ‘Link’ indicates something small, a short step. Well,
between monkey and man we are not talking just about a link or step,
we are talking about a giant jump, a chasm of gargantuan proportions,
a quantum leap that boggles the mind.
And where are these interim animals, these hominids, these beings,
these whatevers, to bridge this chasm? Nowhere. Even if we, for
arguments’ sake, accept the ridiculous notion that a monkey may have,
over billions of years, derived from a molecule, why is there nothing,
absolutely nothing to fill the void between monkey and man? Where
are the urang utang species that can talk, write a book, and cultivate
food? Where are the gorillas or animal species of whatever kind, that
is anywhere near man, to give us the slightest indication that there is
no gap. Animals who can reason, farm, read, build bridges, fly planes,
create cities, etc. In Star Wars we find many of them, a sort of combo
between man and animal. But that is science fiction. Where are they
in real life? Where are the half-man, half-beast dentist, engineer, bus
driver, writer, etc? There are nothing, nothing to bridge this great
divide between man and animal. Nothing alive, nothing dead, nothing
fossilized. The mere fact that they are looking for fossils, and not
something amongst the living, beings that are still alive and living
amongst us, is very telling. We have living examples of molecules,
earthworm, crocodiles – but no man/monkey combination or ‘link’!
The average species on earth lasts for about 4 million years. Why is it
that this most important of all intermediate stages, the one between
man and animal, provides no evidence. Are they extinct? If so, why is
the most recent ‘link’ so conveniently extinct? Where are the fossil
remains? Or has it never existed?
Although there are hundreds of similarities between the bodies of man
and urang utang and other animals, there are also thousands of
differences. And there are unaccountable differences between these
two in mental, moral, spiritual and habitual matters.
7
8
On this point alone the impossibility of evolution of man from apes and
lower life is proven.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------NOTE: The previous points all deal with organic evolution. No one
branch of organic evolution has been proved. Let’s look at the theory
of cosmic evolution.

The old geological scheme to prove evolution has also been
repudiated. Instead of the older rocks being found at the bottom, and
the younger rocks at the top, as would be the case if evolution were
true, it is now found that the opposite is often the case. This explodes
the evolution theory of natural building up of the strata.

The earth’s perfection as a place of habitation. About 64 kilometres up
from the surface of the earth is a protective covering – the ozone
layer. This umbrella has just the right density to sustain life on earth.
The sun throws out various kinds of violet rays – some deadly, some
life-giving. We are shielded from at least 8 harmful rays by a layer of
ozone just over ½ centimetre thick.
If this ‘thin curtain’ (as
Shakespeare called it) was removed, life on earth would come to an
end, for the harmful rays would blind, blister and kill. If it were thicker
it would prevent the needful rays coming through and life would perish
accordingly.
We are also shielded from a constant barrage of meteors and asteroids
from outer space, the majority of which burn up before reaching the
earth. Billions of meteoric bodies are said to invade the atmosphere
each day to be destroyed by friction (about 30,000 tons of space dust
are accumulated on earth every year). We live at the bottom of an
ocean of air which provides us with life-giving oxygen; and the
atmosphere is a perfect blanket of insulation against both heat and
cold. It prevents the rapid escape of heat that keeps us from freezing;
and it also acts as a great reservoir and distributor of heat and light
from the sun. The troposphere, the part of the atmosphere that we
live in, is only 10-16 kilometres thick. In this thin band, this narrow
belt, we all, humans, plants, animals, all – live.
These and other laws of nature, strongly point to an Intelligent
Designer.
So, did all this come about as pure happenstance? It boggles the mind
to think that all this just sort of happened on its own. “God does not
play dice” said Einstein.

“It’s perfect, it’s almost uncanny” – Astronomer Geoffrey Marcy,
describing our solar system. One of the biggest problems facing the
evolutionists is the one of the Infinite Perfection of the whole creation,
the whole universe, with all its galaxies and other worlds.
8
9
Let’s just take a look, as an example of other solar systems, at the only
solar system we know – our solar system: The earth rotates ± 1, 600
kilometres an hour, if it were 1, 400 kilometres an hour our days and
nights would be longer, and the hot sun would likely burn up our
vegetation, while surviving sprouts would freeze in the longer night.
The earth is the exact distance from the sun to give it the right amount
of warmth. 5% nearer we would roast, 5% further we would freeze.
Furthermore, the slant of the earth, tilted at an angle of 23 degrees,
gives us our seasons. If it had not been tilted, vapours from the
oceans would move north and south, piling up into massive continents
of ice. If our moon were nearer than its 355,589,407,077 kilometres,
the tides would cover all the continents twice daily, the earth would
wobble out of control. If the crust of the earth had been only two
metres thicker there would be no oxygen, and thus no human or
animal life could exist. “All over earth, you’ll find just the right
materials in just the right measures to keep it bubbling away – to our
advantage.” (Bill Bryson)
The four laws of physics – the strong and weak interplay of
forces, electromagnetism, force of gravity – if any of these
were a fraction out of balance, or not aligned exactly with
each other, there would be chaos. The universe just wouldn’t
exist.
It is evident from these and countless other facts that there is not one
chance in trillions that life on our planet could be a work of itself.
“The more I examine the universe and study the details of its
architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense
must have known we were coming”. (Freeman Dyson)

The sheer size of the Universe. When one stops to survey the infinite
details of creation and the plan of eternal sustenance of all things from
the smallest atom to the huge creations of material and livings things,
one is forced to reconsider and ask questions.
Can we really believe that evolution is responsible for all the vast
creations in space and the endless varieties of species of life on the
innumerable planets? That all the moons and stars and planets that
form the 80,000 billion galaxies in the universe came from a single
compressed proton? And some 13.7 billion years ago, there came that
moment known to science as t=0, the Big Bang, when a primeval atom
bursted into glory. We know now the Big Bang, or various Big Bangs,
could only form light gasses, and an exploding star – supernova - is
needed to form the heavier particles, so vital to our being. All this may
well have happened, although the co-incidence ratio is getting higher
and higher with each additional explanation.
And what preceded the Big Bang?
What law made the proton shrink?
Can we truly believe that the laws by which all the heavenly bodies
continue in constant and eternal motion around one another as they
9
10
race through the universe happened by itself? That it all just started in
Darwin’s “warm little of pond of water”.
The centre of our solar system of 9 major planets, 90 or so known
satellites or moons and innumerable meteors, is the sun –
149.597870691 million kilometres from earth. Our sun is considered to
be a dwarf star compared to others.
There are more than
40,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (40 sextillion) stars, which are suns
to other planets. Most of them believed to be larger than our sun.
Our solar system is about 9,654,000,000 kilometres across. Our
galaxy, the Milky Way, alone contains roughly 400 billion stars, each
with its family of planets. It is estimated that there are 140 billion
galaxies like the Milky Way, and trillions solar systems, most of them
larger than ours. Space is enormous, to put it mildly.
Our nearest neighbour in the cosmos, Proxima Centauri, is 4.3 light
years away (speed of light is 300,000 kilometres per second). To
reach it by spaceship would take at least 25,000 years.
The Universe’s size, its complexity, as with Nature, is proof of
its Intelligent Design (I.D.).
Not chance, not fate, not by accident.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The next and final problematic area for the fortress of Darwinism is not
about organic or cosmic evolution. In fact, it is easily ignored by the
evolutionists: Man’s spirit. As has been said: “Man is a spiritual being
having a human experience”. Somewhere, somehow, in all that has
occurred, it happened that a certain mysterious élan vital resides in
certain beings. This is actually a short and sweet point: either you
believe man is a spiritual being, or you don’t. If you don’t, a lot of
your questions will remain unanswered. If you do, most, if not all,
your questions are answered.
When A.R. Wallace, the man known as the co-founder of evolution,
came to believe that man is a spiritual being, he changed his mind,
causing great concern in evolutionary circles.
In evolutionary thinking: did a molecule or a gorilla decide that a spirit
should be ‘added’ to man? Is it man’s spirit, or the absence of spirit in
animals, that is the reason for the unapproachable gulf between man
and the animal kingdom? As with First Cause no evolutionist can
explain the spirit-ability, the spirituality of man, what it is, how it came
about.
If evolutionists deny man’s spirit, why then are there such a huge gap
between man and its nearest animal? If the evolutionists accept man
as a spiritual being, they must deny all their own theories. And a lot of
their theories just do not make sense because of their denial.
No wonder it is called “the miracle of life”.
10
11
TO SUM UP:
Evolution
1. Matter already in existence – no
explanation
2. Nothing created Something
3. Random events created Everything
– spontaneous creation
4. Resident forces, impersonal energy
5. Leap from one specie to another
6. Can produce greater than self
7. Transmutation, transformation
from lower to higher
8. The ‘egg’ cannot create itself
9. Man and Monkey – similar (proves
evolution)
10. Evolution, progression
11. Fossil remains - proof
12. Missing link
13. Geology – natural building up of
strata
14. Earth’s perfection as a place of
habitation – by chance, fate, accident
15. Infinite Perfection of Universe – a
work of itself
16. Size of Universe – happened on
its own
17. Man’s Spirit – no explanation
Evidence
1. First Cause – only explanation
2. Nothing cannot create Anything
3. Something created Something – no
life can arise from dead matter
4. Outside power, external intervention
5. Specie can only reproduce its own
kind
6. Cannot produce greater than self
(Only natural Law of Improvement at
work)
7. Only variations, development,
minor changes and normal growth
8. The ‘chicken’ must have been
created
9. Man and Monkey – similarities
proves resemblance only
10. De-evolution, regression
11. Fossils – too few to prove
anything
12. The ‘link’ is missing
13. Geology – opposite is often the
case
14. Earth’s perfection as a place of
habitation – not by chance, or fate, or
accident but by Design
15. Infinite Perfection of Universe –
not work of itself
16 Size of Universe – proof of
Intelligent Design
17. Man’s Spirit – Explained (from
God)
A FEW LAST THOUGHTS:
“The upshot of all this is that we live in a universe whose age we can’t
quite compute, surrounded by stars whose distances form us and each
11
12
other we don’t altogether know, filled with matter we can’t identify,
operating in conformance with physical laws whose properties we don’t
truly understand” - Bill Bryson.
So what made the evolution theory stick?
Human nature is a factor in all this. Scientists have a natural tendency
to interpret finds in the way that most flatters their stature. As John
Reader says in the book Missing Links: “It is remarkable how often the
first interpretations of new evidence have confirmed the
preconceptions of its discovery.”
It is also clear in this instance how blind devotion to a theory
supplanted real science. One of science’s building stones is critical
analysis. But evolution does not tolerate that. There was a thinking of
‘let’s cut short all further observation and conclude that this is the
truth, the whole truth etc’. And anybody trying to indicate the opposite
was quickly labelled as a bad scientist, or even worse, a Creationist –
so there was a holding back, a fear of ostracization. But all of this
started to change in the last four decades or so. In these years Man
has found out more about the universe than all the previous centuries
together.
Many modern scientists find the evolution theory
unacceptable and are astounded by the number of educated people
(many of them biologists and anthropologists, etc) who still think that
offering suggestions for human behaviour in terms of evolution
somehow disproves the facts that human behaviour can be explained
in non-evolutionary terms. Fortunately, recently a controversy about
evolution is raging, the fortress of Darwinism has come under heavy
attack, it is crumbling, and evolution is fast losing its untouchable
status.
Darwin himself stayed a faithful man until his death. He never
believed that his theory supplanted a Supreme Being. In the last
sentences of his book, On the Origin of Species, he wrote that the
whole evolution theory exists because of “its several powers having
been originally breathed by the Creator in a few (life) forms or one”.
Furthermore, people have an overwhelming desire to have an answer,
to pinpoint something, to view the past in a certain way. But certainly,
in this case, a faulty way.
CONCLUSION:
The cosmos, the wonder of life, the amount of different life forms, the
unaccountable, unexplainable wonder of conciousness, man’s spirit
didn’t all come about by chance.
The evolution theory just does not hold together. It breaks
under the weight of contrary evidence. It owes more to
Supposition than to Science. It is wide off the mark and has
overrun its course.
In short, it is a miscarriage of truth, speculative, erroneous guesswork, pitifully myopic, absurd, contradictory, a blunder, defunct and
bankrupt.
12
13
13