The Darwin Bicentennial: A Message to All Evolutionists

Written by Christopher C.M. Warren on Monday, 02 September 2013. Posted in Opinion, Christopher C.M. Warren

In 2009, to commemorate the bicentennial of the Birth of Charles Darwin, Britain launched a stamp. At the same time Christopher C.M. Warren penned the following analysis of evolution from the Creationist point of view.

The Darwin Bicentennial: A Message to All Evolutionists

Whilst most of you have your eyes on the collapsing economy a few may have noticed the media making a fuss over Charles Darwin, the chief engine being the modern compulsory religion that everyone learns and must believe in at school called 'Evolution'. Why is this? Because two hundred years ago last Thursday, Charles Darwin was born into the world.

Desmond Morris the Darwinist

My next door neighbour on the Banbury Road in Oxford, England, was the famous naturalist, Desmond Morris, who wrote the evolutionary tome, The Naked Ape, in which he attempts to show how ape-like humans are. Morris, like all evolutionits, hails Darwin as a hero. And Great Britain, who produced Darwin, also recently produced a strange postage stamp commemorating him. Whether Morris was just reclusive or travelling a lot, I don't know, but I never saw him once during my 15 years in Oxford, though I was aware of where he lived. He did his doctorate thesis at Oxford – at about the time I was born in the Far East – on the stickleback, a fish which I once took a great interest in, and I kept a few specimens in an aquarium in my kitchen for a while. And though I had absolutely no belief in evolution any longer when I became his neighbour, I always wanted to meet him to discuss his fairytale-masquerading-as-science faith. As far as I know he is still alive though whether he still lives in Oxford, which I left in 1988, I don't know. One thing I find fascinating is how the same environment (Oxford University) can produce people of such radically different beliefs – today Oxford has become notorious as the base of rabid evangelical atheist, Richard Dawkins, who wants to make all religion illegal...except his own evolutionary one, of course. 

Is Evolution a Fact?

Most people have been fed, and religiously believe, the lie that evolution is a scientific theory that has long been proven as fact. 1 They believe this because they have been told it so often that nobody bothers to question it anymore. At the same time, Christians – and particularly Creationists like myself – have been portrayed as superstitious morons with no scientific sense.

At School and University

As many of you know, I am an Oxford-trained Biochemist and later became a Systems Analyst before going into Education as my profession. Like Dawkins and Morris, I was an atheist who believed in evolution because it was taught as fact in the textbooks I used at school and on the BBC TV science programs I used to watch at home, even though by the time I was 18 and getting ready to enter Oxford University, I was struggling to make sense of it. My great passions were Biology and Organic Chemistry and I can still remember to this day struggling to make sense of the 'big picture' of macro-evolution. In my school Biology textbook, Biology: A Functional Approach by M.B.V. Roberts, I scribbled in the cover:

"It is certainly an axiom of science that all machines, whether simple or complex, originate from a logos (intelligent ordering principle) of some kind. This [must] include biological machines".

The Lie of 'Apparent Purpose and Design'

The work of the philosopher Professor Eric W.F. Tomlin of the University of Nice in France, and friend of T.S. Eliot and Wyndham Lewis, had already begun to expose the double-think of evolutionists in my mind and their nonsensical talk of the "apparent purpose" and "apparent design" in nature. Atheists like Richard Dawkins are still playing this word game and deliberately avoiding the obvious. He once said:

"The illusion of purpose is so powerful that [evolutionary] biologists themselves use the assumption of good design as a working tool".

Introduction to Evolutionary Thinking: 
The Analogy of the Brick Wall

That is a bit like a science professor looking at a brick wall and saying to himself:

"This brick wall looks as though some intelligent being has built it and in order to explain how all those identically-shaped bricks neatly arranged themselves in a perfect row, carefully cemented together, I must in my amazement use words like 'constructed' and 'built' to get over the wall's precision to my students. But of course we all know that it built itself. How do we know that? Because to posit that someone intelligent built it is unacceptable." 

'Christian Evolutionists'

That, my friends, is evolutionary 'thinking' for you. And when Christian Evolutionists come along I have to laugh even harder because they are even more ridiculous than their atheistic counterparts. Why? Because they are saying all the same things as the evolutionists with one exception: that there is an intelligent designer only he just didn't build that brick wall – it built itself while he directed its construction 'from a distance'. 

Fantasy Games and Inverted Logic

I have no respect for evolutionary thinking because it isn't thinking – it's just pure fantasy no more worthy than a Superman comic for scientific credibility. There just aren't men who wear blue suits and red capes who can fly through the air catching missiles and meteorites with their bare hands, and natural selection is no more an ordering and creating principle than kryptonite was a tonic for Superman's health. Thomas G. Barnes, professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso said:

"The inevitable consequence of evolutionary training is indoctrination in an inverted form of logic. Inverted logic begins at the wrong end and runs counter to the fundamental laws of science. Inverted logic is the type that would erroneously lead one to think that he can lift himself by his own bootstraps, with his feet still inside the boots".2 

Intelligence Not Allowed

What would be an example of such inverted logic? I will let Harvard Professor Richard Lewontin give us a perfect example as to why Intelligence greater than man's cannot be allowed into the equation of science:

"It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenonal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover that materialism is absolute for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door".

Evolutionary Intellectualism

Now let us take that reasoning to the brick wall analogy I gave a minute ago. What this 'learned professor' is telling us is we are not forced intellectually to exclude the possibility that a man built the brick wall but we must exclude that possibility simply because we have chosen a system of investigation that excludes the possibility of a man having built it, no matter how mystifying it all becomes when we exclude such a man. Why do we exclude the possibility that a man built the wall? Because we have decided that we cannot possibly allow the concept of a mason into our world of thinking! That, brothers and sisters, is the utter drivvel of evolutionary intellectuallism. If that is intellectualism, then it is bankrupt intellectualism and as sound as our current banking system which is everywhere collapsing around us. Are Obama and the other politicians acknowledging that the bankers and their system are the culprit for the recession? Not on your life. They have exactly the same blinkered mentality as the evolutionists because they are evolutionists.

Majority Rules?

Now I don't care if evolutionist scientists outnumber creationist scientists like myself 10,000 to 1 any more than I care that Catholics outnumbered Protestants millions to one before the Reformation or the majority in the days of Galileo thought the earth was at the centre of the universe and the sun revolved around the earth. The majority is not always right. Indeed the common man probably has more sense in his little finger than your average scientist because your average scientist is more isolated and brainwashed in his ivory intellectual tower.

Willful Ignorance

Now this evolutionary 'mentality' is really nothing more than willful ignorance. If, in a murder enquiry, you excluded a suspect on the sole grounds that you don't want him to be a suspect because, say, he was a sanitary inspector, and you believe that all sanitary inspectors are above reproach by default, how serious could one take policing and law? Well, scientists have 'decided' to exclude a Creator from the equation of origins just as in my analogy those studying the origin of the brick wall decided to exclude the possibility of there having been an intelligent human builder just because he wasn't visible at that time. Peter was right to condemn such foolishness when he said:

"For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of Elohim the heavens were of old"   (2 Peter 3:5, KJV). 

Why Do Intelligent People Embrace Evolution?

Evolutionary theory is willful ignorance. Nothing more. So why do apparently intelligent men and women go for it? Not all the reasons are the same but one that I have found that predominates is that those who reject God and plump for evolution and atheism are angry with God about something. They are angry with God because they have been taught, or have come to believe, that He is some ogre. And there is no doubt that some religions, including variations of Christianity, do present Him in a horrific way. Then there are those who reject Him, not because there is no evidence that He exists, but because they don't want to be bound by biblical morality. Let's take Desmond Morris who I mentioned at the beginning who recently had this to say in an article about the commemoration of Charles Darwin's 200th Birthday:

"We are not helpful to one another because of some sophisticated moralising, but because we have evolved that way. It is as much a part of our animal nature as is our urge to compete with one another. 

"That is the way we are, and there is no need to introduce the pious teachings of the Church to make us good - it is already in our genes.

"Creationists will have none of this, and insist that all of nature is the work of what they now call an 'intelligent designer'. 

"If such a being existed, this monstrous designer would have to accept the responsibility for having created all the wonderful life forms we see around us, and then of cruelly inventing countless unspeakable agonies for them in the shape of leprosy, cholera, cancer, syphilis, plague, malaria, AIDS, fevers, parasitic worms and the rest. 

"What a charmer this designer must be; creationists are welcome to their hideous creation".3

Blaming the Creator for Sin

We will answer Desmond Morris by exending the analogy of the brick wall. Suppose the wall our scientists chance upon is not just an ordinary wall: it has booby traps on it, land mines around it, barbed wire over it, razor blades poking out of it, and other dangerous objects. What do we say? "Oh, this could not have been made by a man. What man could be horrible enough to have made this? What man could be so bestial? No, it made itself with all these self-protective devices as a means for survival."

Why Just One Intelligence?

But is that logical? Of course not. Once you admit the possibility that there was one intelligent being who could have made the wall, what is so logically inconsistent with the idea that there might be other intelligences also, but this time of a nasty disposition? Is that such a ridiculous postulate as we look around at human beings? No, of course not. There are decent people around as well as mass murderers, rapists, torturers, suicide bombers, and the like. So what is so absurd with the postulate that 'God'  is not the only supernatural being around? Nothing. It is perefectly logical.

A False Assumption

Morris makes a mighty big assumption – he assumed that if there is a Creator then He's in some way responsible for all the death and suffering that we find in nature. Sadly, there are even Christians who blame Yahweh for this by saying that He had a supernatural fit of bad temper after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden apple and went and cursed creation to punish the miscreants. But is this what the Bible says? Is this consistent with the nature of God revealed from Genesis to Revelation?

Humanising God

We have a tendency in our finiteness to humanise God – we try to interpret Him as extensions of our own behaviour which is, I am sure you will concede, rather less than divine and moral. So I ask you this question: did God create 'leprosy', 'cholera', 'cancer', 'syphilis', 'plague', 'malaria', 'AIDS', 'fevers', 'parasitic worms' and 'the rest'? Is Morris' model of a solo Divine Being with supernatural powers the only possible one? Are there other ways we can explain all these 'nasties' which, on the face of it, seem to reflect badly on the Creator as the possible originator of them? What if there was a malevolent supernatural being like the Creator? What if there were many of them? If you are going to set up a model of a Creator against one that excludes Him, then you must set up many such competing models, just as evolutionists have proposed different models of evolution, some even more bizzare and insane than the universally accepted one. 4

Introducing the Fairy Godmother

When you reject the obvious, you are forced to come up with more and more insane and 'mystifying' ideas which in their very nature are not only religious but unscientifically religious. When evolutionists invoke a 'fairy godmother' in all but name instead of a Divine Creator to explain their theories, we know that something is seriously wrong.

Cosmology and Alien Theories

I like to keep the wood separated from the trees by looking at the 'big picture' – evolutionists like to focus on the details because it's so easy to get lost there and miss the main points. So let us take a look at cosmology and the origin of the universe. Many 'modern' evolutionists, including Richard Dawkins, are saying that life on earth might have been planted here by aliens. Of course he, like others who adopt the 'alien theory', because they reject a Creator, are forced to say that some kind of Darwinian evolution had to have taken place in the universe somewhere to make the aliens in the first place. Alien theories just postpone the evolution problem, they don't solve it.

Evolution of the Universes and Reinventing God

Others prefer to see 'cosmic evolution' as a natural, smooth, continuous tale from the 'Big Bang' to human beings that takes place over unimaginably long periods of time. Time and 'natural selection' or 'environmental selection', ultimately, in the evolutionary scenario, are the magical black holes into which all logic and reason ultimately disappear. It's then that evolution starts getting 'mystical' and religious because out of it emerges this totally unproven idea that 'natural selection' is actually some sort of intelligent, organising, selecting 'force', though they would never dare use such words for fear of being labelled 'religious' (which they are anyway). Astronomers now imagine that there must be zillions of universes and that this 'natural selection force' 'selects' the one where life can emerge and evolve. Darwinian random variation and natural selection are thus extrapolated into ultra-cosmic realms of the unseen and unknowable. Without knowing it, evolutionists have reinvented God in their own image.

Explaining Nothing

For Darwin, of course, the Cosmos was mindless. A year before hís death he began to have "horrid doubts" as to whether his own mind could be trusted if it had developed from lower animals. 5 As David F. Coppedge astutely notes: 

"[Darwin] should have doubted further whether any law that depends on chance is a 'law' at all. Stripped of personification, natural selection can be adapted to explain anything - and therefore explains nothing."6

Reduced to its logical outcome, cosmic Darwinists are in fact saying no more than "stuff happens". In truth they don't have a clue why or how. They literally believe in a Darwinian 'Fairy Godmother' and they are protecting her with the same religious devotion and sometimes deadly fanaticism as the misguided religionists of today and the past. Today you're not not allowed to teach this new Religion whose Priests wear white laboratory robes. These new religionists deserve about as much respect as the lunatic suicide bombers who think they have the right to kill us for not accepting their perverse religious ideas.

Autocratic Attitudes

I came to Christianity as a scientist and I am still a scientist. I may not be a famous scientist and actually only have one obscure publication to my name on a certain enzyme from spinach beet leaves. Not very exciting, I know. But I do not regret my education at Oxford nor do I find any contradiction between my faith and true science. I do not have all the answers but my God is a lot more intelligent (not to mention loving) than the Fairy Godmother of the Evolutionists. I do not need to persecute or exclude evolutionists in order to have peace about my faith unlike evolutionists who cannot tolerate Creationists in either the classroom or in the faculties of Universities. Evolutionists are backing a horse that's a worse loser than the Catholic one called the Geocentric Universe. The naturalists were right and the religionists were wrong back then – now the tables are reversed – the naturalists are the jokers only they take themselves too seriously and they have less than friendly attitudes towards religionists. The lunacy of evolutionism is only concealed by its deceptive mode of presentation.

From Science to Science Fiction

Evolutionary biologists have never admitted their false assumptions and fantastic leaps of imagination. They may be good science fiction writers but they are bad scientists.

"What the molecular biologist must finally admit is that there is no jump from chemical activities to biological activities - from formlessness or multiplicity to form; there is only continuity from form to form".7

Genetic Barriers

The same is true of animal kinds. There are invisibe boundaries established there by the Creator which are uncrossable. We do indeed observe changes in species, as Darwin correctly noted, but they do not occur in the way he imagined. No intelligent Creationist denies micro-evolution or genetic variation but he does deny macro-evolution because there has never been a shred of evidence for the latter. When new species are artifically induced through mutation (usually by irradiation) the results are never improved species but creatures with damaged DNA. You can, as Sherwin and Thomas note, "shuffle, marr or lose" DNA material but you will never see nature improving it. 8

Selective Blindness

A century-and-a half later since Darwin published Origin of the Species you would have thought that scientists would have noticed that by now. So why don't they? It's called selective blindness. Remember what Richard Lewontin said: "We are forced by our a priori adherence [to 'preconceived doctrine'] to create an apparatus for investigation and a set of concepts...[that] cannot allow a Divine foot in the door". So even when God is staring them right in the face, they won't be able to see Him. They have willfully blinded themselves.

The Laws of Information

Evolutionists are the antinomians of the scientific world – they require a set of natural laws in which to provide a framework of meaning for their investigations and yet they deny these very same self laws when it comes to the principles of information. Nathaniel Lewis exposes the fallacy that new information can evolve out of chaos. Obviously when you compare a man with an amoeba there is vastly more information present in the human DNA required to program his biochemical system. Common sense? Of course. Yet new information always comes from a programmer – there is no area of information technology where that truth does not apply. That's why when they are listening for extra-terrestrial signals in space, they assume that information means an intelligent being behind it. The only place where this is disputed or ignored is in the origin of information in biology, largely because there has been a pre-existing theory of evolution before the laws of information became widely known. Why should information in biology not follow the laws of information that apply everywhere else? Why are living creatures excepted? On what grounds?

The Amazing DNA Molecule

The more that biochemists discover about DNA, the more they find it is anything but simple. There are things so mind-boggling that we can't really get our heads round it all – things like protein-folding and DNA-cutting due to electrical currents, and much else besides. In other words, it is way beyond our most advanced technology, and all at the molecular level. Now if we took a computer or an automated factory to even a tenth of the level of complexity we find in a cell, then it would take us to many times the level of technology we have now – and anyone who said that it came together by chance over time would be universally seen as a complete moron! And yet atheists invoke evolution like some sort of all-explaining magic wand over what we see in nature. Remember that when Darwin produced his theory of evolution, they thought that cells were just jelly-filled sacs, supremely simple. Now we know better, but evolution had become so entrenched in the minds of people that the challenges were glossed over.

Complexity and the Handiwork of God

It is the unutterable complexity that shows God's handiwork (e.g. Rom.11.33-34). Why then do evolutionists bother with the theory of evolution that can't explain something and rides roughshod over demonstrable and repeatedly documented laws of information – useless as a scientific model? It is because to do so would utterly expose the fallacy that evolution is.

Theistic Evolutionists: God as Fairy Godmother

Now theistic evolutionists induge in their own form of 'Fairy Godmother' theology by saying that evolution 'works' because 'God did it' at those very places where there are insurmountable problems. This is particularly ironic considering that a favourite charge against creationists is that they preach a 'God of the gaps', when that is essentially what theistic evolutionists are reduced to. Why bother giving divine support to a theory that falls apart without it when it is far simpler on a logical, theological and philosophical basis to abandon it and follow the facts? Theistic evolutionists must think logically and by analogy through the many problems with evolutionary theory, like abiogenesis 9, the origin of sexual reproduction, symbiotic relationships, the chirality problem 10 and many more. We are creationists not because we are superstitious idiots but because we believe in a God of the facts, not a God of the gaps.

Chirality

Let's take chirality as just one example. By evolutionary terms (no divine intervention) life must form by random, not directed events. Now, leaving aside the problem of how the various biological elements needed reach levels of concentration required in a water environment – and the problem that many required chemical processes are blocked by water, and so forth, we find in nature and in the lab, that various biological polymers are produced in two forms, right-handed and left-handed – a 50-50 mix of each, but life requires every one to be one-handedamino acids need to be left handed, and RNA, DNA, etc., all need to be right-handed and the presence of JUST ONE molecule of a different form will immediately block all biological processes. So in a random non-directed mix, how do you get a totally pure mix? Oodles of time won't help, it just makes the problem worse.

The Natural Casino

It's a bit like gambling. If the odds are very low, the only way you'll beat the casino is if you strike lucky near the start, otherwise you'll just lose and lose and lose. So if it's highly unlikely to happen, it's even more unlikely to happen if you keep trying for ages. That's why mathematically, statisticians can say absolutely that if the odds are below a certain level, it's impossible – it is mathematically guaranteed never to happen by chance. That's the case here – and if you combine the low probabilities of every other event needed just for the components of a cell, let alone a functioning cell, it quickly becomes clear that we go way beyond what is mathematically possible. In fact, a great many, if not all, the problems have odds so low that they are impossible, even before you combine them to get odds unbelievably astronomically low – like as near to zero as you can get. So the only way to get out of it is to invoke the divine.

Why Defend an Atheistic Theory?

But, we must ask theistic evolutionists, why bother to bring in Yahweh to save an atheistic theory? Technically theistic evolutionists are right to say that the issue of the origins of life is about abiogenesis, not evolution – by which they probably mean, 'natural selection' (i.e. that for natural selection to take place you need to have at least two living cells that compete in some way). But let's be reasonable: the whole point of evolution is that it is supposed to be an atheistic, non-supernatural 'scientific' explanation: no direction, no divine intervention, so the abiogenesis issue is part of the evolution issue, just as say 'cosmological evolution' is. It is utterly illogical to bring in God to plug the gaps in an atheistic account of reality. Why don't the theistic evolutionists apply some natural selection here – some logical survival of the fittest? If its not viable on it's own, let's let it die, not keep it alive on a divine life-support machine!

Theistic Evolution is Still Atheistic

I am concerned about our theistic evolutionist brethren and sisters because they have often not carefully thought the problems out. In many cases they just want to be accepted by the secular establishment and not be ridiculed by it, but the truth is that atheistic evolutionists have scant respect for their theistic counterparts because they know that evolutionism is an atheistic doctrine. A theistic evolutionist is trying to bet on both horses – he's hedging his bets by putting one foot in each camp. And that is impossible. Or he's just trying to be 'pleasing to all men' and is afraid to 'rock the proverbial boat'. I have little respect for that. The theistic evolutionist is shooting his own foot while the atheistic evolutionist is laughing at him for his duplicity.

Avoiding Issues

Theistic evolutionists do a lot of what creationist debaters call 'hand-waving'. And it's not just theistic evolutionists, because atheistic evolutionists are almost invariably forced to do it too. It's when you do a hop, skip and a jump over problems by either invoking the Fairy Godmother of 'we don't know how, but evolution must have done it' or wave the magic wand of 'scientists can't explain it, therefore it points to God's hand and we don't need to enquire how, it just is'. That's as far from the scientific method and spirit as you can get. The whole point of neo-Darwinian evolution is that it's supposed to explain how!

Denying the Evidence by Making It a Mystery

Put it this way – if you went into your science class at school and handed in homework that said 'Look, the textbook says this is the answer, but I've run the experiments and tried the calculations and it just doesn't get to that answer, so we'll just have to accept it is a mystery. Maybe the chemistry lab gremlin is doing it!' What kind of a mark do you think you would get? The same kind of logic applies here yet evolutionists seem to think that they are above the scientific method as some specially elected scientific priesthood which is privy to mysteries they are not obliged to reveal (because in truth they can't and never will be able to). Is it any surprise that creationists find it hard to take evolutionists seriously? I've been a scientist now for nearly 40 years and I am still seeing the same claptrap rehearsed over and over again as though it were some divine right accorded by some inviolable sacred text understood only by an élite (which, of course, it isn't).

Leave the Atheist Fairy Tale Alone

Theistic evolutionists love to invoke 'God' or 'mystery' to explain the gaps in an atheist hypothesis they are challenged with. They like to say things like 'I admit that's a major exegetical problem - we'll just have to trust God for an answer' or something like that. If it logically won't work, then they cannot be allowed to just invoke 'mystery' – they must be forced – as scientists – to examine their assumptions and think logically! We must urge these misguided disciples of the atheist Charles Darwin to cease trying to breathe life into the corpse of evolutionary theory with a divine life-support machine. Rather we must persuade them to come to the simplicity of Yahweh's creation as He says. We must persuade them to stop trying to believe 'six impossible things before breakfast' and come to the only world-view that is coherent, stable and fruitful. What have theistic evolutionists to lose by really examining the creationist claims instead of just the propaganda that God-hating atheistic evolutionists spew out about them? 11 Only falsehood and perhaps a few friends. But then we must all sometimes lose friends in the pursuit of truth.

Conclusion

Darwin's original theory of descent is today riddled with holes and the challenges he himself made have disproved his ideas. The transitional life forms which, he said, if unfound, would undo his theory, have indeed not been found and have undone his theory. 12 His theories on pangenesis (the blending of hereditary traits) and abiogenesis (life begotten by non-life) were refuted by Gregor Mendel 13 and Louis Pasteur 14, respectively. Evolutionists do not want to know the truth, though. Francis Crick, one of the co-discoverers of the helical structure of DNA, insisted: 

"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." 15

Why must we do this? Because some atheist pretending to be a good scientist insists we do? I am not such a bad scientist that I would fall for such tunnel-vision biology. I do not care what the 'establishment' demands that I believe, I care only for the truth, and so should everyone here that claims to be a follower of Jesus Christ. We will go wherever the truth leads us and not be afraid to upset bigots and God-haters. Evolutionists of all stripes are on the losing side – their science is paper-thin and their religion superstitious. Do I care about them? Absolutely – I was one myself, and want to see them fully delivered from what is essentially a very ancient Greek pagan idea.

The 200th anniversary of the birth of Darwin may be occasion for celebration by those who believe in the Cosmic Fairy Godmother but we who stick to the scientific method in the realm of the scientifically observable and repeatable, and abide by testable, biblical faith in the realm of the Spirit, know what works and what ultimately matters. Evolutionism is no more than an Atheistic Mystery Cult! Darwinism has given us absolutely nothing of value but rather been used to justify sin, rebellion and oppression. It's the darling of Nazism, Communism, Socialism, Liberalism and every system that hates and despises Yahweh-Elohim, the God of the Bible. I pity the man from England who, for reasons known only by himself, chose to ship-wreck his own soul and then become a siren for the shipwrecking of millions of others. That is the dark legacy of Charles Darwin – an atheistic religious doctrine still in search of a scientific theory. 16

  

Acknowledgements

[1] Acts & Facts, March 2009 Darwin's Dangerous Doctrine http://www.icr.org/article/4543/
[2] Nathaniel Lewis, Creationism vs. Evolutionism http://www.ukchristians.net/group/creationismvsevolution

 

Endnotes

1 See The Messianic Evangelical Science Page: Intelligent Design vs. Evolution  http://www.nccg.org/Science-HP.html

2 T.G.Barnes, Oceans of Piffle in Evolutionary Indoctrination in Acts & Facts, 14 (4), 1985

3 Desmond Morris, Two Centuries On: A Salute to Charles Darwin: Hero For Our Age http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1101985/Two-centuries-salute-Charles-Darwin-Hero-age.html

4 See, for example, Richard Goldschmidt's Hopeful Monster model of evolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopeful_Monster

5 Charles Darwin, Letter to William Graham, Down, 3 July 1881

6 David F. Coppedge, A Review of Darwin's Influence on Modern Astronomy in Acts & Facts (ICR, Vol.38, No.2, February 2009), p.37.

7 E.W.F.Tomlin, Fallacies of Evolutionary Theory in The Encyclopedia of Ignorance (Pergamon Press, Oxford: 1977), p.232.

8 Frank Sherwin & Brian Thomas, Do 'New Species' Demonstrate Darwinism? in Acts & Facts (ICR, Vol.38, No.2, February 2009), p.36

9 The study of how life on earth could allegedly have originated from inanimate matter, not to be confused with evolution which is the study of how living things allegedly change over time. Interestingly, Richard Dawkins craftily skips over the abiogenesis problem in his writings, excusing himself by saying that he is "no chemist". But then the evolutionist chemists have no answers either.

10 The problem of left- and right-handedness in molecules, for example. In the natural environment, mixtures are made, but in biological organisims only one-handedness is allowed.

11 Serious students should start with Creation Ministries International http://www.creationontheweb.org/  and get hold of the following books:

A. John Hartnett, Dismantling the Big Bang and Starlight Time and the New Physics. The first starts with an excellent introduction to the development and history of cosmology from the ancients up to Special Relativity and Big bang etc, and then lays out the problems with the big bang etc.

B. Marvin Lubenow, Bones of Contention - on the ape-human missing link fossils - and it has the funniest, sassiest, and most revealing scientific appendix I have ever come across.

C. Philip Johnson, Testing Darwinism - not strictly a creationist (though I can't help feeling he really just about is), but excellent logic - and his other books for the wider logical, legal and cultural issues.

D. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion - possibly the most comprehensive book on UFO's available, in the secular and Christian markets. Some eye-opening research and comments, I recommend this to anyone.

E. Duane Gish, Creation Scientists Answer their Critics - an older work, but still useful.

F. Dr John Sanford, Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome. Formerly an athiest, who was part of a team that invented three of the most widely used genetic techniques that have revolutionised plant science and agriculture, among other things. His speciality is genetics.

Each of them, in their own way, are ruthless and relentless in their logcial and scientific thought, written by professionals in their field, or by people who have studied to a place of expertise and excellence.

12 "Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, pehaps, is the mosy obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, I think, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record" (Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, (University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia: 2006), p.280

13 See Christine Dao, Man of Science, Man of God: Gregor Johann Mendel in Acts & Facts 37 (10):8, 2008

14 See Christine Dao, Man of Science, Man of God: Louis Pasteur in Acts & Facts 37 (11):8, 2008

15 Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery (Sloan Foundation Science, London: 1988), p.138

16 See Evolution: A Doctrine in Search of a Scientific Theory http://www.nccg.org/Sc01-Evolution.html

About the Author

Christopher C.M. Warren

Christopher C.M. Warren

Christopher C.M. Warren was born in Singapore to British parents and grew up in Malaysia. A graduate from Oxford University, England with a Masters Degree in Biochemistry and several qualifications in Computer Science and Systems Analysis from London and Slough, he went on to establish and head St.Albans College in Oxford, a private school for students seeking university entrance, and established the Computer Department for a private school in Oslo, Norway. He has lived in Scandinavia for the past quarter of a century of the which the past 13 have been spent in Sweden. His prolific writing includes historical papers on Germany, an Historical Atlas on Modern Europe and Africa, thousands of theological materials and one book, a book on homeschooling in Sweden, a novel trilogy, several websites. His latest is a website defending homeschoolers' rights in Sweden and may be viewed at http://freesweden.net. He is currently homeschooling three of his seven children and is a staunch defender of libertarian values.

Copyright © Christopher C.M. Warren. Used with Permission.

Comments (1)

  • Tom Lahman

    Tom Lahman

    02 September 2013 at 11:26 |
    While Darwin is considered the wellspring of atheism, It is by no means clear that he is deserving of the "Honor". Consider these words from the last page of his famous tome:

    "With the more civilised races, the conviction of the existence of an all-seeing Deity has had a potent influence on the advance of morality. Ultimately man does not accept the praise or blame of his fellows as his sole guide ..........."

    "he belief in God has often been advanced as not only the
    greatest, but the most complete of all the distinctions between man
    and the lower animals. It is however impossible, as we have seen, to
    maintain that this belief is innate or instinctive in man. On the
    other hand a belief in all-pervading spiritual agencies seems to be
    universal; and apparently follows from a considerable advance in man's reason........."

Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.

Get ADH by Email!

Subscribe Now!

captcha