The Rottweiler Who Lost His Teeth & His Mind

Genesis 2:7 ~ "And the LORD GOD FORMED MAN [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

"This is not an anti-religious book"..."God, to repeat this point, which ought to be obvious, but isn't, never made a tiny wing in his eternal life."

Young Earth creationists are, he writes, "deluded to the point of perversity"..."all but the woefully uninformed are forced to accept the fact of evolution".

Atheist and evolutionary evangelist Dr. Richard Dawkins recently sought to advance evolution and do his part to stamp out creationism with the presentation of what he calls the "facts of evolution" in his new book 'The Greatest Show On Earth'. The author of several books, the most recent being "The God Delusion" in which he claimed that all Christians were deluded for believing in God.

In this book, though leveling insults at Christians, especially those who believe in the Old Testament and the creation narratives, in almost every chapter, Dr. Dawkins has supposedly "evolved" to believe that belief in evolution and belief in God are incompatible relationships. He recently said this to Newsweek.com:

"No, I don't think they're incompatible (belief in God & evolution) if only because there are many intelligent evolutionary scientists who also believe in God—to name only Francis Collins [the geneticist and Christian believer recently chosen to head the National Institutes of Health] as an outstanding example. So it clearly is possible to be both. This book more or less begins by accepting that there is that compatibility. The God Delusion did make a case against that compatibility in my own mind."

Two things are for sure, similar to his predecessor, Charles Darwin, Dr. Dawkins does not deal with 'first life' (how life first began) within any of his theories. In fact he would rather claim that we came from 'aliens' than attribute life on this planet to God. Secondly Dr. Dawkins is frustrated that large numbers of the general populous doubt whether evolution actually does what it claims. The  problem is that more and more scientists  are realizing that the human  genome and the universe and life in general is far too complex to simply have arisen by the process of time, environmental conditions and random chance as the "theory" of evolution holds. 

When combined with the fact that there is no modern archaeological evidence of any transitional form between humans, apes or chimps and their supposed common ancestor, (which Dr. Dawkins says really isn't necessary for evolution to be true-wouldn't ya know it?) the theory of evolution is being quickly reconsidered, repackaged and rethought on almost every front.

The Beginnings

What began 150 years ago in approximately 1859 with naturalist scientist Charles Darwin (2/12/1809- 4/19/1882) quickly became the 'rational man's' way to think of his origins and relive himself of any connection or responsibility to or with God or a creator.  Probably developed with many of the underpinnings of his Grandfather Erasmus Darwin, who was an materialist evolutionist, the theory of evolution, would change the approach to understanding the world that we live in. The backbone of his theory was to repudiate the idea that divine assistance was necessary for any apparent design in the origin of the species or humankind. Please keep this in mind: Darwin’s claim was that all species are modified descendants of a common ancestor. This is called the theory of Common Descent.  Important note: The theory of evolution as set forth by Darwin does not deal with first life (how life came to be) it merely deals with how existing life changes into new species and manifests itself. This is a point often misunderstood by most creationists or those who hold to a biblical worldview of the origin of life. This proves to be the most fatal self-inflicted wound of evolutionary theory as we will see in this writing.

Essential Components Of Evolution:

There are several components of  the evolutionary process. It's basic 'faith statements' can be found in understanding the following items: Mutation, Gene Flow, Genetic Drift & Natural Selection all combine with Time to affirm the MACROevolutionary process. I have applied links for you to discover these terms and find how they are defined by modern evolutionists.

There were many observable issues that evolution addressed or attempted to settle regarding changes within species, such as the adaptation of species over time to particular environments. The adaptation of species to their environments over time is a type of evolution. That kind of evolution has been readily observed and is not denied by most individuals. That  type of evolution is called MICROevolution. MICROevolution is simply a change in gene frequency within a population. However, the type of evolution claimed to have occurred and ultimately produced man is called MACROevolution. The difference between these two types of evolution are as vast as the difference between midnight and high noon. MACROevolution is supposedly evolution on a grand scale; what is said to be seen when we look at the over-arching history of life: stability, change, lineages arising, and extinction. MACROevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. (you'll hear this again) What is amazing to me is that most individuals who hold to evolution as the process by which man came into existence consider MICROevolution to be the only process necessary to confirm  MACROevolution. In fact this is what a scientist says regarding the MICROevolution he observed:

"I was fascinated to learn that, in 1971, Belgian scientists transferred a group of lizards from one small island off the Yugoslav coast to another, free of native members of that species, nearby. During that same summer, a few miles inland in the wild backwoods of Croatia, I myself was hard at work moving thousands of snails between habitats in the hope of picking up differences in survival. Thirty-seven years later, the descendants of the transferred lizards had changed – evolved – to gain stronger jaws and a modified gut to deal with their new and more vegetarian diet; but, alas, just a year after moving the molluscs I could find almost none of them (which proves not that evolution is wrong but that experiments in the wild usually do not work)" ~ Dr. Steven Jones professor of genetics at University College, London hailing Richard Dawkins at Telegraph.co.uk 9.19.2009

What Dr. Jones described and observed is MICROevolution. Stronger jaws and a modified gut  confirms that the species changed or adapted to it's environment. However, what most evolutionists do is take this sort of observation to confirm MACROevolution. Once again, MACROevolution is supposedly evolution on a grand scale; what is said to be seen when looking at the over-arching history of life: stability, change, lineages arising, and extinction. MACROevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. Therefore Dr. Jones' observations do not affirm MACROevolution only MICROevolution. The evolutionist simply says that multiple series of MICROevolutions add up to MACROevolution on a grand scale. This is the "catch" in the view of the evolutionist...The evolutionist claims that all that is necessary is additional time and since we've already observed change on a MICRO scale we will definitely and eventually observe change at a MACRO scale if we simply allow the necessary time.

The problem is however is that if MACROevolution had occurred, this species would become something else other than the lizards they were to begin with. In other words, the lizards Dr. Jones observed continued to be lizards, they did not become ducks, geese, or pekingese swine, they remained lizards. What Dr. Jones wants us to believe is that eventually these lizards will become a totally new species. The evolutionist simply claims that time  is the necessary element to complete the process (there is no completion under their construct however things just continue to change) and since we can't observe it within our finite lifetimes, we can reasonably conclude that by observing MICROevolution and what fossil records that do exist that  MACROevolution is true. This is the type of 'snake-oil salesmanship' that Dr. Phillip Johnson (who is not a scientist) exposed regarding evolution in his book "Darwin On Trial" This is what Dr. Johnson has to say about the element of natural selection which is the primary component of  this little opiate of the masses that evolutionists continue to assert regarding the origin of the species:

"None of the proofs [for natural selection] provides any persuasive reason for believing that natural selection can produce a new species, new organs, or other major changes or even minor changes that are permanent." Dr. Phillip Johnson, 'Darwin On Trial' (Downers Grove, IL. :Intervarsity Press, 1993) p. 27. 

Is the previously mentioned type of adaptation and change within species what evolution as it is taught and proclaimed, limited to? Absolutely not. Evolution claims that given the millions of years necessary for the process to continue, those lizards may even become men or a completely different animals. From a 'fish in the sea to an astronaut I can be'  given enough  time and the right blind chance mutations and environmental pressures. This is known as speciation and is commonly called the "smoking gun" of Darwinism.  However top scientists confirm that primary speciation, which is the type of speciation that Darwinism and modern evolutionists claim, has  never taken place not even in a created or controlled environment:

"None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of twenty to thirty minutes, and populations achieved after eighteen hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another" ~ Alan H. Linton, “Scant Search for the Maker,” The Times Higher Education Supplement (April 20, 2001), Book Section, p. 29. Frederick M. Cohan, “What Are Bacterial Species?” Annual Review of Microbiology 56 (2002): 457-482. Available online (2009)

Evolution further proclaims that not only do men and mammals share similar DNA, they also share a common ancestor, and over time and through the process of natural selection have become the thinking, rational and communicable beings that we currently are.

The basis for evolutionary theory is nothing less than scientism. The term scientism is used to describe the view that natural science has authority over all other interpretations of life, such as philosophical, religious, mythical, spiritual, or humanistic explanations, and over other fields of inquiry, such as the social sciences.Why is this approach and the resulting naturalistic worldview bankrupt? I've done my part to present at least 5 compelling reasons why, without merely invoking the bible or biblical texts as proof for my assertions:

I: DNA Screams For Intelligent Design

Every programmer knows that code is essential to make anything function properly. Top scientists even know this such as J. Craig Venter who's claim to fame is having been one of the two men responsible for having mapped out the human genome. This is what Time says about their efforts:

"Venter stitched together the 582,000 base pairs necessary to invent the genetic information for a whole new bacterium. Step two is to boot up that DNA programming in a living bacterium to see if it takes charge of the organism. That's next on Venter's agenda — and he has little doubt it will work. As any software designer will tell you, once you know how to write the code, you can make it do almost anything."

According to Telegraph.co.uk scientist Richard Dawkins:

"criticises the simplistic idea of DNA as an instruction manual, and the embryo as a sort of Ikea flat-pack that assembles itself through a set of simple (or not so simple) rules."

Now one thing is certain, being in competitive sales is about maximizing your strengths and minimizing your weaknesses and when opponents strengths are exposed, you always give those strengths less time, for to dwell on the competitors strengths indicates just how strong their hand really is...so what do you do? You trivialize the opponents strengths and understate their value. This is just what Dr. Dawkins has done with the foundation of life, DNA. It is even more amazing when it is considered that Dr. Dawkins is a microbiologist and must be fully aware of the absolute and essential importance of DNA and it's coding and formulation. Without DNA there is no life and without it being ordered there is no human functionality.

What Are Some Of The Functions Of DNA?

DNA is the code of life. It can be described as miniature information/nanotechnology, digital code with error correction capacity, hierarchical filings systems within the genome, distributive storage and retrieval systems for data modules. There is also non coding DNA, previously though to be junk,  which functions like an operating system telling other coding regions when to turn on and off and how to regulate and express itself etc...even more incredibly this is upon layers and layers of complexity within each cell. Further, DNA can be described as a language or a message that is not merely repeating but telling a story similar to various columns in a newspaper.

The question is where does all this code come from? Secondly how and who ordered the code? Random chance and time as evolution and naturalism claims? Hardly. To think so is pure fantasy. As if this weren't bad enough for evolutionary dogma, the point can be further driven home by asking where does the "information" come from to begin with? As we have discovered, in order for life to occur information must be present. It is wishful fantasy to believe that complex information systems would somehow compose themselves from primordial soup and advance to what science agrees that are super highly complex information systems.

There's a better possibility of chopping your computer up into a million pieces, throwing it into the air, and expecting it to come down and form a new fully functional PC or MAC with totally new and better configurations and operating system than before you destroyed it. This is a complete fantasy. Everyone knows that complexity does not come from the uncomplex and what random complexities that do arise are generally very limited in scope and highly  unusual. DNA is the story of life from intelligence, God, to each and every human being and all of his creation. 

Dr. Stephen C. Meyer of The Discovery Institute (expanding  upon the work of Dr. Francis Crick and Dr. James Watson) has studied this topic for over 25 years and produced a "peer reviewed" scientific article advancing Intelligent Design, says:

“Our uniform experience affirms that specified information-whether inscribed hieroglyphics, written in a book, encoded in a radio signal, or produced in a simulation experiment-always arises from an intelligent source, from a mind and not a strictly material process.” Dr. Stephen  C. Meyer, 'Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design', (Harper Collins 8/2009)pg. 347)

The smallest unit of functional advantage in life are new proteins. What evolution overlooks is that natural selection, which has been and remains a staple of evolutionary  thought, claims that  to select for  functional advantage,  new proteins through random processes. This is proclaimed against the backdrop of the incredible difficulty of  random mutations to generate new proteins number one and those proteins to be ineffective without having a "blueprint" of action to follow. In other words evolution is the transfer of complex specified information (CSI) by random chance. The fact is that the generation of new proteins through random process is equivalent to finding a tiny needle  in a haystack the size of our galaxy. Remember, these type of "transactions" are essential to the concept of natural selection as it is currently proclaimed. One would think that these occurrences would be readily observable and a reasonable standard instead of the extreme exception that they are within the human genome.

A MUST SEE: To watch Dr. Meyer's C-Span presentation on his book. Click HERE.

II: Systems Of Irreducible Complexity

Dr. Michael Behe, professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh Universtity, (who is not a creationist) wrote the book, 'Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution' in which he examined what Darwin couldn't examine when the theory of evolution was set forth in 1859, the inner workings and molecular structure of the cell. In Darwin's day the cell was thought to be simple and  uncomplex, however with the rise of microbiological  analysis it has been found that the cell is a fertile soil of complex items that  can be best described as machines that perform numerous  functions of life. What he further discovered was that when one of these machines within the cell is not in the right place, wrong size or is functioning improperly the complete system fails to function. There is a breakdown. This is known as irreducible complexity. If there is a change within the cell, Dr. Behe noted that everything must change at the same time for anything to function at all.

Dr. Behe argues as follows:

"The  idea of Darwinian molecular evolution is not based on science. There is no publication in scientific literature-in journals or books-that  describe  how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but  absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations. Since there is no authority on which to base claims of knowledge, it can be truly said that the assertion of darwinian molecular evolution is merely  bluster." ~ Dr. Michael Behe, 'Intelligent Design Theory as a Tool for Analyzing Biochemical Systems' in William Dembski, ed., 'Mere Creation Science, Faith, and Intelligent Design' (Downers Grove, IL. Intervarsity Press,  1998) pg. 183

Not only do the cells have complex code, they can't arbritrarily change and still function. From both the functional and programmable perspective evolution fails the necessary tests required to support molecular evolution of  slight successive changes over long periods of time.

DON'T MISS THIS: Dr Behe takes on all critics and goes deeper at TrueOrigins.org

III: The Mind Body Interface Or Consciousness

Because  of the approach of the scientific practice over history, science did not lend itself to understanding  how and why we have consciousness. There seems to be a blind and empty-face stare into what science doesn't address under the current paradigms of scientific discovery. As Dr. Meyer states within his book, previously (19th Century) science sought to explain everything on the basis of matter and energy. Physics (Late 20th century)however discovered the awareness of the fine tuning of the laws and constants of physics and even quantum phenomena. This led to the thoughts that agency or mind or what we describe as intelligence could be behind the material world. The  fact is that there is no physical  mechanism by which consciousness is achieved from the physical process of  the body.

All of this leads to a question just begging to be answered. How and why do we have consciousness? Current studies have shown that the material functions of  the body do not arbitrarily nor automatically produce consciousness or self awareness. The leap from the material functions of evolution to DNA and irreducible complex systems do not address issues at an even more fundamental level. How does the body interface with the mind? Does material existence have a necessity of consciousness? NO. Why? we can look at dirt, which is material, or rocks, which are material and clearly examine the fact that they do not have consciousness. What makes us any different if all is only material or the world is limited to naturalism?

"Now because consciousness exists in us, the most reasonable explanation for the origin of consciousness is that the universe began with a conscious being,"  J.P. Moreland Saddleback Church 9/5/2009

This argument takes on more of a theological  tone and can provide a direct argument for the existence of God. In fact Theologian and  philosopher Dr. J. P. Moreland makes  that exact case in his book ' Consciousness And The Existence Of God: A Theistic Argument' In this landmark work Dr. Moreland views the common concepts of and reasons why we are conscious beings and takes to most popular beliefs and assertions to task.

IV: Abundance of Archaeological Finds  But A Lack Of Archaeological Proof

During his time Charles Darwin admitted the weakness of the archaeological record. This is known as Darwin's dilemma:

"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."~Charles Darwin, On the Origin Of Species p.280

“By the theory of natural selection,” he wrote, “all living species have been connected with the parent-species of each genus, by differences not greater than we see between the natural and domestic varieties of the same species at the present day.” Thus in the past “the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great.” ~ Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, Sixth Edition (London: John Murray, 1872), Chapter X, pp. 266

But Darwin knew that the major animal groups—which modern biologists call “phyla”—appeared fully formed in what were at the time the earliest known fossil-bearing rocks, deposited during a geological period known as the Cambrian. He considered this a “serious” difficulty for his theory, since

“if the theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited long periods elapsed… and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures.” And “to the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.” So “the case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”~ Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, Sixth Edition (London: John Murray, 1872), Chapter X, pp.  285-288

Did those scientific observations disuade Darwin in his theory? NO. He simply argued that Precambrian fossils had been destroyed by heat, pressure, and erosion. Others postulated that Precambrian fossils were simply too small and soft to have fossiled. Similarly Richard Dawkins in his new book, does not think this to be an issue either (minimize your weakness) as he presents evolution and in particuarly rehashes Darwinian evolution through common descent hailing it as a fact.

Precambrian and even microscopic fossils have been found:

“The long-held notion that Precambrian organisms must have been too small or too delicate to have been preserved in geological materials… [is] now recognized as incorrect.” Indeed, as more fossils are discovered it becomes clear that the Cambrian explosion was “even more abrupt and extensive than previously envisioned.”~ American paleobiologist William Schopf  “The early evolution of life: solution to Darwin’s dilemma,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 9 (1994): 375-377.

There seems to have been an abrupt appearance of the major animal phyla about 540 million years ago—which modern biologists call “the Cambrian explosion” or “biology’s Big Bang. Even more so digging up fossils tells us little about the actual relationships of the fossils themselves:

“The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”~ Gareth Nelson, “Presentation to the American Museum of Natural History (1969),” in David M. Williams & Malte C. Ebach, “The reform of palaeontology and the rise of biogeography—25 years after 'ontogeny, phylogeny, palaeontology and the biogenetic law' (Nelson, 1978),” Journal of Biogeography 31 (2004): 685-712.

More recently evolutionist the late Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, the father of Punctuated Equilibera (PE) , asserted this in order to promote his theory of (PE):

"The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism 1) Stasis. most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2)Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed"~Stephen Jay Gould, 'Evolution's Erratic Pace' Natural History 86(1977) pg. 13-14.

Robert B. Carroll reaffirmed Dr. Gould's position in 2000. What makes that significant? Carroll is the curator of vertebrate palentology at the Redpath Museum at McGill University and one that certainly has modern qualifications to be credible with archaeological findings...Additionally, not all scientific writers are  convinced that what is found is properly handled or disseminated without predjudice or bias:

“no fossil is buried with its birth certificate.”... "When we call new fossil discoveries “missing links,” it is “as if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is: a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices.”...“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.” ~ Henry Gee, 'In Search of Deep Time.' [New York: Free Press, 1999], pp. 5, 32, 113-117.

a. Nonviability Of Transitional Forms:

"No species in the series could possibly be the ancestor of any other, because all of them possess characteristics they would first have to lose before evolving into a subsequent form. This is why the scientific literature typically shows each species branching off a supposed lineage". ~ Dr. Jonathan Wells The Discovery Institute.

In other words, in order to make things work transitional forms would have to lose certain characteristics before becoming a subsequent form or evolving into something else. This directly flies in the face of evidence for irreducible complexity and what  we now know about DNA and it's viability and use. What it would take to make a fish a fish and a bird to fly are two different systems and to expect to find both systems fully functional in one is ludacriss. In addition for a fish coming from the water to live on land, there would have to be a very complex set of lungs and extremities developed and all functions would have to be present at the same time. Such notions are mindless.

b. No Human Common Ancestor Or Transitionals

Recently a 4.4 million–year–old skeleton of what was claimed to be "a likely human ancestor" known as Ardipithecus ramidus (abbreviated Ar. ramidus aka "Ardi" ). What this discovery did was set evolutionists, at least those who place great weight upon archaeological evidence, back a few million years in their thinking.

"Ardi is the earliest and best-documented descendant of that common ancestor. But despite being "so close to the split," says White, "the surprising thing is that she bears little resemblance to chimpanzees, our closest living primate relatives." The elusive common ancestor's bones have never been found, but scientists, working from the evidence available — especially analyses of Australopithecus and modern African apes — envisioned Great-Great-Grandpa to have looked most nearly like a knuckle-walking, tree-swinging ape. But "[Ardi is] not chimplike," according to White, which means that the last common ancestor probably wasn't either. "This skeleton flips our understanding of human evolution," says Kent State University anthropologist C. Owen Lovejoy, a member of the Middle Awash team. "It's clear that humans are not merely a slight modification of chimps, despite their genomic similarity." So what does that mean? Based on Ardi's anatomy, it appears that chimpanzees may actually have evolved more than humans — in the scientific sense of having changed more over the past 7 million years or so." Time Online Magazine

The evidence of Ardi at best is only additional evidence against young earth creationism and nothing more.

c. Most All Change Is Cyclical

Changes and mutations within life forms are not directional toward the development of new life forms as required required by macroevolutionary theory but they simply shift back and forth within a limited range. This is what Dr. Jones (referenced above) observed in the lizards. What could be assumed is that those same lizards when taken off of the island and given a better or different  diet will produce offspring that will eventually return to the original jaw size and gut size of the original set of lizards. As stated at no point do they or will they become chickens or any other animal, or even human for that matter.

V: Darwinian Evolution's Sexist & Racist Assertions

Although most modern evolutionists say that they don't hold to Darwins failed theories of bias against women and racism against blacks in general, it is worth noting if  for no other reason, than to explain the foundation and influence of many of Darwin's scientific notions as carried out by evolutionary evangelists through the years. Remember, these theories were considered scientific at one time and even today have their influence within society. Though their scientific application has been debunked and certain laws instituted and modified to minimize the harmful influence to society that these type of postulations have they still exist and influence many in varios forms.

As noted in my blog Women, Mathematics & Evolution, some gender bias, much of which exists today had it's root in Darwinian evolutionary biology. The facts are that Darwin assumed that because women's heads were generally smaller than men's, they (women) were inferior in not only ability, but also intelligence.

[Man] attains a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can women”whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. If two lists were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, history, painting, sculpture, music (inclusive of both composition and performance), history, science, and philosophy, the two lists would not bear comparison. We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages... [that] the average mental power in man must be above that of women." ~ Charles Darwin, 'Mental Powers Of A  Man & A Woman Ch. XIX' [The Descent of Man and selection  in Relation to Sex] (New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1896), 327

Dr. Gould thought this issue was important enough to undertake refuting Gustav Lebon (another past proponent of Darwinian evolution) after he repeteated and tried to affirm the same part of Darwin's theory:

"Women represent the most inferior forms of human evolution and...are closer to children and savages than to an adult, civilized man. They excel in fickleness, inconstancy, absence of thought and logic, and incapacity to reason. Without a doubt, there exists some distinguished women, very superior to the average man, but they are as exceptional as the birth of any monstrosity, as for example, of a gorilla with two heads. Consequently, we may neglect them entirely." ~ Stephen Jay Gould, "The Mismeasure of Man" (New York: Norton, 1981), 104-105

Distinguished women are an exception like a "monstrosity"  or a "gorilla with two heads"? WOW! This was evolutionary theory at work. Scientist  reaffirming one another and setting forth propositions based on what they considered science. Now the critic asserts that things have changed in light of new scientific findings. But that begs the question, Did we really have to find or come up with new science in order to debunk these outlandish and crazy ideas? How about civil rights? Did we really need to lose so many so that blacks could be liberated and share the same rights as whites? Some say the laws were established that don't reflect Darwin's ideas, but the facts are that Dawinian evolutionary thought is still yet a holdover in modern society. In fact, the title of the book commonly simply called Origin Of Species, was titled exactly as follows: "On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection Or The Preservation Of Favored Races In The Struggle For Life." That was the complete book title which can be found HERE. There was a racist implication that couldn't be missed. The following is a quote from pre-Darwinian literature that sums up the canvass upon which Darwin undertook his studies and made his theories regarding race:

"Mr Lawrence has collected, in the eighth chapter of his admirable Lectures on Physiology, Zoology, and the Natural History of Man, a great variety of facts tending to prove that the Negroes, though morally and intellectually inferior to the white race, are by no means near the bottom of the scale of humanity; and he expresses the well-grounded opinion, "that of the dark-coloured people none have distinguished themselves by stronger proofs of capacity for literary and scientific investigation, and, consequently, that none approach more nearly than the Negro to the polished nations of the globe."~ Combe, George. 1847. The Constitution of Man and Its Relation to External Objects. Edinburgh: Maclachlan, Stewart, & Co., Longman & Co.; Simpkin, Marshall, & Co., W. S. Orr & Co., London, James M'Glashan, Dublin. pg. 322

As we discussed in our previous blog We Can Do Bad All By Ourselves, these were common racist sentiments considering that  Blacks and non-whites who were thought to be less moral than anyone else. This is in part why such thoughts should be repudiated expecially amongst clergy. These are ungodly sentiments and fall in line with an ungodly and godless culture.

Here's another thought that exists about the seed of interracial relationships especially between Blacks and Indians, who were normally cast together historically this little blurb against 'race mixing' still holds true in practice for many today:

"When two races, both low in the scale, are crossed the progeny seems to be eminently bad. Thus the noble-hearted Humboldt, who felt no prejudice against the inferior races, speaks in strong terms of the bad and savage disposition of Zambos, or half-castes between Indians and Negroes; and this conclusion has been arrived at by various observers.[49] From these facts we may perhaps infer that the degraded state of so many half-castes is in part due to reversion to a primitive and savage condition, induced by the act of crossing, even if mainly due to the unfavourable moral conditions under which they are generally reared. ~ Darwin, C. R. 1875. 'The variation of animals and plants under domestication.' [London: John Murray. 2d edition. Volume 2.] pg. 21 [49]~Dr. P. Broca, on 'Hybridity in the Genus Homo,' Eng. translat., 1864, p. 39.

"Zambo" also known as "Sambo" the child of a Black and Indian...I guess Darwin was referring to me all the way around...Darwinian evolution framed the attitudes and opinions of the people even when laws were changed to reflect human rights. Individuals yet today breath out many of the misinforamtion in Darwinian evlution and people have lost their lives fighting for rights that the founding  fathers of America said were "self-evident".

We could go on, but the facts are that Darwinian evolution was probably the worst type of science available when it came to race and gender issues. For any individual to simply resurrect it in another form is like  putting a pretty bow on a pig. It's still ugly.

Did the science change or did the scientists change? If the scientists changed, then I guess we could say that they evolved. Is evolution a fact? If that question refers to changes within a species the answer is yes, of course it is...But if the questions entails, do apes become  human or do fish become birds or any other combination, the answer is an emphatic NO. There is no evidence to support any such statement and what evidence that does exist is  either exaggerated or undermines the concept of evolutionary theory in this area.

Final Thought

Last week on ABC's The View the discussion of evolution and creationism was undertaken.  It was obvious to see almost  immediately the "Dawkinization" of host Joy Behar, who said regarding evolution:

"It's not a religious fervor thing. There's proof! Scientific proof! You want your children to go into the world and be ignorant? That's child abuse in my opinion."

With misinformation such as Joy's so common and encouraged by the media I  encourage every  Christian to be about dispelling the resurrection of this aweful myth and Godless fantasy . When God made man in his likeness and image, that likeness and image wasn't  the image of an ameoba, ape or chimpanzee. None of those beings  had what  Adam had from his beginning, the ability  to communicate with God and with others.

When man reduces himself to an accident of primordial slime, chance and time, he not only does himself a disservice, he does society  in general  a disservice. Random chance and time  do not lend or yield themselves to purpose. Our streets in many  places are amuck because children and  people have been told that they are animals and they act like animals by killing, murder, sexual  promiscuity, living  riotously etc, We have had enough of atheistic science and godless encouragements that life is  purposeless and meaningless or that the present reality is the only reality..Those are ridiculous notions  to say the least as we live in a world where immaterial realities exist such as  thoughts, hopes and dreams. These things do not have extension in space neither are they constrained by time but their existence  is without question.

The atheistic and naturalist days of scientific control are over. God allowed them to do things their way for so long and look at the mess their thoughts and programs have created. It's time for Christian scientists  to rise and take the classroms back and science back placing scientific discovery back into it's proper  place of discovering the beauty, glory and majesty of God's creation.

Blessed!