You are on page 1of 56


Darwin ‘s theory of Devolution . destroying the society . what is the truth ?

intelligent design ? probably . of the “ religions” ? NEVER . religions are the
creations of freemasonry .

Charles Darwin = royal society / philosophical society = FREEMASON . a

jesuit preist . if at all the voyage happened , accompanied the capyain of the
ship as his DINING COMPANION , since he didn’t have any kind of education
in the field of nature / biology . They accidentally came across an island full of
FOSSILS which CONFIRMED the “ evolutionary “ origin of SPECIES – NOT
LIFE .with financial support from bank of England , a FREEMASONRY
outfit .

His Mother & wife = wedgewood family = hereditary illuminati/

His father = Robert Darwin = FREEMASON

His Grandfather = Erasmus Darwin = FREEMASON

HMS Beagle = voyage in which , made Charles Darwin , help fine tune his
theory ------- Beagle -- may be ------- B – eagle – eagle represents phoenix =
major symbol of FREEMASONRY

Captain of the ship =


The book which “convinced” Darwin , the earth originated millions of years ago

Geological society London = founded in FREEMASONRY lodge , confirms

the “science” of geology .

“HUMANISM” is SATANISM . ( humanism is NOT humanitarianism .

humanism is a political concept . with specific meaning , intention attached
. all signers of humanist manifesto , are FREEMASONS ), ORIGINATED
“REVELATIONS” while sleeping . just the way blavatsky got her
revelations from her masters .

PROMETHEUS = GOD of humanism / rationalism / united nations .

prome--theus .(GENES = GENES -IS = GENESIS)( numbers =NUMBers)
We need to learn = l earn = el earn.-- CULTivating the CULTure of CULT.

All trickeries of freemasonry . without valid , credible basis . DESTROYING

THINKING . nihilism / “rationalism “ = agenda of new world order. major
players are promoted by Masonic / rothschilds outfits – eg. BBC . The
Guardian etc etc the same outfits promoting religions .

The committee that drafted the proposed constitution for the EU was challenged
about the lack of reference to God in its documents. A French member of the
committee explained, “We don’t like God” (quoted by Jeremy Rifkin, The
European Dream, 2004, p. 211).

Another member of the drafting convention argued, “The only banner that we
have is secularism” . As more nations seek to join today’s secular and
prosperous EU, modernists feel that God is a quaint concept of the past. Beyond
the EU, this wave of humanistic thinking seems to be sweeping the Western

If the new age of postmodern humanism is the wave of the future, what are the
fruits of this direction? When you watch the nightly news, do you really see a
world that lives in peace, where cooperation and respect is growing among
nations and races? Is the United Nations, the European Union, the United States
or any other nation or group of nations really discovering the way of peace?

In the 1960s, physicist Thomas S. Kuhn brilliantly demonstrated that each and
every science rests on generally unquestioned premises , that condition the
nature of human thinking and scientific investigation. He called this body of
foundational premises a paradigm. A paradigm consists of the premises and
assumptions that define a ""science"".

The essence of Kuhn’s insight is that there are no such things as “brute facts”—
facts apart from a definite paradigm. What is a fact and what is not or what is a
cause or an effect depends on the specific framework, or paradigm, the
information is placed within , the assumptions .

Experience teaches that economics have fractured into many competing

traditions since Adam Smith published his pioneering treatise “Inquiry into the
Nature and Causes of The Wealth of Nations” in 1776.

Modern-day “scientific economics,” usually dated from the publication of

Adam Smith’s work in 1776, has been strictly a man-centered, secular,
humanistic endeavor. Adherents’ foundations and worldviews have been and
are essentially atheistic .

Humanism issued its original manifesto in 1933. It was a movement supported

primarily by men and women in the field of education- those who shape the
minds of our children and young adults. Forty years later, in the September/
October 1973 issue of The Humanist, “Humanist Manifesto II” was published
along with the names of the signatories. Updated and revised to meet the times,
it took the place of the first “Humanist Manifesto.” An editor’s note currently
appearing on the American Humanist Association Web site declares that
thousands of additional names have been added to the original list of

“A Secular Humanist Declaration,” published by the Council for Secular

Humanism, put forth the position of this influential movement. Again consider
that collectively “Humanist Manifesto I” (1933), “Humanist Manifesto II”
(1973) and “A Secular Humanist Declaration” (1980) are endorsed by
thousands of signatories. A review of the list of men and women who endorse
these documents would reveal the names of educators who teach in the most
renowned universities in the United States and abroad, well-known thinkers,
famous authors, scientists and political leaders.

What is it that secular humanism espouses? What does it teach? Even more
important is the question, What is produced in the minds of those influenced
by its teachings and philosophies?

You will find a look at “A Secular Humanist Declaration” most revealing.

Consider as you read that the outlets for their philosophies are elementary, high
school and college classrooms, television and radio programming, plots for
movies and stage plays, newspaper and magazine content and government
legislation, just to name a few.

-- Separation of Church and State. Religious oaths or prayers in public

institutions, whether political or educational, should not be allowed. (

--Reason. The document displays dislike for nonsecularists disagreeing with

“reason” and “science.” ( THE ONLY TRUE GOD ).

London Telegraph of Sept. 2 :


“Hawking said: ‘Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and
will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is
something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist…’

“Where did the laws of physics come from?”

Stephen Hawking and his coauthor and leading Caltech physicist Leonard
Mlodinow reason from the premise that those laws do exist. We expected that
because that’s where most of modern science starts thinking. Based on the laws
of physics, they can envision things like the Big Bang origin of the —or at least
our —universe.

So Professor Hawking said, “Because there is such a law as gravity, the

Universe can and will create itself from nothing” .

Hawking was absolutely correct to choose as the title for his book The Grand
Design .



“Although developed in the crude English fashion,” Marx wrote to his
communist colleague Friedrich Engels, “this [Darwin’s Origin of Species ] is
the book which in the field of natural history, provides the basis for our views.”

To another he wrote that Darwin’s work “suits my purpose in that it provides a

basis in natural science , for the historical class struggle” (Janet Browne,
Charles Darwin: The Power of Place, 2002, p. 188).

This evolutionary backing eventually helped establish the philosophical

framework for the twin scourges of communism and atheism in Russia, China,
Eastern Europe, Cambodia, North Korea and many other nations.

“Genocide, of course,” writes Phillip Johnson, “is merely a shocking name for
the process of natural selection by which one “gene” pool replaces another.
Darwin himself explained this in The Descent of Man, when he had to deal with
the absence of ‘missing links’ between ape and human. Such gaps were to be
expected, he wrote, in view of the extinctions that necessarily accompany

“He coolly predicted that evolution would make the gaps wider in the future,
because the most civilized (that is, European) humans would soon exterminate
the rest of the human species and go on from there to kill off our nearest kin in
the ape world. Modern Darwinists do not call attention to such passages, which
make vivid , how easily the picture of amoral nature inherent in evolutionary
naturalism can be converted into a plan of action” ( Reason in the Balance,
1995, p. 144).

Later Adolf Hitler indeed applied the Darwinian concept of the “survival of the
fittest” to the human race. During World War II the Nazis forcibly sterilized
more than 2 million people and began systematically exterminating people
whom Hitler considered to be inferior. The Nazis justified their atrocities by
rationalizing that they were doing mankind a service with “genetic cleansing” to
improve the races.

As long as evolution—with its implications of amorality and the survival-of-

the-fittest mentality among “superior” and “inferior” races —is accepted and
believed, genocide, as sporadic ethnic cleansings in various parts of the globe
show, will have a scientific justification, even though most believers in
Darwinian theory would object to this conclusion.

Nazi holocaust. Hundreds of thousands were pressed into slave labor. Those too
weak, ill, young or old to work faced a merciless death.
Remember, such events happened barely a generation ago in what were
considered to be the most advanced and enlightened nations. It could happen
again, especially in a world in which so many have adopted a belief in moral
relativism and a survival-of-the-fittest outlook.

In Darwin’s landmark book -- On the Origin of Species , there are some 800
subjective clauses, with uncertainty repeatedly admitted instead of proof .
Words such as “could,” “perhaps” and “possibly” plague the entire book.

Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, as taught at school, is a biological

explanation of how creatures have supposedly “evolved” or developed
progressively through natural selection and variation (now known as mutation)
over eons of time from the tiny cell to the largest creatures on earth today. What
is taught in classrooms is not mere micro evolution—small changes within a
species—but macro evolution, the change from one type of creature to another
quite distinct life form.

What many evolutionists are trying to convince you of is that , there is no need
for a Creator , since, as they say, evolution can substitute as the mechanism for
creating and transforming life. They teach that life arose from non-life and
evolved from simpler creatures to more complex life forms. In other words, the
tiny cell eventually became an amoeba, then a lizard, then a monkey, and
finally— you !

A fossil is the preserved remains of a living thing. The fossil record around the
earth extends an average of one mile deep. Below this level we come up with a
blank slate as far as living, complex , creatures are concerned.

Darwin himself said he could give ‘no satisfactory answer’ to why no fossils
had been discovered. Today’s scientists are none the wiser” (Francis Hitching,
The Neck of the Giraffe , 1982, pp. 26-27).

It is ‘the enigma of paleontological [fossil studies] enigmas,’ according to

Stephen Gould. ------- “The dominant life form was the now-extinct sea creature
known as a trilobite, up to a foot long, with a distinctive head and tail, a body
made up of several parts, and a complex respiratory system. But although there
are many places on earth where 5,000 feet of sedimentary rock stretch unbroken
and uniformly beneath the Cambrian [layer], not a single indisputable multi-
celled fossil has been found there.

If, after almost two centuries of digging beneath all the world’s continents, no
previous ancestor of this first hard-bodied creature has been found, how then
did the ubiquitous trilobite evolve? There should be some previous ancestor if
evolution were true.

Further important evidence from the fossil record is the absence of transitional
forms between species. Darwin was concerned that the thousands of
intermediate stages between creatures needed to prove his theory were not in
evidence, but he expected they would eventually be found. Yet those thousands
of missing transitional forms are still missing!

The real task of the geological evolutionist is not to find ‘the’ missing link, as if
there were only one. The task is to find those thousands upon thousands of
missing links that connect the many fossil species with one another” (Byron
Nelson, After Its Kind , 1970, pp. 60-62).

Evolution is still called a theory—a possible explanation or assumption—

because it is not testable according to the scientific method, as this would
require thousands or millions of years. Evolutionists will counter that a theory
is not a mere hypothesis but is a widely affirmed intellectual construct that
generally appears to fit all the facts. Yet evolution in no way fits all the facts
available. Evidence does not support it—and in many respects runs counter to

The law of biogenesis as taught in biology class states that only life can produce
An egg comes from a chicken, yet the chicken comes from an egg. How can
there be one without the other?
To complicate matters even more, the chicken has to come from a fertilized egg
that has the mixture of two different “genetic” strains from both its parents.

So the problem of the origin of life and initial reproduction is still a mystery that
evolutionary science cannot adequately answer.

When one living thing needs another different living thing to survive, it’s called
a symbiotic relationship.
A good example of this is the relationship between bees and flowers. The bees
need the nectar from some types of flowers to feed while these flowers need
bees to pollinate them. Both depend on each other to exist and survive. The
question for evolutionists is: How did these plants exist without the bees, and
how did the bees exist without these plants?

Living things are multi-functional, which means they do many complex things
at the same time, something evolution with its step-by-step process has never
been able to demonstrate.

“I don’t believe in the Bible because dinosaurs lived a long time before man
ever did.” - Charles Darwin.

Several centuries ago scientists did believe in dinosaurs, an ancient earth and in
creation week.

In fact, many of the first geologists who established the basic geologic column
were believers in both the Bible and an ancient earth. British physicist Alan
Hayward wrote about these premier geologists: “Among them were William
Buckland and Adam Sedgwick. Buckland held the chair of geology at Oxford
[University in England] in the early-nineteenth century, while Sedgwick was his
counterpart at Cambridge. Both were leading churchmen, and both preached the
plenary inspiration of Scripture and argued in favor of special creation …

“Buckland maintained close links with Sedgwick and the famous French
geologist, Baron Cuvier … They did much to persuade the early nineteenth-
century church that the earth was extremely old and that such views could be
harmonized with the teaching of Genesis” (Creation and Evolution, 1985, pp.

As the Australian molecular biologist and medical doctor Michael Denton,

himself an agnostic, has written, evolutionary theory “is still, as it was in
Darwin’s time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual
support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive
advocates would have us believe” ( Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1986, p. 77).

Stephen Jay Gould saw fit to state, “Either half of my colleagues are
enormously stupid or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with
religious beliefs —and equally compatible with atheism” (“Impeaching a Self-
Appointed Judge,” quoted in Dawkins’ God, 2005, p. 80).

This approach—believing that a divine being guided the evolutionary process—

is called theistic evolution.

Though the theory of evolution has widespread acceptance, its origins are more
sinister than most people have been led to believe. Charles Darwin launched
evolution into the public eye with his works on the subject , but the idea didn’t
originate with him. The germs of it were ancient! The Greek philosopher
Epicurus (341-270 B.C.) “saw the world and all life as part of a self-creating
cosmos, with life just happening” (Marvin Olasky, “Staring at Death,” World,
July 13, 2013).

Epicureanism existed for several centuries after the death of Epicurus. At its
core , this philosophy emphasized physical pleasure as the primary goal in
living. It denied any spiritual component to life.

The Roman poet and philosopher Lucretius (99-55 B.C.) was an Epicurean and
so believed pleasure was the ultimate good. He described the ideal life this way:
“Men can lie on soft turf side by side under a tall tree’s branches near a stream,
and easily, pleasantly, care for creature needs” ( On the Nature of Things,
translated by Frank Copley, 1977, p. 29).

Lucretius also believed that man had no chance for immortality. He wrote,
“ ‘Asleep in death’; so shall you be for all that’s left of time” (p. 77). He
believed there is no such thing as divine intervention, miracles or eternal life.

Lucretius had a view of the beginning of life that sounds amazingly like
spontaneous generation: “Rightly the earth is left then with the name of
mother, since of the earth all things are born. And even now from earth rise
many creatures molded by rain and by the sun’s hot breath” (p. 131).

Evolution theories date back to ancient times. Anaximander (611-547 B.C.), a

Greek philosopher, developed a theory that man evolved from fish. Charles
Darwin (1809-1882) published his theories in his books Origin of Species in
1859 and The Descent of Man in 1871.

Darwin popularized old ideas

Charles Darwin was not the first evolutionist, even in modern times. In fact, his
grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, was also an evolutionist (Paul Johnson, Darwin:
Portrait of a Genius, 2012, p. 41).

Charles Darwin just popularized the idea of evolution with the publication of his
book On the Origin of Species. Eventually the concept of evolution would
sweep the world. And this was not a “harmless” idea. It would be destined to
give root to much evil—including the deaths of millions of innocent people .

Many scientists and professors are converts to what amounts to the religion of
evolution. Here is what one evolutionary biologist wrote: “Evolution is the most
important concept in biology. There is not a single Why? question in biology
that can be answered adequately without a consideration of evolution. But the
importance of this concept goes far beyond biology. The thinking of modern
humans, whether we realize it or not, is profoundly affected—one is almost
tempted say determined—by evolutionary thinking” (Ernst Mayr, What
Evolution Is,2001,p.xiii)

Professor Mayr is correct in saying that the thinking of “modern humans” is

profoundly affected. It has deceived millions of people into thinking that life

has no transcendent purpose. Famed evolutionist and atheistic activist Richard

Dawkins said that there is “no design, no purpose” in our existence. His
conclusion is that human beings blindly “dance” to the music of our own DNA (
River Out of Eden, 1995, p. 133).

Well, countless human beings have danced many insane “jigs”! Their “spiritual
insanity” ranges from discrimination to evil eugenics to cold-blooded murder.
One of Darwin’s own teachers, Adam Sedgwick, warned that humanity under
the influence of evolutionary thought “would abandon all the moral codes that
allowed civilization to survive” (Carl Zimmer, commentary within Charles
Darwin, The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, 2007, p. 151).

Moral codes that govern society have often been compromised. Often the failure
of morality can be directly traceable to evolution . Examples range from simple
discrimination to outright brutality.

Here is what Viktor Frankl, a Holocaust survivor, had to say about the influence
of evolutionary thought in the development of the holocaust:

“The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory
that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment—or, as the
Nazi liked to say, of ‘Blood and Soil.’ I am absolutely convinced that the gas
chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not
in some Ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in the lecture
halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers” ( The Doctor and the Soul: From
Psychotherapy to Logotherapy, 1986, p. xxvii).

Hitler claimed to be a promoter of Christianity. Observe what he once said to a

group of pastors: “Reverend sirs … I have gladly accepted your invitation in
order to make known to you my program for the churches. I would like to
convince you that I am working for the moral recovery of our nation just as you
“Since her defeat, Germany needs Christianity more than ever. She needs the
churches. We must halt the movement of the godless. We need your support.
We need the support of all who have the interests of the Fatherland at heart”
(Leo Stein, Hitler Came for Niemoeller: The Nazi War Against Religion, 2003,
p. 78).

In retrospect it’s clear that Hitler’s appeal was simply dishonest doublespeak.
Author William Shirer noted that, far from restoring a Christian morality to the
country, “the Nazi regime intended eventually to destroy Christianity in
Germany, if it could, and substitute the old paganism of the early tribal

Germanic gods and the new paganism of the Nazi extremists” ( The Rise and
Fall of the Third Reich, 2011, p. 240).

The concept of evolution was also highly influential in the development of

eugenics. Hitler believed in the superiority of the German people and that they
had a right to improve the human race by eliminating “lesser” groups of people
(Richard Weikart, From Darwin to Hitler, 2004, p. 212).

The Nazis were determined to make sure that the Jews didn’t survive and
“evolve any further.” So senior officials of the Nazi regime held a conference in
1942 at Wannsee, Germany, a suburb of Berlin, to lay out “the final solution”
and inform administrative leaders of departments responsible for various
policies relating to Jews.

One of the most significant statements of their official policy was as follows:
“In the course of the final solution and under appropriate leadership, the Jews
should be put to work in the East. In large, single-sex labor columns, Jews fit to
work will work their way eastward constructing roads. Doubtless the large
majority will be eliminated by natural causes.

“Any final remnant that survives will doubtless consist of the most resistant
elements. They will have to be dealt with appropriately, because otherwise, by
natural selection, they would form the germ cell of a new Jewish revival” (Mark
Roseman, The Wannsee Conference and the Final Solution, 2002, p. 101).

The statement from the Wannsee Conference uses several phrases showing that
the survival-of-the-fittest doctrine from the theory of evolution was used to
attempt to exterminate ethnic groups of people. Yet this was not the only mass-
extermination “experiment” in the 20th century by totalitarian regimes.

“If you were just to examine the big three atheistic regimes of the twentieth
century—Mao in China, Stalin in Russia, and Hitler in Nazi Germany—then
you would discover that they are responsible for more than 100 million deaths.
This number does not even include death tolls from other regimes like Pol Pot’s
mass killings in Cambodia” (Sean McDowell and Jonathan Morrow, Is God Just
a Human Invention? 2010, pp. 138-139).

Darwinian evolutionists believe that life evolved. Social Darwinism is the idea
that ruthless, atheistic egotism is the most successful policy. In other words,
each individual’s best course of action is to take care of oneself, regardless of
the consequences for others.

It also posits that life evolves not only biologically, but also intellectually and
culturally. And those people deemed superior to others in these various ways
are reckoned as having more of a right to life.

Astronomer and author Martin Rees commented that though natural disaster has
been humanity’s greatest threat throughout the ages, modern society is most
challenged by warfare and genocide:

“One estimate suggests that in the two world wars and their aftermath, 187
million perished by war, massacre, persecution, or policy-induced famine. The
twentieth century was perhaps the first during which more were killed by war
and totalitarian regimes than by natural disasters” ( Our Final Hour, 2004, pp.
25-26). In war, anything goes!

[[ Venus orbits the Sun relatively quickly—in about 225 earth-days as

compared to Earth’s orbit of about 365 days. But Venus rotates on its axis so
slowly that it takes 243 earth-days to make one rotation. Therefore one “Venus
day” is longer than a “Venus year”! And Venus revolves in the opposite
direction from all the other planets in our solar system except Uranus—on
Venus and Uranus, the sun rises in the west and sets in the east!

The periods of Venus as “Evening Star” and “Morning Star” each average about
263 days. In between, Venus disappears from our view on the near side of the
sun for about 8 days, and it disappears from our view on the far side of the sun
for about 50 days, for a total of 584 days for the entire cycle.

Why is Venus so bright?

Venus is the third brightest luminary in our sky—only the Sun and the Moon
are brighter. For long periods of time, Venus is bright enough to cast shadows
on Earth. Venus’s cloud covering is highly reflective—reflecting about 70
percent of incoming sunlight back into space. That’s part of the reason for
Venus’s brightness. The other primary reason is its closeness to Earth.

Venus has phases like the Moon has phases. It waxes (grows larger in
appearance) and wanes (diminishes in appearance). Hence there are the phases
of full Venus, half Venus, quarter Venus, crescent Venus, etc. What is
surprising is that Venus appears to us earthlings to be its brightest when its
phase is a quarter or less! How can that be?

Here is the answer: Venus appears brighter as it gets closer to Earth . When
Venus is “full,” it is on the opposite side of the Sun, the farthest possible
distance from Earth. As the orbits of Earth and Venus bring them closer

together (more and more on the same side of the Sun), Venus appears
brighter—even when we are seeing only a “quarter Venus” or less!
This “Evening Star” has been especially bright in April and May of 2012.

Earth will soon see a “Venus Transit”!

A Venus Transit occurs when we can see Venus passing directly in front of the
Sun. This is similar to when the Moon passes in front of the Sun on a solar
eclipse. Unlike the Moon, which covers most of the Sun, Venus appears as a
small dot crossing the face of the Sun. A transit (sometime called a passage )
can only occur with the inner planets—Mercury and Venus—because they are
the only two that can lie between the Earth and Sun during their orbits.

Venus and paganism

Venus has the shameful “honor” of being named after a pagan goddess (Venus
was the Roman goddess of beauty and love). Several “ancient” civilizations
practiced Venus worship, and veneration of the planet has persisted even into
modern times.

The English word “Friday” is derived from the Anglo-Saxon Frigedaeg ,

meaning “Venus day” ( Friga = Venus + dae = day), and many other languages
also trace their names for Friday from root words meaning “Venus day.” The
Spanish name for Friday is viernes .

The planet Venus is a metaphor for Jesus Christ!

The Bible uses the word “star” to refer to any bright object in the sky other than
the Sun and Moon. The word “planet” is not in the Bible, so the Bible does not
distinguish between planets and true stars. Bible uses both the appearance of the
Morning Star and the sunrise to picture the return of Christ.

The unseen force holding things together, scientists conclude, must be

produced by other things—which, for lack of better terms, are classed as “dark
matter” and “dark energy” (“dark” meaning they emit no radiation directly
perceptible to us, whether visible light or otherwise).
Dark matter, the scientists believe, coexists with normal matter, but they still
don’t know what it is. Even stranger than dark matter is dark energy, for it
appears to work across large distances and in an opposite way to gravity. This
antigravity force seems responsible for the accelerating pace of the universe’s
ongoing expansion.
“But observing dark matter and knowing what it is are very different,” cautions
an Aug. 23 editorial in The New York Times, “and we are nowhere near the

latter. Then, beyond the problem of dark matter lies the greater problem of dark
energy. This is a mysterious universe, and the more we know about it the more
mysterious it seems.”]]

[[Anthony DeStefano, an entertaining retort to atheism and its proponents,

revealing the intellectual bankruptcy at atheism’s core and equipping
Christians to respond to its hollow arguments.
A witty and devastating takedown of the "new" atheist position, Inside the
Atheist Mind debunks the theories of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens,
Sam Harris, and others, revealing how inconsistent, illogical, and frankly
ludicrous their conclusions truly are. Poking fun at atheists in a clever and
intelligent way, Anthony DeStefano demonstrates just how full of holes the new
atheism is and reveals that it is actually a "religion" of its own, complete with a
creed, a set of commandments, a rigid moral code, and rewards and
punishments. More than that, DeStefano exposes that atheism is itself a
"superstition" of the worst kind.
Using irony and a healthy dose of playful sarcasm, Inside the Atheist
Mind lampoons, teases, and deflates the atheist position, unmasking it for what
it is--an empty, intellectually barren philosophy, devoid of any logic and
common sense.]]

In the year 2025 what we view as the complexity of the genome in the cell
today will be seen as child’s play compared to the complexity we will have
discovered in the next 20 years. As we discover more about the “cell”, at every
turn we find it is far more sophisticated, more elegant and more complicated
than we ever thought, and that trend is not decreasing.”
=Michael Behe, professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University and author of
the 1996 best seller Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to

Scientists are beginning to discover that the human body has no superfluous
organs. “Biologists have often been puzzled by seemingly meaningless parts of
the body, only to find later they do serve an important function. Take the
thymus for example. Until quite recently it was dismissed as a useless survival
of an earlier age of development, but it is now known to be the control centre of
the body’s defence system against germs. Tonsils and adenoids were often
removed from children, because they were thought to serve no function. Now
we realize they help to protect the nose and throat against infection” (John
Allan, The Human Difference, 1989, p. 45).

Many of the concepts of truth found in the postmodern world are rooted in
three revolutionary ideas of the 19th century.

The first powerful concept is evolution—the theory that all life, including
humankind, is the outcome of a natural, mindless progression from lower to
more complicated forms of life. Evolution removes the need for a Creator and
makes science the arbiter of truth.

A second philosophy that has shaped the thinking of many Europeans, and more
people in the United States than most would like to admit, is communism. The
effects of the teachings of Karl Marx on Western society are greater than many
realize, especially in our institutions of higher learning. The political system
called communism “appears” to have failed in Eastern Europe, but many of its
philosophies are alive and well.

Marx said, “Society is not based on the law… Rather, law must be based on
society… Any attempted assertion of the eternal validity of laws , continually
clashes with present needs.”

This concept sees rules and boundaries as only the means to an end. There is no
absolute truth, only the shifting sand of moral relativism with the agenda of the
state being the ultimate good.

Marx also referred to religion as the opium of the people. He wrote, “The basis
of irreligious criticism is this: man makes religion; religion does not make man.
Religion is indeed man’s self-consciousness and self-awareness so long as he
has not found himself or has lost himself again… The abolition of religion as
the illusory happiness of men, is a demand for their real happiness. The call to
abandon their illusions about their condition is a call to abandon a condition
which requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, the embryonic
criticism of this vale of tears of which religion is the halo… It is the task of
history, therefore, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the
truth of this world.”

A third powerful influence is psychoanalysis. This doesn’t mean that there

aren’t good therapists helping people deal with emotional problems and mental
illness, but it is difficult to underestimate the impact some in this field have
perpetrated on our society. Many popular psychological theories promote
premises that see human beings only in biological terms. They ignore that many
human emotional problems are rooted in mental sickness.

“For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume [
The Origin of Species ] on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently
leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I arrived.”
— Charles Darwin (1809-1882).

“The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived,
constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach: but each, in his
specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations
furnished is adequate.”
“The theory of evolution is impossible. At base, in spite of appearances, no one
any longer believes in it . . . Evolution is a kind of dogma which the priests no
longer believe, but which they maintain for their people.”
— Paul Lemoine (1878-1940), director of the Paris Natural History Museum,
president of the Geological Society of France and editor of Encyclopedie

“To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a
consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no
evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories
are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of
facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and
for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest.”
— Sir Ernst Chain (1906-1979), coholder of the 1945 Nobel Prize for isolating
and purifying penicillin, director of Rome’s International Research Center for
Chemical Microbiology, professor of biochemistry at Imperial College,
University of London

“Atheists all over the world have . . . called upon science as their crown witness
against the existence of God. But as they try, with arrogant abuse of scientific
reasoning, to render proof there is no God, the simple and enlightening truth is
that their arguments boomerang. For one of the most fundamental laws of
natural science is that nothing in the physical world ever happens without a
cause. There simply cannot be a creation without some kind of Spiritual Creator
. . . In the world around us we can behold the obvious manifestations of the
Divine plan of the Creator.”
— Dr. Wernher von Braun (1912-1977), NASA director and father of the
American space program. FREEMASON / SATANIST .

“Naturalistic evolution is not merely a scientific theory; it is the official

creation story of modern culture. The scientific priesthood that has authority
to interpret the official creation story , gains immense cultural influence
thereby, which it might lose if the story were called into question. The experts
therefore have a vested interest in protecting the story . . .” ( Darwin on Trial,
1993, p. 159). --Phillip Johnson, law professor at the University of California at
Berkeley .

The Catholic theologian Augustine lived A.D. 354-430. The Encyclopaedia

Britannica describes him as “the dominant personality of the Western Church of

his time, generally recognized as the greatest thinker of Christian antiquity.” It

adds, “He fused the religion of the New Testament with the Platonic tradition of
Greek philosophy” (15th edition, 1975, Micropaedia, Vol. 1, “Augustine of
Hippo, Saint,” pp. 649-650).

Furthermore, ecclesiastical leaders adopted the earth-centered view of the

universe held by Ptolemy, an Egyptian-born astronomer of the second century.
“It was . . . from the work of previous [Greek] astronomers,” says The
Encyclopaedia Britannica .

“In essence, it is a synthesis of the results obtained by Greek astronomy . . . On

the motions of the Sun, Moon, and planets, Ptolemy again extended the
observations and conclusions of Hipparchus—this time to formulate his
geocentric theory, which is popularly known as the Ptolemaic system” (15th
edition, 1975, Macropaedia, Vol. 15, “Ptolemy,” p. 179).

The Greeks thought the god Atlas held up first the heavens and later the earth,
and the Hindus believed the earth rested atop four gigantic elephants ??

Nicolaus Copernicus in the 1500s calculated ?? that the earth was not the
center of the universe. In the 1600s, Italian astronomer Galileo Galilei observed
?? through a telescope the moons orbiting Jupiter . After further observation of
the planets, he came to agree with Copernicus’ view that the earth revolves
around the sun and not vice versa.

“When the Roman church attacked Copernicus and Galileo,” says Christian
philosopher Francis Schaeffer, “it was not because their teaching actually
contained anything contrary to the Bible. The church authorities thought it did,
but that was because Aristotelian elements had become part of church
orthodoxy, and Galileo’s notions clearly conflicted with them. In fact, Galileo
defended the compatibility of Copernicus and the Bible, and this was one of the
factors which brought about his trial” ( How Should We Then Live? 1976, p.

The English scholar Robert Merton maintains that the values promoted by
Puritanism in 17th-century England encouraged scientific endeavors.
Historians note that the invention of the printing press in the 1500s played a
large role in the emergence of modern science.

Both Alfred North Whitehead and J. Robert Oppenheimer have stressed that
modern science was born out of the Christian world view.

Although evolution wasn’t popularized until 1859 with the publication of

Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species, the roots of the idea go much further back
in history.

“The early Greek philosophers,” explains British physicist Alan Hayward,

“were probably the first thinkers to toy with the notion of evolution. Along with
many other ideas from ancient Greece it reappeared in western Europe in the
fifteenth and sixteenth centuries . . . But one great difficulty stood in the way.
Nobody . . . could explain convincingly how evolution could have taken place.
Each species seemed to be fixed. There seemed no way in which one species
could give rise to another …

“Darwin changed all that with his theory that the way evolution worked was by
‘natural selection.’ He proposed that small variations in each generation—the
kind of natural variations that enable breeders to produce new varieties of dogs
and cows and apples and roses—would eventually add up to very big
differences, and thus, over hundreds of millions of years, could account for
every species on earth” ( Creation and Evolution: Rethinking the Evidence
From Science and the Bible, 1985, pp. 4-5).

Thus, in the late 19th century, scientists and educators were sidetracked from
discovering the truth about the origin and meaning of life when they adopted
Darwin’s reasoning. Their widespread acceptance of an alternative explanation
for the existence and diversity of life on earth led to massive shift of thought ,
has had far-reaching consequences. “Darwinism,” says Dr. Hayward, “begins to
look more like a huge maze without an exit, where the world has wandered
aimlessly for a century and a half” (p. 58).

Both science and religion built their explanations on wrong foundations.

Some of the reasons for the acceptance of Darwin’s theory involved conditions
of the time. The 19th century was an era of social and religious unrest. Science
was riding a crest of popularity. Impressive discoveries and inventions appeared
Furthermore, Darwin himself had an impeccable reputation as a dedicated
naturalist. And though his theory contained many obvious weaknesses, these
were hidden by the length and tediousness of his book. (He described his
book as “one long argument.”)

The momentum grew in the 20th century until many Protestants and Catholics
turned to theistic evolution. This is the belief that God occasionally intervenes
in a largely evolutionary process through such steps as creating the first cell and
then permitting the whole process of evolution to take place or by simply

waiting for the first man to appear from the gradual chain of life and then
providing him with a soul.

“Darwinian evolution to them,” says Dr. Hayward, “is merely the method by
which God, keeping discreetly in the background, created every living thing . . .
The majority of theistic evolutionists have a somewhat liberal view of the Bible,
and often regard the early chapters of Genesis as a collection of Hebrew
myths” (p. 8).

Perhaps the effects of his theory on Darwin’s own faith can illustrate the
damage it can do to religious convictions. Darwin started as a theology student
and a staunch respecter of the Bible.

There is great danger in following in Darwin’s footsteps. We should remember

the old saying: If you teach a child that he is only an animal, don’t complain
when he behaves like one. Can we not lay part of the blame for rampant
immorality and crime on society’s prevalent values and beliefs—derived to a
great extent from evolutionary theory?

The latest “”studies”” estimate that instead of 100 sextillion stars, there may be
as many as 300 sextillion—that is 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (“Starry
Starry Starry Night: Star Count May Triple,” Associated Press, Dec. 1, 2010).

Harvard astrophysicist Charlie Conroy commented in the Associated Press

article, “ ‘It’s fun because it gets you thinking about these large numbers.’

“Conroy looked up how many cells are in the average human body—50 trillion
or so—and multiplied that by the 6 billion people on Earth. And he came up
with about 300 sextillion. So the number of stars in the universe ‘is equal to all
the cells in the humans on Earth—a kind of funny “coincidence”,’ Conroy said”
(“Starry Starry Starry Night: Star Count May Triple” Associated Press, Dec. 1,

Where the usual approach in the past was to let the Bible take precedence over
scientific discoveries, now the situation is reversed. “There developed in the
nineteenth century what has been called ‘scientism.’ This holds that only
science has the key to truth and that whatever is not scientific is false” (James
Hitchcock, What Is Secular Humanism? 1982, p. 44).

Not only has it failed to produce a peaceful world, but it has given us the
nightmarish problems of industrial, chemical and nuclear pollution, among
many others. Scientific technology has indeed benefited us in many ways. But it

has contributed immensely to the frightening array of stresses, sicknesses and

fears we face today.

Consider the state of medical knowledge in Egypt, the most powerful nation
during the period in which “God” revealed His health laws to Moses.

Their ignorance is illustrated in the Ebers Papyrus, an Egyptian medical text

dating from 1500 B.C ?. (about the time of Moses).
--“The remedies it prescribes make modern readers cringe. A few of the
treatments include: statue dust, beetle shells, mouse tails, cat hair, pig eyes, dog
toes, breast milk, human semen, eel eyes, and goose guts … To splinters, the
ancient Egyptian doctors applied a salve of worm blood and donkey dung. Since
dung is loaded with tetanus spores, a simple splinter often resulted in a
gruesome death from lockjaw” (S.I. McMillen, M.D., and David Stern, M.D.,
None of These Diseases, 2000, p. 10).

[[ a cholera pandemic began in India in 1817, then spread to China, Sri Lanka,
East Africa, the Philippines, Japan, Persia, Arabia and Russia. Another wave
began in India in 1826, following a similar course, but spread also to mainland
Europe and the British Isles. From there it crossed the Atlantic to Canada, and
then it made its way to the United States, where it spread throughout most of the
country before finally dying out in 1838.

The dreaded Black Death of the Middle Ages thrived in the unsanitary
conditions of medieval Europe. The plague first appeared there in 1347 “when a
Genoese fleet returning from the Orient staggered into Messina harbor, all
members of its crews dead or dying from a combination of bubonic, pneumonic,
and septicemic plague strains” (Manchester, p. 34). The resulting plagues of that
century are estimated to have killed up to a fourth of the Continent’s population.

The plague revisited Europe periodically for several hundred years. It was
common practice in the cities of the Middle Ages to allow garbage and sewage
to accumulate on the streets. This filth provided an abundant food source for a
burgeoning rat population, which served as host to the fleas that bore the plague

However, the people who practiced the sanitary guidelines were affected much
less severely. The Jewish population, suffered far less because it practiced
principles of cleanliness.

In fact, “the origin of the word ‘quarantine’ [from the Latin for 40] is the
Jewish use of the period of 40 days of segregation from patients with certain
diseases … adopted by the Italians in the 14th century because of the relative
immunity of Jews from certain plagues”

In 19th-century Europe no one knew about bacteria. In a hospital in Vienna, Dr.

Ignaz Semmelweis was appalled at the death rate of pregnant women who came
to the hospital to give birth. The deaths were attributed to “labor fever.” After
the women died, medical students would perform autopsies and then
immediately proceed to treat live patients.

After much observation, Dr. Semmelweis arrived at a revolutionary conclusion:

It might be contaminants on the medical students’ hands that were responsible
for spreading death from one patient to another. Thus he ordered the interns to
wash their hands in chlorinated water.

He then watched to see the results. “The history books tell us what happened
next … In just three months the death rate fell from 18 percent to 1 percent”
(McMillen and Stern, p. 20).

If similar techniques had been known and used even as recently as the
American Civil War, the death rate could have been much lower. In that war
“more than one half of the men who died were not killed in action; they simply
died of camp diseases: typhoid fever, pneumonia, dysentery .............

Thousands perished from relatively minor battle wounds that became infected.
“Nothing was known about how and why wounds became infected … The
number of men who simply got sick and died, or who got a minor scratch or cut
and then could do nothing to check the infection was appalling” (Bruce Catton,
Reflections on the Civil War, 1982, p. 43).

“Condoms, long the mainstay of the safe-sex public health model, do not
protect against the spread of nearly all sexually transmitted diseases, according
to a benchmark report released by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services” ( Women’s Health Weekly, Sept. 6, 2001, emphasis added).

“Getting [habitually] angry is like taking a small dose of some slow-acting

poison—arsenic, for example—every day of your life” (Redford Williams,
M.D., and Virginia Williams, M.D., quoted by McMillen and Stern, p. 205).

Scientific research verifies this simple truth. A 27-year study conducted by

Duke University “found that people who reported … despair, low self-esteem,
lack of motivation … were 70 percent more likely to have a heart attack” (

Portland Oregonian, June 20, 1996). Additional studies have shown that
prolonged unresolved hostility is a significant contributor to heart attacks.

In another study, Dr. Michael Miller and colleagues at the University of

Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore tested the function of blood vessels
of 20 healthy volunteers as they were shown two movies—one humorous, the
other stressful. They focused particularly on the endothelium, the lining of the
blood vessels, where atherosclerosis (hardening of the arteries) begins.

They found that blood flow diminished in 14 of the 20 subjects after they
watched stressful movie clips. Their blood flow decreased an average of 35
percent during those stressful periods.

In contrast, 19 of the 20 study subjects had increased blood flow when laughing
at humorous movie segments, with blood flow increasing an average of 22

“We don’t recommend that you laugh and not exercise, but we do recommend
that you try to laugh on a regular basis,” said Dr. Miller in reporting on the
study. “Thirty minutes of exercise three times a week, and 15 minutes of
laughter on a daily basis is probably good for the vascular system.” He
explained that “laughing may be important to maintain a healthy endothelium,
and reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease.”

He also explained that “the magnitude of change we saw in the endothelium is

similar to the benefit we might see with aerobic activity, but without the aches,
pains and muscle tension associated with exercise.”

In yet another study, 1,005 heart failure patients were tracked and tested for
depression by Dr. Wei Jiang and colleagues at North Carolina’s Duke
University. Dr. Jiang reported that patients with mild depression were at 44
percent greater risk of dying than those not experiencing depression, excluding
other factors such as age, marital status and original cause of the patients’ heart

Many land animals designed for food provide an additional benefit in that they
generally eat grasses and grains that were also designed for food” (Russell, pp.
“Almost all of the creatures on the unclean list are scavengers,” he notes. “In
many cases they don’t hunt for their own food; they eat the dead and decaying
matter of our environment. A catfish does that at the bottom of a pond; lobsters
and shrimp do it in the ocean. A pig will eat anything. Vultures, almost by
definition, are known for their scavenger habits” (Meinz, p. 225).

[But] note that an animal doesn’t have to be a scavenger to be unclean. Horses

and rabbits, for example, are unclean because they do not have split hooves.
Although they are considered to be good food in some countries, studies have
shown that horse meat often contains parasites. Rabbits, as innocent as they
appear, are the cause of tularemia (an infectious disease) in humans.

“One reason for forbidding pork is that the digestive system of a pig is
completely different from that of a cow. It is similar to ours, in that the stomach
is very acidic. Pigs are gluttonous, never knowing when to stop eating. Their
stomach acids become diluted because of the volume of food, allowing all
kinds of vermin to pass through this protective barrier. Parasites and toxins
can pass into the pig’s flesh because of over-eating. These toxins and
infectious agents can be passed on to humans when they eat a pig’s flesh”
(Russell, pp. 76-77).

Don Colbert, M.D., adds: “Besides being gluttons, swine are also extremely
filthy animals. They will eat garbage, feces, and even decaying flesh. All that is
eaten usually becomes part of the pig’s own flesh … Aside from the diseases
routinely carried by swine, pork is also a very fatty meat. The toxins in pork
are held especially in the fat, which is not isolated from the meat as can be the
case in lean beef, but rather, it is dispersed throughout the meat”

One of the leading evolutionists of the 20th century, Sir Julian Huxley, who
described evolution as “religion without revelation,” admitted as much. “Many
people assert that this abandonment of the god hypothesis means the
abandonment of all religion and all moral sanctions,” he wrote. “This is simply
not true. But it does mean, once our relief at jettisoning an outdated piece of
ideological furniture is over, that we must construct something to take its

Now it should be pointed out that Huxley was of the opinion that “there is no
basic cleavage between science and religion.” Yet what he proposed was
radical—not merely a new outlook on the origins of life, but what it would
mean for our worldview. A “drastic reorganization of our pattern of religious
thought is now becoming necessary,” he said, “from a god-centered to an
evolutionary-centered pattern.”

So who then takes God’s place? Who becomes the new authority? Without a
God, only man can step in—and some are all too glad to assume this role. Man
thus becomes the highest authority on all matters important, the sole determiner
and arbiter of purpose and meaning, morality and ethics.

Evolution as a religion does not do away with God—it merely replaces Him

with human gods. And if you think it requires faith to put your trust in a
supreme Creator God, how will your faith fare when put in the hands of man?

Evolutionists still struggle to explain how eyes developed within species. They
dogmatically talk in absolute terms about how it came to be, but they really
can’t explain how something so complex simply “appeared” in organisms.

Likewise fossil discoveries such as the Burgess Shale site in the Canadian
Rockies have expanded ? the understanding of paleontologists. Yet they still
can’t explain the sudden burst of life during the Cambrian period, sometimes
called “the Cambrian explosion.” Read the details in “What Does the Fossil
Record Show?”

Evolutionists still lack a workable explanation of how life began, why life
began and , how the diversity of life became so great through the theory of

What evidence does science have that proves living organisms gradually
evolved from simpler to more complex forms of life, changing into different
more advanced species through mutations and natural selection or that man
evolved from lower life forms as proposed by Darwin and his followers?

Richard Dawkins rejects any idea of design in nature, calling it just an illusion
of design, for design would requires a Designer.

He writes, “We live on a planet where we are surrounded by perhaps ten million
species, each of which independently displays a powerful illusion of apparent
design. Each species is well fitted to its particular way of life… We really need
Darwin’s powerful crane to account for the diversity of life on earth, and
especially the powerful illusion of design…

“We can deal with the unique origin of life by postulating a very large number
of planetary opportunities. Once that initial stroke of luck has been
granted…natural selection takes over: and natural selection is emphatically not
a matter of luck. [We must ask: Not even the random mutations required for it
to work?]

“Nevertheless, it may be that the origin of life is not the only major gap in the
evolutionary story that is bridged by sheer luck, anthropically justified… Mark
Ridley [The Cooperative Gene: How Mendel’s Demon Explains the Evolution
of Complex Beings] has suggested that the origin of the eukaryotic cell…was
an even more momentous, difficult and statistically improbable step than the
origin of life…

“Events like this might be explained by the anthropic principle, along the
following lines. There are billions of planets that have developed life at the
level of bacteria, but only a fraction of these life forms ever made it across the
gap to something like the eukaryotic cell… The anthropic principle states that,
since we are alive, eukaryotic and conscious, our planet has to be one of the
intensively rare planets that has bridged all three gaps.”

Where are the proofs for the assumptions of this theoretical anthropic principle?

Dawkins continues, “Natural selection works because it is a cumulative one-

way street to improvement. It needs some luck to get started, and the ‘billions
of planets’ anthropic principle grants it that luck. Maybe a few later gaps in the
evolutionary story also need major infusions of luck, with anthropic
justification. But whatever else we may say, design certainly does not work as
an explanation for life” (The God Delusion, pp. 139-141).

In summary he points out, “One of the greatest challenges to the human

intellect, over the centuries, has been to explain how the complex, improbable
appearance of design in the universe arises… In the case of a man-made artifact
such as a watch, the designer really was an intelligent engineer. It is tempting to
apply the same logic to an eye or a wing, a spider or a person.”

And why not? According to the scientific method, logic includes the natural
universal principle of cause and effect that applies to all things equally, which
only the supernatural can possibly defy.

Still Dawkins presses on. “If the argument of this chapter is accepted, the
factual premise of religion—the God Hypothesis—is untenable. God almost
certainly does not exist” (pp. 157-158).

When this appeal to luck and the so-called anthropic principle is weighed in the
balance with the wondrous evidence of creation explained in the intelligent
design books, we would say that the evolution hypothesis is untenable! (See
Creation or Evolution: Does It Really Matter What You Believe? for more on
this, including a list of excellent scientific works showing the intelligent design
of the universe.)

Then there is also an illusion created by the variations of living things in nature,
which actually result from the multiplication of living organisms through the
natural recombination of genes to form many variations of the created kinds
according to the laws of heredity described by Mendel and others.

Darwin observed that plant and animal breeders created new varieties and
breeds by artificial selection and mating methods and postulated the same thing
could occur in nature by natural selection . But it has never been proven that
any higher life forms ever evolved from lower life forms.

Many theories have evolved attempting to provide evidence for evolution, such
as the fossil record, biogeography (different species separated by geography),
homologous structures (i.e., similarities in the design of limbs, wings and
flippers), comparative embryology (similarities during development from an
egg to birth), vestigial organs (i.e., tonsils and appendix, although these have
now been found to be important immune tissues). These all can contribute to an
illusion of evolution, but prove nothing other than similarities of design, which
one would expect if everything came from a specific Designer.

The system for scientific classification of living things plus the evolutionary
tree of life created by scientists also presents a very graphic illusion of
evolution. According to Biology: Concepts and Connections, “Decisions about
classification often involve heated debate… Ever since Darwin, systematics has
had a goal…to have classification reflect the evolutionary connections among
species” (p. 305).

Darwin himself recognized weaknesses in his theory from its many unproven
assumptions, but this does not seem to dissuade his followers. Darwin devoted
two chapters to one of his most vexing concerns—gaps in the fossil record. He
wrote, “The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed,
[must] be truly enormous… Why then is not every geological formation and
every stratum full of such intermediate links? …This, perhaps, is the most
obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory” (Origin of
Species, p. 280).

The lack of intermediate links in the fossil record has remained a centerpiece in
the debate over origins for 150 years. “Darwin tried to explain the gaps in two
ways: (1) the geologic record and fossil collections are imperfect, so it will be
difficult to discover many transitional forms; and (2) despite so many known
gaps at almost every stage of the evolutionary tree, new transitions are sure to
be found (or, he argued, in rare cases, had already been found)…

“Worse still, from Darwin’s point of view, the lowest fossil-bearing rocks were
filled with vast numbers of complex marine fossils that lacked any hint of their
origin or transitional forms from one kind of creature to another. What is now
called the ‘Cambrian Explosion’ was wedged into Darwin’s thoughts on gaps.
Such a sudden appearance of so many different groups of marine invertebrates,

Darwin lamented, was ‘inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid

argument’ against his theory”

==Why were you born? Can evolution discover or give a purpose for human
Theories of evolution are based on the precept that there is no purpose in the
universe for anything, but that it all just happened and evolved by random
chance, “luck,” mutations and natural selection. If that is true, then we might as
well say, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!”

David Kupelian's book The Marketing of Evil , is subtitled "How Radicals,

Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom"

“Q: When Is a Constitution Not a Constitution? A: When It’s a ‘Treaty.’”

Q: When is a theory not a theory? A: When it’s evolution.

David Kupelian’s book The Marketing of Evil pointedly addresses how the
theory of evolution has reached the widely accepted status of scientific fact,
despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Kupelian also uncovers the
grotesque strategies used to legalize abortion.

His book is not for the faint of heart or for those who wish to escape reality.
Instead, his book is for those who have an insatiable desire to seek out truth in
its absolute sense. The Marketing of Evil will open your eyes to the disgusting
reality that we find ourselves living in—what one might call a matrix of evil.

In addition to the controversial issues of evolution and abortion, Kupelian

delves into topics such as separation of church and state, the meltdown of the
family as a result of marriage being redefined and a distorted worldview created
by illusions that the media portrays as reality.

Kupelian begins his account by exposing strategies that homosexual activists

used to launch the gay rights movement. He focuses on the result of intentional
psychological marketing jargon surrounding the phrase “gay rights.” Instead of
using the term homosexual, activists selected the word gay because of its
positive connotation associated with the word happiness . The term rights brings
to mind the basic freedom of citizenship that an individual enjoys. With this
kind of marketing, a once taboo practice gradually became acceptable.

Another remarkable example Kupelian shares is the research of Alfred Kinsey,

a former zoologist at Indiana University. Though Kinsey’s area of expertise was
in the study of animals, he began conducting research on sexual behavior in

adults and children. This research gained him the title “Father of the Sexual

His research is considered foundational to the study of human sexual behavior,

is referenced in numerous subsequent publications and conferences on the topic
and has been portrayed for many years as scientific, credible and objective.

However, the data he used is largely based on abnormal populations, which he

then normalized to apply to the general population. In fact, 86 percent of his
subjects were abnormal and included sexual psychopaths, sex offenders,
prisoners, male prostitutes and promiscuous homosexuals.

Do you believe in things you can’t see, hear, smell, taste, or touch? If so, you’re
not alone.

According to NASA , all the matter we are able to see—planets ??, stars,
galaxies??, and everything in between—makes up less than five percent of the
universe. The remaining 95 percent is believed to be composed of two elements
known as “dark matter” and “dark energy.”

Astronomers believe that the gravitational force of dark matter is the reason
stars travel at a constant speed around a galaxy, no matter their distance from
the center (thus violating Newton’s laws of gravity). In fact, the galaxy’s
rotational forces would likely tear the stars apart if not for the extra gravity
keeping them in place. Likewise, the repelling forces of dark energy are
believed to explain why the universe is expanding at an increasing rate, rather
than slowing down as would be expected.

However, there’s a detail that’s often overlooked in this theory: neither dark
matter , nor dark energy has been directly observed.

That’s right! No one has actually confirmed the existence of any dark matter or
dark energy. Yet most astronomers and many in the media speak of both
phenomena as though their existence were a fact, despite various problems
brought to light by recent research . Only a few scientists, such as Mordehai
Milgrom of Israel’s Weizmann Institute with his Modified Newtonian
Dynamics , have dared to challenge this theory with ideas of their own. Still,
the vast majority of scientists prefer to assume that dark matter and dark energy

It seems that astronomers and vertical thinkers have something in common —

they both see evidence of things that are unseen. Proponents of dark

matter/dark energy see various events happening in space and infer the
existence of these mysterious, invisible elements.

The irony, however, is that the same scientific community that accepts the dark
matter/dark energy explanation also insists that theories inferring the presence
of design in the universe are not scientific because they are not “testable by
observation and experimentation” (Science and Creationism: A View from the
National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition).

This was made apparent in 2005 when parents in Dover, Pennsylvania sued
their local school board for attempting to introduce Intelligent Design Theory
into the district’s science curriculum alongside evolutionary material. In his
139-page decision, Judge John Jones not only declared the school board’s
actions unconstitutional, but also took it upon himself to define what is and is
not considered to be science. Jones stated, “…forces that we cannot see,
replicate, control or test…cannot qualify as part of the scientific process or as a
scientific theory.”

Applying Judge Jones’ logic to dark matter and dark energy theories makes
them sound like something from science fiction novels—not astrophysics
because they are “forces that we cannot see.” Yet when credentialed scientists
attempt to draw reasonable inferences of design from measurable, confirmable
data they have observed in nature, they are ridiculed as crackpots with a
subversive religious agenda.

In reflecting on his theory of evolution, Darwin knew there were dauntingly

unproven aspects of his hypothesis. For example, he admitted that the
complexity of the eye presented certain problems. He also acknowledged that
there was no fossil record proving the gradual changes in life forms that he
imagined had taken place. He simply hoped that fossils would eventually be
found to prove him correct.

With no valid evidence to prove Darwinian evolution and mounting scientific

evidence against it, supporters of evolution find themselves increasingly
challenged to maintain their faith. It’s an awkward position demanding
unquestioning adherence.
When evolutionary theory is challenged by scientific evidence such as that
offered by the intelligent design movement, some are surprised that Darwinian
supporters almost always respond by claiming that intelligent design is thinly
disguised religion. Yet technically, one doesn’t have to believe in a particular
God or creed to believe in intelligent design since the arguments for intelligent
design are made from scientific evidence alone.

Sadly, it seems that those who faithfully hold to Darwin’s theory don’t want to
acknowledge the accumulating body of scientific information undermining their
position. The reason they don’t is obvious: Their worldview is at risk.

Since its detonation, the Darwin bomb’s blast wave has impacted just about
every field of study, with some seriously negative consequences. While
Darwin’s devotees are fond of talking about all the deaths associated with
religious wars, they don’t like to be reminded of the immoral, materialistic
worldviews that have been built upon or justified by Darwin’s theory.

A biography of Joseph Stalin explains that Stalin considered Darwin’s book The
Origin of Species , proof that there was no God (E. Yaroslavsky, Landmarks in
the Life of Stalin, 1940, pp. 8-9).

As a seminary student, Stalin encouraged a fellow student to read Darwin’s

book so his friend would also understand that talk about God is “sheer
nonsense” . With reassurance from Darwin that there was no God with rules
against killing other human beings, Stalin had no qualms about murdering
millions of his countrymen in an effort to build a better state.

In Nazi Germany, Adolf Hitler’s concept of breeding a master race was based
on the “survival of the fittest” concept inherent in Darwin’s philosophy.
Darwin’s theory and even the full title of his book— On the Origin of Species
by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in
the Struggle for Life — aligned with Hitler’s racist worldview and his killing
of millions in his effort to build a super race.

The collateral damage associated with Darwinism doesn’t end with Stalin and
Hitler. It has continued its relentless march through numerous fields with
perhaps none more striking than that of moral conduct.

Furthermore, if people are simply animals, then it really doesn’t matter if a

woman chooses to have an abortion or not. With this mind-set, millions of
babies have been aborted before they ever drew their first breaths. More
collateral damage.

But a faulty premise leads to faulty conclusions. The negative effects of

immoral conduct justified by Darwin’s theory continue to add up.

---If the theory of evolution is such a sure thing, why have so many doubts been
raised about it? Why do so many fight so hard to prevent alternatives from
being seriously considered? Most important of all, what does the evidence really

Here at the start of the 21st century, the theory of evolution remains the
dominant explanation in schools and the mass media about the appearance and
the wondrous variety of more than a million living species on planet earth.

Of course, not all areas of the world place the same emphasis on the theory. In
China, for instance, a paleontologist quipped to an American colleague: “In
China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can
criticize the government but not Darwin” (“The Church of Darwin,” The Wall
Street Journal, Aug. 16, 1999). = controlled opposition .

France, Spain, Latin America and Islamic countries haven’t accepted the theory
with the same enthusiasm. Nevertheless, in Great Britain, where Darwin was
born, and in America, which has received so much of its cultural heritage from
the British, as well as in Germany, Darwin’s ideas on evolution are still king
and criticism is frowned upon. = controlled opposition .

“Next to the Bible,” anthropologist Ashley Montagu claims, “no work has been
quite as influential, in virtually every aspect of human thought, as The Origin of
Species” ( The Origin of Species, 1958, Mentor edition, quote on the back

Surely the theory must have impressive proofs for it to be supported so vocally
by so many scientists and college professors. Yet, surprisingly, some of these
same scientists, in more candid moments, have admitted that Darwin’s book did
not really explain what its title refers to—the origin of species.

Gordon Taylor, for instance, in his pro-evolution book Great Evolution

Mystery, mentions: “As Professor Ernst Mayr of Harvard, the doyen [senior
member] of species studies, once remarked, the “book called The Origin of
Species is not really on that subject’, while his colleague Professor Simpson
admits: “Darwin failed to solve the problem indicated by the title of his work.’

“You may be surprised to hear that the origin of species remains just as much a
mystery today, despite the efforts of thousands of biologists. The topic has been
the main focus of attention and is beset by endless controversies” (1983, p. 140,
emphasis added throughout). And the controversy continues today.

Darwin noted in The Origin of Species: “Natural selection acts exclusively by

the preservation and accumulation of variations, which are beneficial under the
organic and inorganic conditions to which each creature is exposed at all
periods of life. The ultimate result is that each creature tends to become more
and more improved in relation to its condition . . . This principle of

preservation, or the survival of the fittest, I have called Natural Selection” (pp.
124, 130).

Yet it’s a long way from explaining merely how the species survived to how it
had arrived! As biochemist and agnostic Michael Denton states: “The fact is
that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago that even Darwin
himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of his views, and the only
aspect of his theory which has received any support over the past century is
where it applies to micro-evolutionary phenomena.

“His general theory, that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a
gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in
Darwin’s time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual
support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive
advocates would have us believe” ( Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1985, p. 77).

No direct evidence to support evolution

Very few have actually read The Origin of Species from cover to cover—and
admittedly, to most it is a very tedious book. Darwin himself called it “one long
argument” (p. 435).

Darwin was a dedicated naturalist and loaded the book with numerous
observations from the natural world in an attempt to convince his readers of his
assumptions. Yet he himself confessed in his book that he did not have any
direct evidence for his theory, only analogies and possible examples from

He mentions in the introduction of his book, “For I am well aware that scarcely
a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced,
often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those which I have
arrived” (p. 28).

In another candid moment, Darwin acknowledged to a friend, “I do not pretend

to adduce direct evidence of one species changing into another” (Letter to F.W.
Hutton, April 20, 1861).

He admits in his book: “If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties,

linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have
existed; but the very process of natural selection constantly tends, as has been
so often remarked, to exterminate the parent-forms and the intermediate links.
Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst

fossil remains, which are preserved, as we shall attempt to show in a future

chapter, in an extremely imperfect and intermittent record” (p. 166).

So he recognizes that there aren’t any living species in transitional forms he

can point to as evidence and says we must go to the ancient fossils for any
support. Ironically, he also explains that natural selection does not preserve the
transitional forms, but actually exterminates them.

This is a clever way of disposing of the corpse! In other words, he can’t find
the evidence among living things for his theory because the chief method of
evolution, natural selection, has eliminated the proofs!

Evidence missing from the fossil record

What about the fossil record? Surely here, one thinks, Darwin will present the
clear evidence for his case. However, he later admits it’s not there as well!
“Why then,” he reluctantly asks, “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
serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as
I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geologic record” (pp. 293-294).

A bit later, he concedes: “The number of intermediate and transitional links,

between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great . But
assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon the earth. Independently
of our not finding fossil remains of such infinitely numerous connecting links, it
may be objected that time cannot have sufficed for so great an amount of
organic change” (p. 295).

With a clever sleight of hand, he says the proof can’t be found presently on the
earth but in the past—and then later says it’s not in the past either, and blames
the fossil record for not showing the support he needed!

800 examples of the subjunctive mood

So what was he to do without genuine evidence? He supposed, conjectured,

guessed and concocted. One enterprising reviewer of Darwin’s book counted
some 800 examples of the subjunctive mood—of suppositions about the
theory—using “if,” “maybe,” “perhaps,” “possibly,” “might,” “could,”
“conceivably” and many fictional illustrations.

If this theory is backed, as evolutionist Richard Dawkins claims, then why is

there so much speculation?

Why not just present the concrete evidence? Because Darwin’s theory is a
philosophical viewpoint —and, for many, a belief system. It promotes
materialistic naturalism—the idea that all that exists in the universe is matter
and its laws, and that all things evolved without the need for a Creator!

“It is ironic to recall,” says Dr. Denton, “that it was the increasingly secular
outlook in the nineteenth century which initially eased the way for the
acceptance of evolution, while today it is perhaps the Darwinian view of nature
more than any other , that is responsible for the agnostic and skeptical outlook
of the twentieth century. What was once a deduction from materialism has
today become its foundation” ( Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, p. 358).

No true missing links

Now what about the geological evidence? After another 150 years of digging
and searching on every continent, have scientists found the vital fossils Darwin
called “the connecting links”?

“Since Darwin’s time,” Dr. Denton goes on to say, “the search for missing links
in the fossil record has continued on an ever-increasing scale. So vast has been
the expansion of paleontological activity over the past one hundred years that
probably 99.9% of all paleontological work has been carried out since 1860” (p.

“Despite the tremendous increase in geological activity in every corner of the

globe,” he adds, “and despite the discovery of many strange and hitherto
unknown forms, the infinitude of connecting links has still not been discovered
and the fossil record is about as discontinuous as it was when Darwin was
writing the Origin. The intermediates have remained as elusive as ever and their
absence remains, a century later, one of the most striking characteristics of the
fossil record” (p. 162).

There is, consequently, no “smoking gun” found in the fossil record that backs
Darwin’s theory.

How about some of the examples Darwin used in his book? How have they
fared? Incredibly, they have all turned out to be myths about evolution! Let’s
look at some of those supposed proofs.

From flying fish to flying birds

Darwin, for example, imagined flying fish could gradually turn into birds. He
wrote, “Seeing that a few members of such water-breathing classes as the
Crustacea and Mollusca are adapted to live on the land; and seeing that we have
flying birds . . . it is conceivable that flying-fish, which now glide far through
the air, slightly rising and turning by the aid of their fluttering fins, might have
been modified into perfectly winged animals” ( The Origin of Species, p. 168).

Does he present any evidence of the gradual change of this flying fish? No, he
doesn’t have any evidence from living animals or fossils. So what does he do?

He resorts to an imaginary explanation. “Thus, to return to our imaginary

illustration of the flying-fish,” he says, “it does not seem probable that fishes
capable of true flight would have been developed under many subordinate
forms . . . Hence the chance of discovering species with transitional grades of
structure in a fossil condition will always be less, from their having existed in
lesser numbers, than in the case of species with fully developed structures” (p.

Since he doesn’t have any examples of how flying fish evolve into something
else, he then explains away the evidence by saying that the chance of finding
transitional forms will always be “less” than species with fully developed
structures. But “less” does not mean “none.” In fact, he doesn’t present a single
example to back his claim. His book is full of such baseless and speculative
illustrations used as supposed proofs.

Modern evolutionists, it should be noted, have long since rejected Darwin’s

proposal that birds came from flying fish. The current popular conception is
that they came from dinosaurs. [[ for which also , no proof exist ]]

The long neck of the giraffe

Darwin was aware of a notable case against his theory—the giraffe, the tallest
living animal. How could this creature develop its long neck—and where are its
previous ancestors?

This is his explanation: “The giraffe, by its lofty stature, much elongated neck,
forelegs, head and tongue, has its whole frame beautifully adapted for browsing
on the higher branches of trees . . . In every district some one kind of animal
will almost certainly be able to browse higher than the others; and it is almost
equally certain that this one kind alone could have its neck elongated for this
purpose, through natural selection and the effects of increased use” (p. 205,
207). No examples are given, no fossil ancestors are cited, just speculation.

Today, we know animals can’t acquire characteristics through increased use or

disuse. Scientists have cut the tails of mice for hundreds of generations and
none have ever been born without tails. The laws of heredity that were being
discovered by Gregor Mendel and others that revealed fixed genetic walls on
living things. Darwin erroneously thought creatures could acquire elongated
characteristics by continually stretching their necks.= controlled oppositions.

Also, could he show examples of the gradual development of the giraffe’s neck?
No he couldn’t, so he again resorted to conjectures. When pressed by the
critics of his time to present the evidence for the gradual elongated necks, he
admitted, “Why, in other quarters of the world, various animals belonging to the
same order have not acquired either an elongated neck or a proboscis cannot be
distinctly answered; but it is as unreasonable to expect a distinct answer to such
a question, as why some event in the history of mankind did not occur in one
country, whilst it did in another” (p. 207).

He ends the section on the giraffe by admitting, “Except by assigning such

general and vague reasons, we cannot explain why, in many quarters of the
world, hoofed quadrupeds have not acquired much elongated necks or other
means for browsing on the higher branches of trees” (p. 208).

One scientist, after considering this brazen flight of fantasy about giraffes, was
so dismayed with the theory that he said, “I have always been slightly
suspicious of the theory of evolution because of its ability to account for any
property of living beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have
therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or
so fit in with Darwin’s theory. I do not think that they do. To my mind, the
theory does not stand up at all” (H.S. Lipson, “A Physicist Looks at
Evolution,” Physics Bulletin, 1980, p. 138).

What would happen to an animal that grows a longer neck? To survive, it would
also have to simultaneously develop stronger bronchial arches, greater
musculature and a bigger heart or else it would be a disadvantage to have a
longer neck—and probably lethal.

As Francis Hitching says, “Looking at the lifestyle of giraffes, it is hard to see

that the traditional Darwinian selection pressures of competition for survival in
conditions of overcrowding, and predation by other species, have very much to
do with their extraordinary shape . . . The need to survive by reaching ever
higher for food is, like so many Darwinian explanations of its kind, little more
than a post hoc speculation” ( The Neck of the Giraffe, 1982, pp. 178-179).

Charles Darwin presented in his book, The Origin of Species, what he thought
were numerous examples from the animal world to support his theory of
evolution. But do they? Let’s examine some other supposed proofs and see how
well they have fared some 150 years later.

Pigeon breeding: artificial versus natural selection

In the beginning of The Origin of Species , Darwin stressed the importance he

attributed to domestic breeding as a proof from analogy for his theory.

“At the commencement of my observations,” he notes, “it seemed to me

probable that a careful study of domesticated animals and of cultivated plants
would offer the best chance of making out this obscure problem [of how
evolution works]. Nor have I been disappointed; in this and in all the other
perplexing cases I have invariably found that our knowledge, imperfect though
it may be, of variation under domestication, afford the best and safest clue”
(1958, p. 29, emphasis added throughout).

Darwin himself bred pigeons and was impressed with all the varieties that
domestic breeders could develop. He explained in the first chapters of his book
how pigeons could be bred to have a large variety of tails, beaks and colors. He
then proposed that if breeders, using artificial selection, could come up with
such great changes in such a short time, how much more could nature, using
natural selection and eons of time, produce wholesale changes in plants and

He admitted it was only a hunch, for he had no direct evidence. Yet from this
limited evidence of variation within species (today called micro evolution) he
went on to extrapolate complex changes that theoretically could lead to the
formation of new species ( macro evolution).

Darwin said this was possible because he accepted the erroneous theory of the
blending of characteristics of different species. He thought that given enough
time, a virtually infinite variety of completely different species could arise.

This was one of Darwin’s greatest blunders—supposing life had an almost

infinite capacity for change when submitted to strong environmental and
reproductive pressures. We today understand that variety exists, but it is limited.

This is what Michael Behe, professor of biochemistry at Pennsylvania’s Lehigh

University, calls “the edge of evolution.” Animals and plants can “evolve” or
vary up to their “genetic” edge, beyond which no more true variation is possible
because “genetic” “walls” prevent further adaptation.

Behe now says in his new book, The Edge of Evolution (2007), that science can
actually determine mathematically exactly where that “genetic” borderline
exists. This is another devastating blow to Darwinian evolution.

Darwin lost his gamble that nearly an infinite variety of possibilities exist
among species and that quite different kinds of plant and animals could arise out
of a common ancestor.

Darwin’s finches fail the test

One of the famous examples of evolution is that of the finches Darwin collected
when he visited the Galapagos Islands in 1835. In his honor, these Galapagos
birds are now called ” Darwin’s finches.”

Back in England, as he and others examined these specimens, they noticed

slight variations in their sizes and beaks. He briefly speculated in a later edition
of The Origin of Species how natural selection could modify the beak and body
sizes of these birds and mused that, given enough time, such changes could
eventually transform them into different birds altogether.

“It was ten years since he had visited the Galapagos,” biographers Adrian
Desmond and James Moore note, “and he was still reconceptualizing the
islands. By now he had had ample time to reinterpret the fauna in the light of
John Gould’s work on the birds and his own theory . . .

“But finches were still a minor part of his evolutionary proof. Admittedly he
now illustrated the various types, showing their range of beaks. ‘Seeing this
gradation and diversity of structure in one small, intimately related group of
birds,’ he hinted, ‘one might really fancy that from an original paucity of birds
in this archipelago, one species had been taken and modified for different ends.’
It was a broad clue, and as much as he would ever say on finch evolution” (
Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist, 1991, pp. 327-328).

Although he did not emphasize this evidence about the finches in his theory of
evolution, in the 20th century his followers would present it as one of the major
proofs of Darwinism.

In the 1970s, biologists Peter and Rosemary Grant conducted studies on the
beak sizes of the finches in the Galapagos. They focused primarily on one
particular island, Daphne Major, and noticed that when a severe drought took
place from 1976 to 1977, most of the finches died. But those that survived were

the ones with larger beaks and bodies. They could consume the large, tough
fruits that are virtually impossible for smaller-beaked birds to eat.

The textbook Biology by John Kimball notes: “Here, then was natural selection
at work. But did it produce evolution? The answer turned out to be yes. As the
population of G. fortis [the finch species] recovered after the rains returned, the
average body size and beak depth of their offspring was greater than before
(an increase of 4–5% for beak depth). The bell-shaped curve had been shifted to
the right—[evidence of] directional selection” (updated 2006 online edition).

Yet this textbook, as many others, fails to mention that during the next decade
of average rainfall, the beak sizes returned to normal! There was no directional
selection in the long run. Moreover, the change in beak sizes had been
infinitesimal—on average, less than a millimeter! Further, finches with beaks in
that size range existed on the island both before and after the drought, so where
is the evolutionary change?

The scientific revolution began with the Jesuits claiming the world and
------------------- [[

universe are billions of years old - the pagan old earth - when the Bible says
God created the earth heavens and everything 6000 years ago. = controlled
oppositions .

Founding of the Jesuits

"After months of dispute?, a congregation of cardinals reported favorably upon

the Constitution presented, and Paul III confirmed the order through the bull
Regimini militantis ecclesiae ("To the Government of the Church Militant"), on
September 27, 1540, but limited the number of its members to sixty. This is the
founding document of the Jesuits as an official Catholic religious order."

"Membership limitation was removed through the bull Injunctum nobis March
14, 1543. Ignatius was chosen as the first superior-general. He sent his
companions as missionaries around Europe to create schools, colleges, and

The Scientific Revolution

"The majority of scholars date the beginning of the Scientific Revolution to the
publication of two epochal scientific works in 1543: Nicolaus Copernicus's De
revolutionibus orbium coelestium ( On the Revolutions of the Heavenly
Spheres) and Andreas Vesalius's De humani corporis fabrica (On the Fabric of
the Human body)."

"Galileo played a major role in the Scientific Revolution. His achievements

include improvements? to the telescope and consequent astronomical
observations, and support for Copernicanism."

Heliocentrism, like 'big-bang' and evolution theory, is an

ancient Babylonian belief predating the Scientific Revolution. Copernicus
and Galileo fit the profile of Jesuits.

The Scientific Revolution and the Jesuit's Counter-Reformation are one and
the same .

In 321 AD a decree from Emperor Constantine banned commandment keeping

early biblical Christianity. Only the Roman Church with its sun worship was
allowed. All others were persecuted as "Judaizers" and "heretics".

“On the venerable Day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in
cities rest, and let all workshops be closed.” (Codex Justinianus, lib. 3)

These dark ages of persecution and banning of Christian scripture continued

with few exceptions until 1517 when Martin Luther translated the Bible into the
German language. This would develop into the Protestant Reformation. Before
the Reformation only the Church priests were permitted to possess the Bible.
Luther had obtained copies of Bible manuscripts from Byzantine that
contradicted the Latin version. These preserved Greek Byzantine manuscripts
would be translated into the English language King James Bible.

Before the Protestant Reformation , the Inquisition was ran by the

Dominicans. In response to the Reformation the Jesuits were formed by some
military knights who served during the Crusades. = controlled oppositions.
The Jesuits' Counter-Reformation uses education. Specifically, Jesuit education
attacks the Bible that caused the Protestant Reformation.

The velocity from earth rotating would cause objects to weigh less at the
equator than towards the poles due to centrifugal force. Fuel and travel time
would be less in one direction than the other when travelling east and west.
The earth does not move.

Hundreds of experiments have failed to detect even a smidgen of the purported

67,000 mph translational and 1000 mph rotational velocity of the Earth. Not
only can it not be disproved that "the Earth stands forever" and has no velocity;
it cannot be disproved that the Earth is the center of the universe.

Lemaitre started devising his theory to further push evolution, redefining the
way people think.

Claim: Billions of years ago something close to nothing exploded forming

everything in the universe including you and I.

Reply: This enshrined pagan belief is pure dogma. There are many conflicting
and contradicting data not even addressed making the entire theory or belief in
'big bang' impossible.

What we see in the universe is great order , not disorder that come from

The Big Bang Explosion

1. - The Big Bang theory is based on theoretical extremes. It may look good in
math calculations, but it can’t actually happen. A tiny bit of nothing packed so
tightly together that it blew up and produced all the matter in the universe.
Seriously now, this is a fairy tale. It is a bunch of armchair calculations, and
nothing else.
2. - There is not enough antimatter in the universe. This is a big problem for the
theorists. The original Big Bang would have produced equal amounts of
positive matter (matter) and negative matter (antimatter). But only small
amounts of antimatter exist. There should be as much antimatter as matter—if
the Big Bang was true.

"Since matter and antimatter are equivalent in all respects but that of
electromagnetic charge oppositeness, any force [the Big Bang] that would
create one should have to create the other, and the universe should be made of
equal quantities of each. This is a dilemma. Theory tells us there should be
antimatter out there, and observation refuses to back it up." (Isaac Asimov,
Asimov’s New Guide to Science, p. 343) "We are pretty sure from our
observations that the universe today contains matter, but very little if any
antimatter." (Victor Weisskopf, The Origin of the Universe, American Scientist,
71, p. 479)

3. - The antimatter from the Big Bang would have destroyed all the regular
matter. This fact is well-known to physicists. As soon as the two are produced
in the laboratory, they instantly come together and annihilate one another.

Exploding the big bang!

Interview with Dr. John Hartnett in Creation magazine.

Facts vs their interpretation

When we view distant stars that are millions of light-years away from the earth,
many folk, including Christians, have trouble accepting the biblical account that
God created the universe about 6,000 years ago. But believing the Bible right
from the start is not a problem for John, which puts him at odds with his
evolutionary counterparts.

Often they will accuse him of denying reality, ‘look, we can see it—it’s
obvious. But John explains that when looking at the universe, it’s no different to
looking at the fossil record. ‘It’s the interpretation of the evidence’, he says.
‘Sure, distant stars and galaxies might be millions of light-years away, but that
doesn’t mean that it took the light millions of years, by our standards, to get
here. A light-year is a measurement of distance, not time. In other words, it’s
just an expression used to tell us how far away something is—not how long it
took the light to get here.’

Big bang founded on unprovable assumptions

Interestingly, most people think that the big bang has already been worked out,
but they don’t realize that there are differing versions of the big bang model—
and not everyone agrees. By inserting a few unprovable assumptions at your
starting point, you can end up with virtually any model you like. The big bang
assumes that the universe has no center or edge. Not only is this not proven,
some recent research on redshift patterns have badly damaged its credibility by
indicating that our galaxy is at, or near to, the centre of the universe. ‘What I
really find amusing’, he says, ‘is the way people from various other fields of
science often quote the big bang as if it’s set in stone. I don’t wish to sound
unkind, but because they are not experts in this field, many of them have no
idea what the big bang is really all about and misunderstand it.’

In fact, John thinks this is an exciting time to be a Christian, particularly in the

area of cosmology. He thinks that Dr Russell Humphreys’ book Starlight and
Time has broken new ground for creation researchers in this area. ‘What
Humphreys has done’, he says, ‘is show us another parameter of something that
most people view as a constant, and that is time itself. Using Einstein’s Theory
of General Relativity, he has shown ??? how time can vary depending on your
position in space—it affects your viewpoint. Time is slowed by gravitational ??
forces. A clock at sea level has been shown to run more slowly than one on top

of a mountain ??, because the one at sea level is affected by more gravity. This
is an effect known as time dilation, and has been experimentally demonstrated.

While starlight seems to be a problem for the biblical model it is in fact a

measure of distance not time, and can not be used to date the universe. The
biblical account says God created Adam and Eve fully grown. The trees and
animals were all mature, and starlight made visible on the fourth day. But can
we date the event with empirical observations?

According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience

about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and
dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward
rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts
of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain
only 274 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000
years worth of supernovas.

According to astronomers' model the SNR should reach a diameter of about 300
light years after 120,000 years. So if our galaxy was billions of years old, we
should be able to observe many SNRs this size. But if our galaxy is 6,000-
10,000 years old, no SNRs would have had time to reach this size. So the
number of observed SNRs of a particular size is an excellent ??? test of whether
the galaxy is old or young. In fact, the results are consistent with a universe
thousands of years old, but are a puzzle if the universe has existed for billions of

Nikola Tesla’s demise

Rearrange the spelling , we get Lokian Tales - LOKI

Nikola Tesla held a more truthful view when he dealt with science –
meticulously reading and comparing literature as well as concepts. Tesla’s
critique caused great discomfort for the Jesuits, especially against Lemaitre’s

Tesla said: “...the relativity theory, by the way, is much older than its
present proponents. It was advanced over 200 years ago by my illustrious
countryman Ruder [Roger] Bošković, the great philosopher, who, not

withstanding other and multifold obligations, wrote a thousand volumes of

excellent literature on a vast variety of subjects.

Bošković dealt with relativity, including the so-called time-space continuum...”

(Nikola Tesla, 1936 interview)

Tesla was right! The Jesuits were well aware that their tool “Roger Boskovic”
(1711-1787) created the theory of relativity beforehand (Boskovic was a devout
Jesuit). Georges Lemaitre expounds on how he uses the “theory of relativity”
in minor detail for the Big Bang:

“The expansion of the universe is a matter of astronomical facts interpreted by

the theory of relativity, with the help of assumptions as to the homogeneity of
space, without which any theory seems to be impossible.

I shall not discuss the legitimacy of this interpretation, as I do not know any
definite objection made against it and this is not the place; and it is not
necessary to give a new popular version of the leading principles of the theory
of relativity.

I shall rather try to show that the universe must be ?? expanding, or rather that
the most necessary processes of evolution are , contradictory to the view that
space is and has always been static.” (Georges Lemaitre, The Primeval Atom,
page 81)

Tesla rejected Lemaitre's theory on how space could “curve” and create a “big

“To say that in the presence of large bodies , space , becomes curved is
equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to
subscribe to such a view.” (Nikola Tesla, New York Herald Tribune, 11
September 1932)

The 'big bang' theorists had to set aside Newton's Laws on Gravity in favor of
Einstein's Theory on Relativity, just to make their theory work.

Newton's law has been set aside in favor of Einstein's theory of general
relativity. -Wikipedia

Georges Lemaitre directed the “puppet” Einstein. Lemaitre told Einstein his
theory of the “Big Bang,” in which Einstein applauded and said: “This is the
most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever

Another indicator of the age of the earth are base rock granites. Academia
claims granite is an igneous rock ( having solidified from lava or magma.
relating to or involving volcanic or plutonic processes.), from when the earth
was a molten mass billions of years ago. They have no proof of this, it is only a

Granite is not igneous

The earth was never molten to cool down as the uniformitarian evolution theory
claims. Base rock granites cannot be heated to a molten state, re-cooled, and
remain granite; it is reclassified at that point to another mineral having lost its
crystalline inter-mix. For this reason granite cannot be produced in a lab, even
though all types of other minerals can be produced, even something close to

Granite was never molten and is not an igneous rock. It cannot be produced in a
lab. Also interesting, granite has radio halos, properties that scientists say shows
granite was formed almost instantaneously. Published in science journals in
1974, yet to be refuted. (Radiohalos in Radiochronological and Cosmological
Perspective. Gentry, R.V., Science 184, 62, 1974)

Textbooks, science journals, encyclopedias and the controlled media show this
geocolumn and it seems legitimate however , nowhere on earth are fossils found
in such a manner. It is claimed millions and billions of years as though it were
fact, not just a theory or pagan belief. The fossil record is often cited as proof.

The fossil record could only happen with a global flood, around 4500 years

Due to decay and scavengers the only way to get a fossil is with rapid flood or
volcanic sedimentary deposition that has captured every minute detail of even
the most delicate creatures.

These fossils are found globally at geo-layers of the same age (cambrian, ect).
The only way to arrive at our fossil record is a global flood.

Fossils are observed forming in months. Were fossils millions of years old as
claimed , they would have eroded away at given erosion rates. Polystrate
fossils found throughout , conclusively demonstrating the geocolumn is a result
of a single catastrophic event. IF AT ALL THEY ARE FOSSILS , PER SE.

Teilhard wrote many books pushing evolution, and of course, just as Georges
Lemaitre, he kept his religious beliefs, remaining as a Jesuit for his entire life.
These men were not here to bring light to any matters, they simply wanted to

Again, some evolutionists seem to be so desperate to confirm their theory that

they will perhaps unwittingly resort to deception. For example, a booklet
published in 1998 by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences mentions
Darwin’s finches as “a particularly interesting example” of Darwinian
evolution. It explains how the experiments conducted by the Grants and their
associates on the Galapagos finches demonstrated “that a single year of drought
on the islands can drive evolutionary changes in the finches,” and “if droughts
occur about once every 10 years on the islands, a new species of finch might
arise in only about 200 years” ( Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of
Science, p. 10).
As biologist Jonathan Wells points out about this booklet: “Rather than confuse
the reader by mentioning that selection was reversed after the drought,
producing no long-term evolutionary change, the booklet simply omits this
awkward fact. Like a stock promoter who claims a stock might double in value
in twenty years because it increased 5 percent in 1998, but doesn’t mention that
it decreased 5 percent in 1999, the booklet misleads the public by concealing a
crucial part of the evidence.

“It makes one wonder how much evidence there really is for Darwin’s
theory. As Berkeley law professor and Darwin critic Phillip E. Johnson wrote
in the Wall Street Journal in 1999, ‘When our leading scientists have to resort to

the sort of distortion that would land a stock promoter in jail, you know they are
in trouble’ ” ( Icons of Evolution, 2000, p. 175).

Archaeopteryx—the missing link that wasn’t

Shortly after Darwin’s The Origin of Species came out in 1859, a spectacular
fossil was found that at first glance seemed to be a transitional species, or a
missing link, between reptiles and birds. Discovered in Germany in 1861, it was
called Archaeopteryx, meaning “ancient wing.” It had wings and feathers, but it
also had teeth, unlike modern birds, a lizard-like tail and claws on its wings.
Several more specimens were found during the last century.

Darwin added it to his “proofs” of evolution in a later edition of The Origin of

Species. He commented: “Even the wide interval between birds and reptiles has
been shown by the naturalist [Thomas Huxley] to be partially bridged over in
the most unexpected manner, on the one hand, by the ostrich and extinct
Archeopteryx, and on the other hand, by the Compsognathus, one of the
Dinosaurians” (1872 edition, p. 325).

Noted Harvard evolutionist Ernst Mayr called Archaeopteryx “the almost

perfect link between reptiles and birds” ( The Growth of Biological Thought,
1982, p. 430).

Yet in the last 25 years this supposed proof of evolution has been quietly
demoted. On further examination, scientists now classify it not as a transitional
species but as an extinct bird. Ornithologist Alan Feduccia, an expert on
Archaeopteryx, stated: “Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into
an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird.
And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that” (quoted by Virginia
Morell, “Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms,” Science, Feb. 5,
1993, pp. 764-765).
Professor Feduccia went on to predict that the dinosaur-bird theory would
become “the greatest embarrassment of paleontology in the 20th century”
(quoted by Pat Shipman, “Birds Do It . . . Did Dinosaurs?” New Scientist, Feb.
1, 1997, p. 28).

Why the drastic change of mind? It was due to the evidence , that now points to
the similarity of Archaeopteryx with ancient ? and modern birds and not with

Fossils of ancient ? birds have been found to have teeth like Archaeopteryx —
very different from the reptilian types. Some modern birds have claws on their
wings, such as the hoatzin of South America and the turaco and the ostrich from

Africa. Some modern bird embryos have more tail vertebrae than
Archaeopteryx, and the swan’s tail structure is strikingly similar. Also, it has
now been shown ? that Archaeopteryx was fully feathered, had no reptilian
scales, could fly and had hollow bird bones.

Jonathan Wells again points out, “The world’s most beautiful fossil, the
specimen Ernst Mayr called ‘the almost perfect link between reptiles and birds,’
has been quietly shelved, and the search for missing links continues as though
Archaeopteryx had never been found” (p. 135).

The strange saga of the peppered moth

An example of “evidence” for evolution mentioned , about decades ago in high

school biology is still being used today—even though it has long been

Back then I was taught about peppered moths in Britain changing their color
from light to dark due to industrial pollution. This, the textbook asserted,
showed how natural selection can change a species into another type, and
eminent scientists have emphasized the importance of this supposed proof of

“We should expect to find the most rapid evolutionary changes in populations
suddenly exposed to new conditions,” declared paleontologist John Maynard
Smith in the 1966 book The Theory of Evolution. “It is therefore natural that
one of the most striking changes which has been observed in a wild population .
. . is the phenomenon of ‘industrial melanism,’ the appearance and spread of
dark forms of a number of species of moths” (p. 137).

Sir Gavin De Beer, writing in the 1974 edition of The Encyclopaedia

Britannica, said, “One of the most striking examples of observable evolution is
the phenomenon known as industrial melanism” (Vol. 7, “Evolution,” p. 14).

Here is a summary from the textbook Biology, by John Kimball (online

version), updated in 2006: “Many species of moths in the British Isles began to
become darker in color in the 19th century. The best-studied example is the
peppered moth, Biston betularia. The moth gets its name from the scattered dark
markings on its wings and body.

“In 1849, a coal-black mutant was found near Manchester, England. Within a
century, this black form had increased to 90% of the population in this region.

“The moth , flies at night and rests by day on tree trunks. In areas far from
industrial activity, the trunks of trees are encrusted with lichens . . . The light
form [of the moth] . . . is practically invisible against this background. In areas
where air pollution is severe, the combination of toxic gases and soot has killed
the lichens and blackened the trunks. Against such a background, the light form
stands out sharply.

“The moth is preyed upon by birds that pluck it from its resting place by day. In
polluted woods, the dark form has a much better chance of surviving
undetected. When the English geneticist H.B.D. Kettlewell . . . released moths
of both types in the woods, he observed that birds did, indeed, eat a much higher
fraction of the light moths he released than of the dark.

“Since pollution abatement programs were put in place after World War II, the
light form has been making a comeback in the Liverpool and Manchester

And now, the rest of the story

Under scrutiny, this so-called “proof” of the evolution of the peppered moth
reveals , even supposedly careful and impartial scientists cannot be trusted to
leave their bias aside when it comes to teaching Darwinian evolution.

Further investigation on the peppered moth phenomenon has shown that

Kettlewell’s classic experiments with these moths are deeply flawed. Here is
what Dr. Jerry Coyne, professor of evolutionary biology at the University of
Chicago, candidly explained in a prestigious British scientific journal:

“From time to time, evolutionists re-examine a classic experimental study and

find, to their horror, that it is flawed or downright wrong … The prize horse in
our stable of examples has been the evolution of ‘industrial melanism’ in the
peppered moth, Biston betularia, presented by most teachers and textbooks as
the paradigm of natural selection and evolution occurring within a human

“The re-examination of this tale is the centrepiece of Michael Majerus’s book,

Melanism: Evolution in Action. Depressingly, Majerus shows that this classic
example is in bad shape, and, while not yet ready for the glue factory, needs
serious attention . . . Majerus notes that the most serious problem is that B.
betularia probably does not rest on tree trunks—exactly two moths have been
seen in such a position in more than 40 years of intensive search. ( A CLEAR

“The natural resting spots are, in fact, a mystery. This alone invalidates
Kettlewell’s release-recapture experiments, as moths were released by placing
them directly onto tree trunks, where they are highly visible to bird predators.
(Kettlewell also released his moths during the day, while they normally choose
resting places at night.)

“The story is further eroded by noting that the resurgence of typica [light-
colored moths] occurred well before lichens recolonized the polluted trees, and
that a parallel increase and decrease of the melanic form also occurred in
industrial areas of the United States, where there was no change in the
abundance of the lichens that supposedly play such an important role.

“Finally, the results of Kettlewell’s behavioural experiments were not

replicated in later studies: moths have no tendency to choose matching
backgrounds. Majerus finds many other flaws in the work, but they are too
numerous to list here.

“Majerus concludes, reasonably, that all we can deduce from this story is that it
is a case of rapid evolution, probably involving pollution and bird predation.
Better replace ‘probably’ with ‘perhaps.’ B. betularia shows the footprint of
natural selection, but we have not yet seen the feet.

“Majerus finds some solace in his analysis, claiming that the true story is likely
to be more complex and therefore more interesting, but one senses that he is
making a virtue of necessity. My own reaction resembles the dismay attending
my discovery, at the age of six, that it was my father and not Santa who brought
the presents on Christmas Eve” (Nature, Nov. 5, 1998, pp. 35-36).

“Proofs” are full of holes

What conclusions can we draw about the supposed evolution of peppered
• Both specimens of moths already existed at the time of the experiments—no
new species appeared in response to changes in the environment.
• Only the population ratio of the dark and light moths changed over the 19th
and 20th centuries due to a number of conditions, not all well understood. There
was no new creation or an evolution to a new species.
• The photographs of moths on tree trunks were staged according to
researchers’ inaccurate assumptions, and further investigation showed these
moths do not normally perch on trunks.
• The increase of the dark moths and the decrease of the light moths were likely
due to various environmental factors, including bird predation, but these
examples also show how resilient creatures are when faced with changing

• In the beginning of the 20th century, the dark moths predominated perhaps due
in part to the darkening of the environment through industrial pollution. When
the environment was cleaned up, the lighter moths became the dominant type.
Yet there was no change in color or structure of the moths—both had existed
before industrial contamination began and both existed after.

Regrettably, in their desperation for presenting evidence of their molecule-to-

man theory of evolution—which effectively removes from the scene the Creator
—many scientists writing biology books or presenting information on science
channels continue to promulgate these myths of evolution to millions of
unsuspecting people.

“The great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century”

Various other supposed “proofs” of evolution have fallen by the wayside:

Haeckel’s famous drawings of embryos turned out to be false representations;
progressions of fossils demonstrating horse, whale and human evolution have
been discredited.

As the agnostic geneticist Michael Denton concluded after thoroughly going

over Darwin’s supposed evidence of evolution: “One might have expected that
a theory of such cardinal importance, a theory that literally changed the world,
would have been something more than metaphysics, something more than a
myth. Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less
than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century” ( Evolution: A
Theory in Crisis, 1985, p. 358).

Don’t be fooled by all the smoke and mirrors and sleight of hand by those who
want to pawn off Darwinian evolution as a fact—for there is far more at stake
than just a scientific theory. It comes down to believing in the creation as a
carefully designed product or , this humanistic alternative based on an
undirected process of random mutation and natural selection—a theory riddled
with great holes that has caused so much unbelief and grief.

Almost 150 years have passed since the publication of Charles Darwin's The
Origin of Species launched a theological, philosophical and scientific
revolution. Nearly everyone knows about the theory of evolution, but few
know the man and motives behind it.

Much has been written about the man, but two books ( by pro—evolution
authors) have exhaustively covered his life— Darwin: The Life of a Tormented
Evolutionist (1992) by Adrian Desmond and James Moore, and the two—
volume set Charles Darwin: Voyaging (1995) and Charles Darwin: The Power

of Place (2002) by Harvard professor Janet Browne. Along with these two
biographies are Darwin’s own autobiography and what was written by
Darwin’s son, Francis.

On the other side of the ledger, books critical of Darwin and his theory include
the masterly exposition , Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985) by biochemist
and physician Michael Denton and , Darwin on Trial (1991) by University of
California law professor Phillip Johnson, to name a few.

Darwin’s early life

Many today assume Darwin was the originator of the idea of evolution, but the
concept had actually been around as early as Greek times. Darwin’s
achievement was proposing a mechanism for evolution to work—natural

Two of the most influential people in Darwin’s early life and thoughts were his
father, Robert – FREEMASON , and, indirectly, his famous grandfather
Erasmus – FREEMASON . Although Erasmus died before Charles was born,
Charles’ father made sure Charles was familiar with his grandfather’s writings
on evolution.

Erasmus Darwin wrote a book, Zoonomia, that included many evolutionary

concepts Charles would later adopt. Erasmus had been a successful physician,
as was his son, Robert, and both were decidedly anti—Christian—although
careful to disguise their ideas in public. “The name of Darwin,” write Desmond
and Moore, “was already associated with subversive atheism. Dr Robert was
himself a closet freethinker …” (p. 12).

“I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if
so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe,
and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all of my best friends,
will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine” (Online
edition). -- Charles Darwin.

Darwin ‘s mother tragically died when he was 8 years old, and he followed
the loose and freethinking ways of his father and deceased grandfather. He
wrote in his autobiography, “I may here also confess that as a little boy I was
much given to inventing deliberate falsehoods, and this was always done for
the sake of causing excitement” . WE SEE ,ONE OR BOTH PARENTS

“He was an attention—seeker; he wanted praise … ,” Desmond and Moore add.

“He would still do anything at school ‘for the pure pleasure of exciting attention
& surprise,’ and his cultivated ‘lies’. . . gave [him] pleasure, like a tragedy.’ He
told tall tales about natural history . . . Once he invented an elaborate story
designed to show how fond he was of telling the truth. It was a boy’s way of
manipulating the world” (p. 13).

“He often told lies about seeing rare birds,” concurs Janet Browne. “The lies
were not connected to any sense of shame . . . More accurately, they mirrored a
search for attention. He wanted to be admired . . . Lies—and the thrills derived
from lies—were for him indistinguishable from the delights of natural history” (
Charles Darwin: Voyaging, pp. 13—14). PATHOLOGICAL LIAR ??

As we will see, these tendencies for clever but unfounded tales and the
fondness for hiding secrets would, regrettably, arise later in his adult life. As
one biographer notes, “There will always be an ineluctable mystery
surrounding the origin of the theory of natural selection, just as there will
always be a shadowy web surrounding the real Charles Darwin” (Loren
Eiseley, Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X, 1979, p. 93).

Darwin was not a very good student at school. He quit medical school, only to
be rescued by his wealthy father and sent to Cambridge in the hope he would
make something of himself.

He confessed in his autobiography: “When I left the school I was for my age
neither high nor low in it; and I believe that I was considered by all my masters
and by my father as a very ordinary boy, rather below the common standard in
intellect. To my deep mortification my father once said to me, ‘You care for
nothing but shooting, dogs, and rat—catching, and you will be a disgrace to
yourself and all your family.’”


Darwin's On the Origin of the Species was originally released in 1859, and by
1872, the sixth and last edition was published, becoming the defining text for
evolutionists. This controversial work has become the foundation of modern
textbooks for scientific studies in origins, though Darwin himself expressed
deep doubts about his own speculations and suppositions.
Secrets of the Sixth Edition by Randall Hedtke exposes the critical flaws of this
landmark book by using Darwin's own words against him.

 Provides an examination of Darwin's research and the faulty basis of his

scientific writings.
 Filled with extensive documentation looking at the fatal flaws in Darwin's
 Addresses strategies for possible changes to curriculum to address
weaknesses ?? ( ACTUALLY FRAUDULANT INTENTION ) in the
evolutionary hypothesis.

Take an insightful look at Darwin's work and its inaccuracies from a fresh and
logical perspective. You will discover the often ignored reasoning behind his
own abandonment of some of the core mechanisms of evolution later in his
life, though they remain unchallenged pillars of unquestioning science today.

In this work, Richard Weikart explains the revolutionary impact Darwinism had
on ethics and morality. He demonstrates that many leading Darwinian
biologists and social thinkers in Germany believed that Darwinism overturned
traditional Judeo-Christian and Enlightenment ethics, especially the view that
human life is sacred. Many of these thinkers supported moral relativism, yet
simultaneously exalted evolutionary 'fitness' (especially intelligence and health)
to the highest arbiter of morality. Darwinism played a key role in the rise not
only of eugenics, but also euthanasia, infanticide, abortion and racial
extermination. This was especially important in Germany, since Hitler built his
view of ethics on Darwinian principles, not on nihilism.

In fact, the bridge between computers and evolution goes back even farther,
to Charles Babbage, whose 1834 conception of the "Difference Engine" is ... on
the lawn, along with the neurobiologist Horace Barlow (a direct descendant
of Darwin, by the way); standing behind are Ross Ashby, Donald Mac Kay,
and other major ...
part-one/ ??

Around the world on the Beagle

Darwin actually completed his theology degree and for a while embraced
Scripture, but before he could find a job in the clergy he was offered a berth on
the British vessel HMS Beagle, as the captain’s dining companion. He was not
the naturalist on board, a role given to the ship’s surgeon. Those five years on a
trip around the world would radically change his life and beliefs.

"Civilization, a Form of Slavery," said Darwin Grandson

Charles Lyell’s books on geology arguing the earth was millions of years old.
-- In correspondence with Dante scholar and botanist Charles Lyell (father of the geologist)
he writes that “the entire poem of Dante, all the lyrics of Petrarca, almost all the works of
Boccaccio, and, in fine, all the old writings of that class, are nothing else than downright
doctrine and practice of the Freemasons, in the strictest

Held at the Freemason's Hall (or Freemason's Tavern), it included (to name a very few)
William Rowan Hamilton, Roderick Murchison, Charles Lyell, William Sommerville, and
Charles Darwin. Even Michael Faraday, who by his own admission almost never attended
public events, made a rare exception in this case.

In the company of the Reverend Professor William Buckland, D.D., F.R.S.,

Charles Lyell made a geological · tour of Scotland. 1824 .... compass of the
Free Mason, and in the centre, in large and deep Arable ..... evidence of
Freemasonry dating to 1606 (what he had found along that coast was the
gravestone of a white.

He was nevertheless encouraged to on the advice of Sir Charles Lyell when he saw that
another man, Alfred Russell Wallace, was about to publish a theory that ... Darwin was
largely helped in his success by none other than Thomas Henry Huxley
(another Freemason), who had prepared the public with a very favorable ...

Darwin would have been aware of these views and of those of his father, described as
atheist in some accounts and a freemason in others. ... Moreover, The Captain of HMS
Beagle, FitzRoy, presented Darwin with the first volume of the Principles of Geology (1830)
by Charles Lyell which expanded on the theme that the ...

He allegedly became a Freemason in 1809. Rescued by a British admiral, G. Rossetti was

taken to Malta and in 1824 to Britain. His status as ... G. Rossetti was encouraged by one of
his patrons,Charles Lyell, godfather ofD. G. Rossetti and father of the famous geologist,
who was strongly interested in Looking for the Real ...

Father-in-law of Sir Charles Lyell, 1st. Bt, FRS [2 Feb 1826] (14 ...