Contents Menu


Part 2

Let us investigate what Isaak wrote to see where truth leaves off and bias begins.

Mark Isaaks'

Amazing Story of the Evolution
of the
Bombardier Beetle in 15 Steps



This is a genuine Darwin Evolutionary Tale made up by

Hurry Hurry! Step right up ladies and gentlemen to the travelling sideshow! You will see sites that will enthrall you, you will listen to stories that will astound you, you will witness daring feats of verbal sophistry that will bend the very laws of nature and will leave you speechless (step aside kid, your crowding me, no we don't have any transitional fossils), and it's all here for your viewing, and all that you need is your computer screen and an internet connection.
And now, for our first attraction, the fantastic, the incredible, the world famous, one-and-only story of HOW THE BOMBARDIER BEETLE GOT HIS SCENT!

(This story is based on the actual observations of Mark Isaak. Well, he really didn't observe any of this, and admitted that he made it all up, however it has been referred to by many evolutionists at as genuine evidence that evolution has occurred)

i) First of all, Isaak notes that certain epidermal cells produce quinones for tanning the cuticle. True enough, although Isaak skips over how these quinones developed through evolutionary processes, or how evolution produced these complex chemicals in the right place for the correct function, this is merely assumed. He goes on from here to a highly speculative journey of assumptions, mixing facts with storytelling;

 ii) He then notes that some of the excess quinones are used as protection by various arthropods such as beetles and millipedes. Still true, but no evidence on how they evolved. Now we get into the really interesting stuff, and it all just happened, without any intelligent design:

iii) then invaginations (folds in the epidermis) conveniently develop at just the right place on the body to hold more quinones;

iv) then muscles rearrange themselves so they can help the invaginations dispel quinones;

v) two invaginations turn into reservoirs while the others disappear; vi) some predators have "evolved" defenses against quinones so brand new chemicals appear for the beetles defense, one of which is hydroquinone;

vii) next more cells develop to produce more hydroquinone; channels neatly develop between the cells allowing the hydroquinone to reach the reservoir;

viii) the channels become ducts "specialised for transporting the chemicals!" , then "secretory cells withdraw from the surface, ultimately becoming a separate organ" !! (all by chance evolution-no room for design in Isaak's universe). Although certain beetles do have this feature, the question is not whether they exist, but how this amazing specialised organ came to be by blind evolutionary processes, and Isaak does plenty of assuming for the readers benefit;

ix) then, without any design, mind you, muscles (again) adapt to close off the reservoir and prevent chemicals from leaking when not in use; 

x) next hydrogen peroxide mixes with hydroquinones, the reaction producing a mixture of quinones and hydroquinones for defense;

xi) Then, Isaak reasons that since catalases exist in most cells, and peroxidases are common in plants and animals, "Cells secreting a small amount of catalases and peroxides appear along the output passage of the reservoir"(!) outside of the valve, thus ensuring more quinones in secretions used for defense, with these chemicals conveniently concentrated in just the right location (of which Isaak totally fails to explain why this should happen),

xii) more catalases and peroxidases are produced, with a warmer, more volatile reaction,

xiii) the walls of the output passage become strong enough to withstand the heat and pressure generated by the reaction;

xiv) More peroxidases and catalases are produced and the walls of the output passage" shape into a reaction chamber";

xv) and finally, remarkably, the apex of the abdomen of the beetle lengthens and becomes pliant so that the beetle can aim the discharge in different directions!

Isaak is nothing if not cunning in his presentations, much like his predecessor Darwin. Thus when creationists have pointed out the utter absurdity of all of the above events happening as he has described them by blind chance, or for that matter any evolutionist event ever happening at all, he accuses the creationists of misrepresenting evolution, or at least of misrepresenting the evolutionists definition of evolution.

He says that they (the creationists) are wrong in stating that evolution, according to the evolutionists, is supposed to proceed by mere chance. Yet Isaak himself, after making that accusation, barely half a paragraph later states that chance is the main ingredient in forming new genetic material, again, according to the evolutionists:  "Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations."
(Mark Isaak:

Granted, Isaak claims that natural selection plays a part in sorting out variations supposedly produced by chance, but he has to admit that natural selection itself cannot create anything new. Natural selection is not a factor in originating anything, as will be more fully shown in the next chapter, The Origin of Evolution.
Thus, even by Isaak's own words, chance alone, through mutations, produces all of the new material by which evolution is supposed to proceed with.

Thus all of the marvelous innovations in the story above of the Bombardier Beetle, Isaak would have you believe, by his very own admission, came about by chance, blind, evolutionary processes! No room for design here.

In the second FAQ, Isaak also makes the claim that has produced observed evidence of speciation, as well as transitional fossils providing proof that evolution has occurred. I would refer the reader to Chapter Six of The Darwin Papers, where both of these ludicrous claims are dealt with.

Isaak is generally so far out of the ballpark with his illustrations and arguments that it should embarrass to still keep him posted at their site, were it not for the fact that his material is actually representative of most of the arguments used by the rest of the evolutionists there as well.

Fred Williams has mathematically demonstrated the impossibility of chance mutations' role in creating a new species, a new organ, a new anything, thus putting the nail in the coffin of Isaak's arguments.

Now according to Isaac, you have some organism going about its daily business when suddenly ZAP!  A stray cosmic ray, or a mistake in cell reproduction produces a beneficial mutation. Isaac states that "chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable". But mutations are mistakes! By their very nature, and by Isaak's definition they are not the product of any intelligent design. They are accidents! And a cell is amazingly complicated, more complicated than the largest computer ever built. 

A cell has more structured, detailed information than a library of 100,000 books with each book having 1,000 pages. A single mutation to any of this, to one word in one page of this immense library could be, and in most cases is, deadly.

Isaak has tried to give natural selection some grand role in sorting out these wonderful beneficial mutations that chance has supposedly produced. As noted, natural selection is only a sorting process, it contributes nothing towards a new genome. Isaak makes plenty of assumptions, such as "When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species."

This is an unqualified statement, backed up by no science, no data whatsoever. He has used the typical Darwinian technique of extrapolation, using variations within a species kind, and suggesting that these variations can go on and on until you have an entirely different "kind" of organism.

By Isaak's reasoning, you could take a hammer to your computer and eventually come up with a better computer, or an improved hard drive. Or you could drive an automobile over a cliff and come up with a newer model.

Essentially, there are three possibilities that can occur when a mutation happens: The mutation can be beneficial (rarely if ever seen in nature); the mutation can be neutral; or the mutation can be harmful (by far the most common effect of mutation, by some estimates this comprises 99.9% of all mutations, caused by damage from nuclear radiation, overexposure to the sun, toxic chemical effects on the cells, etc).

Thus the chance for a single mutation occurring that would be beneficial are less than 50/50, less than that of tossing a coin. At best, out of the three possibilities listed above it only has a 33% chance of being beneficial. Actually it really has much less of a chance than that, because the beneficial mutation would have to be of a particular type for a particular genome in a particular organism in a particular environment to improve the organisms' genetic code and improve the survival value. In other words, out of the billions of possibilities that could occur, it would have to be a very specific mutation. It would be like hitting the lottery, only a lottery that is composed of billions of possibilities.

Now, here's the problem. For each of the steps listed above by Isaak, there would have to be numerous biochemical sub steps; smaller, extremely intricate chemical changes in the genetic code for the main steps to happen. And each time you take a further step the odds against the right genetic mutation occurring after that get smaller and smaller. In Isaak's case the mathematical odds against it are zero, even given hundreds of millions of years for this to have happened, and he does not have that much time either.

Mutations do not occur at a fast enough rate to produce beneficial changes. Remember, the odds are that over time you would have just as many bad mutations as good ones, causing a reversal to any of the steps listed above, along with the numerous unmentioned biochemical sub steps. In fact, you would have more, because a "good" mutation has to be a specific mutation out of numberless possibilities most of which would be fatal, to have any benefit. It would be like a blind man hiking through the continent of North America in search of a particular key laying somewhere on the ground, and upon finding that key, out of hundreds of thousands of doors finding the right door to insert the key in. In fact, according to Isaak, it is even worse, because without intelligent design the blind man would not be "searching" for the key, he would just be wandering around and "happen" upon it, and then after picking it up he would just "happen" to fit it into the right slot in the right door. And if he picked up the wrong key, or inserted it into the wrong door, it would spell instant doom. Thus you would eventually, sooner rather than later, have a deadly mutation that would throw the whole thing out of whack and destroy the species.

Thus over time the negative mutations would swamp the beneficial ones, causing an extinction event, not a speciation event, because it only takes one negative mutation to cause the whole thing to stop; not only to halt it temporarily, but to end it forever, to destroy the species entire. Even given a 50/50 chance, there would have to be so many beneficial mutations occurring in a row, without any negative ones, that it would be like tossing a coin and coming up heads 100,000 times in a row! And this would never happen in nature. This is a mathematical impossibility, even with natural selection saving the beneficial ones.

And given more time, the scene only gets worse, since the probability of negative mutations occurring are actually greater than positive mutations and would increase over time, this would mean that the scenario described above by Isaak would happen only in your dreams.

Isaak also makes the same simplistic assumptions regarding the origin of life that he made with the Bombardier Beetle: "Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties."

So far what he has said is true, however he uses this to launch an entirely false premise, unproven in the natural world, and in fact, statistically impossible. "In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators."

This is a leap of faith of incredible proportions. It is also false. NONE of this has ever been observed in nature, it is entirely based on Isaak's own evolutionary belief system, not on any hard science at all [even Rebek's artificially produced replicating molecule in a laboratory setting was created in conditions that would never be found in nature, where the presence of water, which is necessary for any life to flourish, would destroy the reaction, and the gap between what Rebek produced and the smallest genetic code for the simplest organism, Mycoplasma genitalium is of such gigantic proportions that it would be impossible to bridge naturally]. 

Jonathan Sarfati has noted: "Chemicals obey the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and do not arrange themselves into self-sustaining metabolic pathways. Living cells have molecular machinery to channel the chemistry in the right direction and amounts."

Thus you need to have the living cell FIRST in order to produce a sufficiency of these complex carbon based molecules necessary to sustain life.

To return to the Bombardier Beetle, after all is said and done, we find out that Isaak is making the whole thing up! He is simply storytelling and he admits as much. In fact, according to Isaak, it could have happened any one of a number of ways, take your choice! "The scenario above is hypothetical; the actual evolution of the bombardier beetles probably did not happen exactly like that."

In fact, he actually admits that "nature is not constrained by any persons lack of imagination."

Thus Isaak actually hasn't got the foggiest notion of how the bombardier beetle developed his marvelous defensive mechanism, and yet after spinning this fantasy he uses this as evidence for evolution! "The scenario does show, however, that the evolution of a complex structure is far from impossible."

Well, if your going to make up your own stories out of whole cloth and then use that as proof, I suppose not! Anything could be possible with this type of logic. The entire story told above is 90% speculation, cleverly woven together with a few observations of natural phenomena thrown in to lend it the look of scientific respectability!

Then, in a remarkable display of the pot calling the kettle black, Isaak accuses the creationists of hubris! He does state though that since some of the intermediate stages do exist in living populations of beetles, "No improbable events are needed."

Isaak calls this evolution. I think that a better word for it (without intelligent design involved, that is) might be Alakazam, or Bibbidy Bobbidy Boo!

Yet these Uncle Remus "Just So" stories are used by evolutionists to string together their scenarios of "how the leopard got his spots" to regale their audiences, while they heap scorn on creationists who would dare to presume that some of these marvels of nature show evidence of design! Incredible.

To bolster his argument for evolution, Isaak smoothly assures us "For example, Darwin explained how, under his theory, a few photosensitive cells might evolve gradually into eyes."

In point of fact, Darwin did anything but explain how a few photosensitive cells evolved into eyes. The key word here is might, and even here, in his speculative ramblings, Darwin came nowhere near to explaining in any detail the intricate biochemical steps as to how such a complex and wonderful organ developed. He simply indulged in a wandering and often obtuse game of speculation as to how it might have occurred.

Darwin actually admitted that the eye developing by chance evolutionary processes was highly improbable: "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." (Darwin, Origin of Species, Chapter VI: Organs of Extreme Perfection)

One might think, as I did at an earlier point in my study of Darwin, that here at last we find him in a rare moment of honesty, but alas, such is not the case. Darwin was still incapable of a frank admission of the deficiency of his theory; he went on to defend his hypothesis with an attempt to compare the lack of evidence for the evolution of the eye with the incredible argument that since the sun only appears to revolve around the earth, but in fact it is the earth that revolves around the sun, then this somehow would show that what only "seems . . . absurd in the highest degree", the evolution of the eye by natural selection, actually has some degree of credibility"

 Using this type of fantastic logic, one could go on to claim that the existence of werewolves only "seems . . .absurd to the highest degree", since one only has to look at the apparent revolution of the sun around the earth, when in fact it is the earth that revolves around the sun, for absolute proof that werewolves exist! To take an obvious fact of science, and the entire science of celestial mechanics and planetary motion that goes with it, and apply that as evidence for some simplistic, infantile fairy tale supposedly explaining how the eye "evolved" is an affront to the entire realm of valid scientific enquiry, yet these specious arguments are commonly adopted by evolutionists, from Darwin's time up to today.

Isaak then indulges in a meandering, pseudo-philosophical abstract, stating in brief that things are not really what they seem, until at last, fortunately for the reader, he cuts short his attempt at profundity with this little evolutionist nugget: "Finally, remember that the general arguments used here apply to a lot more than bombardier beetles. Creationists have argued for an appearance of design in everything from bacteria cilia to butterfly metamorphosis. Those arguments all share the same fallacies; they are all based on a combination of ignorance combined with a concept of design that is indistinguishable from evolution. If a kind of design incompatible with evolution were found in biology, nobody would be more excited than the professional biologists. As yet we haven't found such a design."

To which I can only respond: "Finally, remember that the concept for design in creation has tremendous importance for the way we view ourselves, our place in the universe, and our destiny. Evolutionists have long argued for the lack of design from the bombardier beetle to the wonderful patterns on the wings of butterflies. Their arguments all have certain logical errors in common; they all spring from a mixture of ignorance and a concept of evolution that is virtually identical with design. Evolutionists have willfully refused to recognize the amazing hand of the Creator from the evidence that stares them in the face in a thousand daily wonders of creation. They have hardened their hearts against the plainly revealed truth, as the Bible predicted men would do in the last days, thus heaping up for themselves a just recompense to reap in due season. 

Peppered Moths

One of the showcases that evolutionists bring out for an example of their theory is the peppered moth of England. The peppered moth was primarily of the white variety for many years, and this is because it blended in with the light colored bark on the trees, thus keeping it safe from predators.

When the industrial revolution took place in England, the soot from the factories covered the bark on the trees, turning the appearance of them dark. After this, most of the white moths were eaten by predators and the dark form became predominant. This was called by evolutionists "industrial melanism," and is paraded in science books as proof that evolution has occurred. In fact, there was merely a shifting around in the proportion of dark to white moths in the existing population, but there was nothing new added, the moth never changed into anything other than a peppered moth, it didn't turn into a different species. The dark colored peppered moths had already existed within the population, natural selection did not produce anything original.

This kind of genetic variation within species is even mentioned in the Bible, where Jacob tended the cattle for his uncle Laban and bred cattle of different colors, so this is nothing new. This merely shows the goodness of the Creator in giving species the ability to vary within their own kind to meet different conditions. "Industrial melanism" is another one of those really neat words, like "punctuated equilibrium" and "parallel evolution" that those clever evolutionists are always thinking up. Amazing. Way back in the Old Testament Jacob was using "Industrial Melanism" and he never even knew it!

How different to Darwin’s chilling conclusion to Chapter eight of his Origin, where he spoke of his “one general law leading to the advancement of all organic beings(mankind included),- namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die," (which he applied to mankind as well in his Descent of Man), are the words of the Prince of Peace, who said: "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth."

So far: Charles Darwin has been heralded as the man who brought to us the theory of evolution. The main ingredient in his theory was natural selection. Despite the grand tributes of praise to Charles Darwin by evolutionists for his great contribution to the realm of science with his "discovery" of natural selection, Charles Darwin did not originate the idea, and he borrowed much of the concept from a creationist scientist, Edward Blyth.

But does natural selection really explain anything about evolution? And is evolution really such a recent idea, or is it merely the reiteration of an ancient pagan ideology thousands of years old?

And was Charles Darwin the first Darwin to come up with the theory of evolution, or was there somebody else in his family tree who thought of it years before Charles Darwin ever wrote of it? Who was this other Darwin whose name was synonymous with the theory of evolution years before Charles Darwin was even born?

We will attempt to find the answer to this when we read about the mysterious Origin of Evolution  in the next issue of The Darwin Papers. 

 1. From The Nebulous Hypothesis: A Study in The Philosophical and Historical Implications of Darwinian Theory © 1996 by James M. Foard, White City, Or. For information on publicationrights or obtaining a manuscript copy of The Nebulous Hypothesis Email or TEL (541) 734-0880

2. A memoir of the late Edward Blyth, Arthur Grote, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Part ll, Vol. 43, xiv, (August 1875), reprinted as Charles Darwin, Edward Blyth, and the Theory of Natural Selection, by Loren Eiseley, published in the Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 103, No.1, February 1959, pp. 94-114.

3. Loren Eiseley, Darwin and the Mysterious X., E.P. Dutton, New York, 1979, pp. 52-53.

4. (ibid, pp. 53-70; 80-83.)

5. (ibid, pp. 88) Dr. Henderson of Brooklyn College investigated this matter at the Cambridge University Library, from which Eiseley obtained some of his information, though Henderson's findings have yet to be published. Darwin's own copy of The Mazazine of Natural History of 1837 has notes taken on Blyth's paper in Darwin's own handwriting.

6. (ibid, pp. 83; 90-91)

7.In Darwin's original introduction to his Origin, he gave absolutely no hint that his ideas were borrowed from others. He wrote: "When on board the H. M. S. Beagle as naturalist, I was much struck with certain facts in the distribution of the organic beings inhabiting South America, and in the geological relations of the present to the past inhabitants of that continent. These facts, as will be seen in the latter chapters of this volume, seemed to throw some light on the origin of species - that mystery of mysteries, as it has been called by one of our greatest philosophers. On my return home, it occurred to me, in 1837, that something might perhaps be made out on this question by patiently accumulation and reflecting on all sorts of facts which could possibly have any bearing on it."

8. Eiseley, pp. 79-80. The oft repeated story of Darwin's inspiration with the theory of evolution while visiting the Galapagos Islands and observing the varieties of finches is nothing more than that, a story, another stretch of historical imagination wound around the legend of Charles Darwin. In truth, he gave short shrift to the finches in his journal, and it was only after his return to England (and after he had read Blyth's writings) that he recalled the finches and then wrote of them. The do not take up an impressive amount of space in his Origin.

It should also be noted that variety within a species does not constitute evidence of evolution of one species changing into another, all of the various types of finches were still finches, and there was no evidence proposed by Darwin of where finches came from either, except from previous finches.

Extrapolating variation within a species to hint that a bird might change into something other than a bird has no foundation in actual evidence, as we shall see in the later chapters of this work. Biblical creationism takes into context variation, thus all of the races of men, with different hair color, skin color, etc. come from an originally created couple. This variation within a species, however, does not constitute evolution, it is merely the existing genetic potential within a created gene pool. With all of the possible variations within humankind, we carry no genes for feathers, or claws, or flippers. Species remain distinct.

9. Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe, pp. 199, Mentor Books, July 1983, Tickner and Fields Publishers.

10. Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe, pp. 199.

11. Janet Browne, Charles Darwin, pp. xiii of the Introduction.

12. Webster's Third New International Dictionary, A. Merriam Webster, Reg. U.S. Pat. Office, Philip babcock Bove, Ph.D., Editor in Chief, G.C. Merriam Co., Publishers, Springfield, Mass., U.S.A. 1976.

13. see equivocate, Miriam Webster's Third Int'l Dictionary, 1976, 1:To use equivocal language especially with intent to deceive, 2:Speak evasively: be willfully misleading, especially with double meanings. Synonym: See lie. Equivocation 3:A fallacy in logical reasoning (14)

14. Webster's Third New International Dictionary, A. Merriam Webster, Reg. U.S. Pat. Office, Philip babcock Bove, Ph.D., Editor in Chief, G.C. Merriam Co., Publishers, Springfield, Mass., U.S.A. 1976.(15)

15. Webster's Third New International Dictionary, A. Merriam Webster, Reg. U.S. Pat. Office, Philip babcock Bove, Ph.D., Editor in Chief, G.C. Merriam Co., Publishers, Springfield, Mass., U.S.A. 1976.

16. Darlington, C.D., Loc. Cit., pp.66.

17. From a Eulogy Grote wrote several years after Blyth's death, found in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, pt. 2, 43: xiv, 1875, 169-183.

18. Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, edited by Francis Darwin, London, 1888, Volume 2, pp. 315-316.

19. Grote, see note 85.

20. Eiseley, Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X., pp. 79-80.

21. Grote, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, pt. 2, 43: xiv, 1875, 169-183.

22. Howells, Mankind, pp.3

23. Howells, Mankind, pp.5

24. (ibid)

25. Letter from Charles Darwin to Joseph Hooker, 13 July, 1856, Darwin Archives, Cambridge University.

26. Edward Blyth, Seasonal and other Changes in Birds, Magazine of Natural History, Vol.9,39.9, 1837. Darwin did make a few obscure, passing references to Blyth in his Descent of Man, but he came nowhere near to giving Blyth the place and the credit he deserved.

Darwin also made an oblique acknowledgement to the existence of God in his Descent of Man, though it must be remembered that in the original temptation of man, the serpent, when tempting Eve, did not disavow God's existence (Yea is there a God?), but he did question God's authority, His integrity, His character and His truthfulness, "Yea hath God said?" He succeeded in casting doubt and aspersion on God's Word. While I am not trying to intimate by any means that Darwin was the devil himself, he was definitely, in the classical sense, the devil's advocate.

In The Descent of Man, when Darwin attempts to analyze man's religious feeling, and he theorizes that religion was a purely natural, evolutionary development of survival instincts instead of a revelation given to man from an all-powerful and loving God, one is struck by the uncanny feeling that this was written from the perspective of somebody on the outside looking in at human religious sentiment, as though Darwin himself was entirely immune to any genuine religious impulse of his own.

Again, the similarity between Darwin and another infernal character in one of C.S. Lewis's books, The Screwtape Letters, is striking. Darwin definitely seemed to be a prototypical prefigurement of the end-time "false prophet", the founder of a new socio-religious outlook on human existence, a fallen son of the church formerly studying for priestly orders who apostatized from the faith (actually, like the original son of perdition it is doubtful that he had any genuine faith in the beginning). Desmond and Moore report that when Darwin began studying for religious orders "He was headed for the Church but unconcerned about his soul."

Although Darwin's remark on his role as "the devil's chaplain" was obviously not meant to have been taken literally, it does perhaps give an indication of the inspiration for much of his work. In describing one episode from his college years when he and some of his companions rode out at dark after curfew to see a fire burning in the distance, Darwin said that they "rode like incarnate devils." (Complete Correspondence of Charles Darwin, Edited by Burkhart, and Autobiography of Charles Darwin)

In this and in subsequent chapters where we investigate some of Darwin's writings, to describe him as crafty, or sly, or as the old English version of the Bible would state it - "subtle"- would almost be an understatement. He was incredibly shrewd in his ability to put something across to so many people as the scientific explanation for the origin of species when he had absolutely no evidence at all to back it up.

Darwin was also acquainted while in college with the first "Devil's Chaplain", the signature attached to the reverend Robert Taylor, a former cleric who abandoned the Christian faith and set up headquarters for his "Infidel Club" near Cambridge in 1830 above a printing shop that Darwin frequented. Taylor served prison time, along with his infamous companion Carlile for blasphemy, which must have been extraordinarily serious, since in that era in England clergymen were getting by with saying practically anything they wanted with little government interference.

In two blasphemous Sunday sermons on "The Devil" delivered in the "Rotunda," an old dilapidated building near the Thames restored for Taylor's "congregation," of atheists and free-thinkers, Taylor proclaimed "God and the devil . . .to be one and the self same being." (Desmond and Moore, pp. 84) Taylor, still dressed as a cleric and openly denouncing Christianity among the populace at Cambridge, strode around the campus like some avenging angel intent on overturning the Christian work going on there.

While not wishing to speculate unduly on Darwin's inner man, still, his abnormal obsession with hunting, his acts of cruelty toward animals, his lack of a normal emotional response to his mothers' death, his shunning of social life and unexplained state of continual convalescence during the final forty years of his life, are all classic indications of possible diabolic influence. What other explanation could be given for the great international esteem given to him and his work, his being declared such a great scientist who "proved" evolution, when in fact neither of these premises is even close to being true? When observing the enormous influence of his book on the cultural and scientific community during the century after his death, and the actual paltry evidence that he offered in it for his theory, it is a bit puzzling.

There is another possibility for the cause of his frequent bad health and retreat from public life, which is, that in light of the dubious relationship between Darwin's paternal grandfather and grandmother, there could have been a role reversal situation between Darwin and his wife, wherein Darwin was the patient and his wife the caregiver, in fact we find that Bowlby and Desmond and Moore indicate that this was truly the case, the perfect nurse had found the perfect patient. As far as what the nature of his illness might have been, again we can only speculate, however, in light of his family history, the symptoms are suspiciously indicative of a recurrence of that unhappy malady that afflicted his grandmother and uncle, but until more of the curtain of history is lifted on this mysterious individual, we shall have to withhold any definitive statement on the issue.

27. Edward Blyth, The Varieties of Animals, The Magazine of Natural History, Vol. 8, 1835, pp. 52-53.

28.Blyth, Seasonal and Other Changes in Birds, Note #1.

29. (ibid), 39.9.

30. Edward Blyth, Varities of Animals, Magazine of Natural History, Vol.8, pp.40-53, 1835.

31. Blyth, Seasonal and other Changes in Birds.

32. (ibid)

33. Edward Blyth, On the Psychological Distinctions between Man and Animals, Magazine of Natural History, Vol. 1,1837.

34. (ibid)

35. Blyth, Note #1, Seasonal and other Changes in Birds.

36. (ibid), Origin, Chapter Six: Modes of Transition, pp.87.

37. National Geographic, August, 1981, pp.153.

38. How the Decoy Fish Catches Its Dinner, Robert J. Shallenberger Ph. D. and William J. Madden, National Geographic, pp. 224-226, August, 1974.

39. Scott M. Huse, The Collapse of Evolution, pp. 99-100, Baker Books, Grand Rapids Mich., 49516, 1993, Referencing also Berkeley biochemist Duane T. Gishe's book, Dinosaurs: Those Terrible Lizards, Creation-Life Publishers, San Diego, Ca., 1976, pp. 62.