Contents Menu



Part 2

This brings us to another one of the tactics that current evolutionists use to bolster support for Darwin's theory.

Evolutionists sometimes attempt to lend validity to Darwin's theory by comparing it to other theories and laws of science, such as the electrical theory and the Law of gravity. They demonstrate here a failure to grasp the difference between a genuine theory that has demonstrable facts to back it up and a cloudy hypothesis that hasn't even made it in scientific terms to the theory stage yet (even though Darwin's hypothesis is granted the status of a theory, it falls far short of the mark).

In fact, Darwin's "theory" isn't even a very good hypothesis, since hypothesis means an "educated guess", or a supposition that has certain criteria that would lend it credence, which evolution has not.

In genuine science, first a hypothesis is advanced as a possible explanation for the occurrence of certain natural phenomena. It is then tested, and if certain results lend credibility to the hypothesis, it becomes a theory. After a theory has been ratified by repeated tests, if it is found to be a universal and constant explanation for these phenomena, it moves from being a mere theory and becomes a law of science, thus we do have certain "laws" of gravity, indeed, it is called the Law of Gravity, but Darwin's theory is never referred to as the law of evolution, because there is no evidence, no scientific data to substantiate it's premise.
To try and equate Darwin's "theory" with the Law of Gravity is intellectual dishonesty of the highest order.

Obviously, if you jump off of a tall building you are going to fall down. Dishes fall off of tables; it takes thrust for a rocket to gain the momentum to overcome the earth's gravitational field and enter orbit. These are pretty plain facts that show us that gravity is a fact. But the evidence for evolution is still missing! We have no demonstrable facts showing that it ever occurred.

Evolutionists make this same hazy claim with electricity, asserting that because we don't actually see electrons, that means that electricity is merely a theory, and then they try to elevate the so-called "theory" of evolution to the same status as electricity. Again, the problem with this is we have certain laws of electromagnetism, we can see them work! We make batteries, we have computers, we study the relationship of voltage, current, resistance and conductivity in electrical circuits, we actually witness lightning, we can measure electricity and make predictions based on these measurements.

To equate the Law of Gravity, first summed up by Isaac Newton, with Darwin's theory shows the utter desperation and intellectual bankruptcy of evolutionists in trying to pawn over their evolutionary world view as a valid scientific one.
This tactic of evolutionists, mixing facts up with evolutionary fantasy, much like Snow White's apple mixed with poison, is often used in student textbooks, where perhaps 90% to 95% of the material in a book on biology might be genuinely factual, but then 5% or 10% of evolutionary supposition is slipped in with it. Thus the student, after studying genuine facts of science, is not aware of the sleight of hand technique, and assumes that because the majority of the material in the book is true, that the theory of evolution, since it is in the same book, must be true as well.

An old saying goes: Eighty percent of the truth is more dangerous than one hundred percent of a lie. This is a very subtle and clever tactic, mixing facts with fiction, and it is one which was used, incidentally, when the serpent seduced Eve and when the devil tempted the Lord..

It is interesting to hear evolutionists confidentially refer to the "conflict" between science and religion. I often wonder what exactly do they mean by that. Do they mean that "Love your neighbor as yourself" is somehow in conflict with a scientific worldview?

Does "Thou shalt not commit adultery" hinder scientific progress in astronomy, physics, or chemistry?

And we have to look at the other side of the coin as well. When they say that science is antithetical to religion, then what they are actually saying is that atheism, no religion, is somehow identical with science or is proven by science. But this is a matter for philosophers and theologians, not for men who spend their time weighing bits of earth on scales and mixing chemicals together.

When they say that religion conflicts with a scientific worldview, are they saying that the Scriptures oppose the laws of mathematics, or gravity? After all, some of our greatest mathematicians and scientists, Pascal, Newton, Faraday, Kepler, Boyle, were also great men of faith as well. Are they saying that people like St. Francis, Gandhi and Mother Teresa were holding back the advancement of science? They were all famous religious people.

Then what do they really mean when they pontificate on the conflict between science and religion? Well, to narrow it down a bit, what they are really saying is that there is a conflict between evolution and religion, and then they expand evolution to mean all of science itself. They make evolution a synonym for the scientific process. They make a great scientist out of Darwin and elevate him to the same level as other genuine scientists, despite the fact that evolution has never produced any "Laws" of science such as the laws of gravity and thermodynamics.
Darwin's Origin of Species is never referred to directly in a chemistry class involving experiments or measurements of different chemical reactions; or a biology class with actual lab experiments in process, except in second hand reference; or in a physics class where the mass and weight of elements are being discussed.

His book is of absolutely no help at all in any really hard science, except to present the supposed explanation of how life descended from a common ancestor, with all of the evidence for that missing as well!

He made no discoveries about the cell, about human anatomy, in chemistry, physics, electromagnetism, or in medicine. He work is never referred to as a required text in any biology classes for any medical student. One can go through an entire college curriculum from freshman to graduate level in the study of anatomy, physiology, geography, and geology and, even though Darwin is referred to in many of these classes and lauded as the man who developed some new idea of human descent, one never has to actually read Darwin's Origin of Species at all to get a Ph.D in any of these fields. His book is entirely unnecessary to learning any of these disciplines.

All that he contributed was some idea that we all came from apes and from a common ancestor, a philosophical presumption, but he has given us no laws, no great scientific formulas, not one wit of information on the structure of internal organs or on geological processes. None of these sciences was advanced one iota by his "theory".

Evolutionists frequently make the claim that those who wish to challenge their dogma are trying to mix science with religion, and that is not to be tolerated and is nearly equivalent to heresy. There are some problems with this argument though, which will be gone through:

There are people who call themselves "theistic evolutionists". They believe in evolution, but they believe that this was "God's method" for creating the different species of life that we find here on earth. I am not debating the merits/demerits of this viewpoint right now, but the anti-creationists, the evolutionists have a real problem here:

If someone can be a believer in God and also believe in evolution, that this was merely "God's method" for creating life, would this not be mixing religion and science also? You see here that evolutionists have no problem mixing religion and science in this case, if of course you agree with their viewpoint.

But you can't have it both ways. If the strict, doctrinare evolutionist is going to warmly welcome "theistic evolutionists" into their camp, what we see is that the whole "science vs religion" argument was merely a prop in the first place: it was really meant to keep any debate about the theory of evolution silenced, since by that argument the theory of evolution is equated with all of science itself and is elevated to the status of an absolute truth, thus evolution is a dogma that is not meant to be questioned. So whenever someone wants to accept evolution, then of course they can keep their religious outlook too, it is only when the theory of evolution is challenged that religion then becomes some great obstacle in comprehending truth.

The above thesis can be born out by a second example. Buddhism is one of the oldest religions known to mankind. It is over one thousand years older than the Muslim faith, and it is four hundred years older than Christianity. Buddhism declares itself to be an atheistic religion (There will be objections from those who will claim that Buddhism is an agnostic religion, not an atheistic one, because of the Buddha's equivocal teaching on God, and because of the Buddhist teaching on higher spiritual realms. However, Buddhists of all stripes - Theravada, Tibetan, Chinese and Japanese - all state quite clearly - and this can be seen from a multitude of resources on the internet - that they do not believe in an all powerful creator God.

While there may be some Buddhists who try to harmonise the idea of God with Buddhism, the truly hard-core Buddhists proudly wear their atheism as a badge of the uniqueness of their faith, and quite frequently deride faith in God as primitive, anti-scientific, and erroneous. (Again, this can be seen from numerous Buddhist websites) They do not believe in a sovereign, all powerful God who created the heavens and the earth. Buddha was merely an enlightened man who perceived the truth, according to their faith.

They believe in what they call the twelve conditioned links of causation through which sentient beings exist in this universe of samsara, or continuous rebirth. Millions, probably billions of people world-wide have followed the basic tenets of the teaching of the Buddha.

Now, since Buddhists are not creationists, they do not believe in a Creator, would this imply that in an evolutionist framework Buddhism is to be tolerated, or even welcomed?

If so, then again, we have no conflict for the evolutionist here, there is no great outcry from the evolutionists that Buddhists are trying to mix religion and science. For we can see from Buddhism that the atheistic viewpoint, the idea that there is no God, is just as much a religious viewpoint as the theistic viewpoint, and it is merely a tactic of the evolutionists to silence dissent on the issue by complaining that creationists are trying to inject a religious viewpoint into the realm of science because they believe in a Creator God.

Thus again evolutionists have no problem with science and religion, if the religion does not challenge their theory of evolution.

“Galaxies are not distributed randomly on the sky. There are clear gaps where the plane of the Galaxy obscures our line of sight. It can be shown beyond doubt that the probability of obtaining by chance the observed distribution of galaxies on the sky is negligible.” Cambridge Encyclopedia of Astronomy

If the evolutionist follows the strict school of the Gould and Dawkins line of thought, then they will tolerate no mention of God at all, not only from the "young earth" creationists who believe in Noah's Flood, but even from those who might go along with millions of years of the earth's existence - those who advocate "intelligent design". So all of life and everything in the universe is narrowed down to purely naturalistic phenomena, and in essence they are equating science with atheism, which is what the Stalinists did in communistic Russia, and they are relegating religion (at least theistic religion) completely out of the picture.

Now we have hit on the crux of the matter, for here we are really not delving into the realm of strict science at all, but the real issue is whether or not there is a God, however again this is something for philosophers and theologians to debate, not for men who spend their time weighing bits of earth on scales and mixing chemicals together.

There is an unspoken assumption in all of this, which is that the Bible is not to be trusted, and that Darwin provided all the answers. Religion, again we are speaking of theistic religion with God involved in the creation process in a sovereign manner, is equated with fantasy, or myths, and evolution is equated with Truth, absolute, dogmatic, almost revealed truth; the evolutionary theory becomes a sacred dogma that is to remain unquestioned by enquiring minds. Evolution is to be enshrined in the public consciousness as the one and only, universally accepted explanation for the origin of life and of human existence, and any questioning of this is considered to be scientific heresy.

The problem with this is that evolution is itself a faith, albeit at it's heart an atheistic faith (theistic evolutionists are fooling themselves, essentially their god is the same god who leaves presents under the Christmas tree, a make believe and impotent grandfather who smiles serenely from somewhere out in the blue yonder but has no actual hand in the processes of life) and it has not been demonstrated scientifically that evolution is even a valid hypothesis for the explanation of life itself or for the origin of the different species of life in the first place!

Evolution is not really supported by the facts of science at all (shreiks of "heresy" coming from the evolutionists!). Darwin never proved it; even his theory of natural selection explains nothing except that some species survive and some don't. All of the supposed millions of transitional fossils from the past leading up to the various species of life that we find on earth are missing!

There is also no evidence of evolution going on in today's world at all. None. The so-called instances of evolution such as the fruit-fly, the peppered moth and "mosquitoes developing resistance to DDT" are such pathetic examples that they barely deserve mentioning.

There have been many scientists in the past, founders of some of our greatest scientific disciplines, who were devout Christian men and women, and they had no problem with a religious outlook and a scientific outlook. Some of our greatest institutions of learning - Harvard, Yale, Brown, Princeton, Notre Dame, Cambridge, William and Mary, to name a few - were founded by Christian denominations, by dedicated Christian men and women for the glory of God. In many cases this is clearly stated in their founding charters. The university system itself was developed and kept alive by the Church throughout the early middle ages and up to the beginning of modern society.

Are we really to believe that only an atheistic viewpoint has led to the advancement of science or is identical with science itself? God forbid, yet this has been the prevailing outlook promoted by evolutionists, liberals, and their lackeys in the major educational institutions and media outlets.

Thus we see a clever propaganda campaign by the Darwinists, meant to silence opposition to their views, and this tactic is to smear those who believe in a theistic viewpoint, and who dare to question the sacred tenets of evolution, as scientific illiterate and opposed to the pursuit of truth, when in fact it is the evolutionists who are opposed to having the glaring failings of their theory put to the test of empirical investigation, and brought to the light of truth, where it will be shown to be the fraudulent sham that it is.

It is ironic that modern defendants of Darwin try to present the case that most of the objections to his theory of evolution came from "ignorant religious fundamentalists", but that science was somehow on his side.

A careful examination of the historic facts show, however, that this was not the case at all. (21) Jacques Barzun mentioned a whole list of prominent scientists that is literally a Who's Who of great minds of that era who arrayed themselves against Darwin's theory, among whom were the distinguished scientist Sir John Herschel, who contemptuously derided Darwin's theory as "the law of higgledy-pigglety."(22)

Whewell of Cambridge, author of History of the Inductive Sciences, had such a low opinion of Darwin's work that he would not allow it into the library of the college.

Barzun lists "Sedgewick the geologist, Owen the anatomist, Harvey the botanist, Andrew Murray the entomologist-who firmly declined to accept the theory." (23)

Sedgewick was the Professor at Cambridge who taught Darwin the elements of field geology. After he read through the Origin he wrote to Darwin: "I have read your book with more pain than pleasure. Parts of it I admired greatly, parts I laughed at till my sides were almost sore; other parts I read with absolute sorrow, because I think them utterly false and grievously mischievous."(24)

Richard Owen was the Superintendent of the Natural History Department of the British Museum and perhaps the worlds greatest living authority on comparative anatomy at the time. He was also the man who coined the word "dinosaur," meaning "terrible lizard" in 1842. He examined and identified the haul of fossil bones that Darwin sent back from South America during his voyage on the Beagle. (25) Owen absolutely detested Darwin's work and was a most vociferous critic of the Origin.

Darwin, ever the impartial scientist, wrote to Hooker on January 3, 1863 expressing his feelings for this man who had so criticized his theory: "I am burning with indignation . . . I could not get to sleep until past three last night for indigestion." On January 10 Darwin again described his feelings towards Owen in a letter to Huxley: "I believe I hate him more than you do."

Louis Agazzis, the prominent professor at Harvard and founder of modern Ichthyology, the study of ancient marine reptiles, and the father of the study of glacial geology, strenuously objected to the theory of evolution.

St. George Mivart, the distinguished Professor at St. Mary's College in Kensington argued (correctly) that a complex characteristic such as the structure of the eye, or the long neck of the giraffe, would not have any survival value in its incipient stages if it developed through adaption and evolution.

Evidently, Mivart had other objections to Darwin's theory too. Darwin whined to Wallace on January 30, 1871 that "Mivart is savage or contemptuous about my 'moral sense.'"(26)

Louis Pasteur has been regarded by many as the greatest scientist of the nineteenth century. He disproved the evolutionary theory of spontaneous generation with his experiments and developed the theory of biogenesis, i.e. life can only come from pre-existing life. This is contrary to the theory of abiogenesis, that life can spring from non-living matter, which evolutionists still believe in to this day, despite Pasteur's experiments disproving it and their own lack of any proof for the theory (see note # V in Chapter Three).

Pasteur also developed the pasteurization process for milk, developed the rabies vaccine, developed the modern theory and practice of inoculation against diseases based on the pioneering work on vaccination, vaccinia, by Edward Jenner, and he brought to us the understanding that germs spread disease through the air and by contact with other contaminated organisms. He delivered an impassioned speech in 1861 against the theory of evolution, vehemently arguing that life could never have originated by a purely naturalistic process.

In 1872 Darwin was refused membership in the prestigious Zoological Section of the French Institute for which they gave the following reason: " . . .the Origin of Species and still more the Descent of Man, is not science but a mass of assertions and absolutely gratuitous hypothesis, often evidently fallacious. This kind of publication and these theories are a bad example, which a body that respects itself cannot encourage." (From Life and Letters of Charles Darwin Vol.111, pp.224, note.)

Afterward he was admitted in 1878 as a corresponding member of the Botanical Section, which, according to Bowlby (pp.415) Darwin considered as a joke because of his "slender knowledge of botany."

Among many more well known scientists who strongly objected to the idea of evolution on purely scientific grounds, both in Darwin's day and continuing on up until the present time besides those already mentioned, were some of the founders of modern scientific fields of discipline (and who were devout Jews and Christians and believers in divine creation) such as Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, Matthew Maury, Lord Kelvin, Benjamin Silliman, Gregor Mendel, and Henri Fabre, etc.

The list can go on and on, however this brief summary has been presented to show that the artificial distinction between faith in a Creator and science, which the liberal media has continuously attempted to foist upon the public in their often skewed presentation of the issue whenever they attempt to handle it, has no basis in actual historical fact.

Even Darwin himself in his Origin mentioned more than a few scientists who objected to his theory. In the section of the Origin titled, Difficulties with my Theory he wrote: "Another distinguished zoologist, the late Professor Claparede, has argued . . . there are parasitic mites belonging to distinct families and subfamilies . . . which are furnished with hair-claspers. These organs must have been independently developed, as they could not have been inherited from a common ancestor. . .".(27)

We have seen that many prominent scientists did not at all believe in evolution and presented sound scientific facts to refute Darwin and his nebulous claims. But what of the reaction to the Origin in parts of the religious community?

Surprisingly enough, there was actually much public support for Darwin from leaders of the Christian establishment!

In the section An Historic Sketch prefacing the Origin, mention was made of the Reverend Baden Powell, who wrote Essays on the Unity of Worlds in 1855. This was an early attempt to show that species were introduced into the world, in the words of Herschel, as "a natural in contradistinction to a miraculous process," on a regular basis as opposed to Divine Creation.

Barzun mentions the prominent preacher Kingsley, who sent Darwin a congratulatory letter on the publication of his book. Josiah Strong was a noted Congregationalist Minister of the last century who developed a rather racist, vulgarized Darwinian mixture of Scripture and evolutionary theory.

Other prominent churchmen who should have upheld their duties as defenders of the faith, not only compromised with the theory of evolution, but actively embraced it. Among those in England were Frederick Farrar, James Orr, Charles Kingsley and Henry Drummond. They persuaded many of their followers to accept evolution. In America A.H. Strong and Henry Ward Beecher strongly championed the idea of evolution as a valid idea whose time had come.

After Darwin's death in 1882 he received monumental eulogies from clergymen of all stripes. According to Desmond and Moore, the widely read Church Times praised Darwin so much that they were "lost for epithets - patience, ingenuity, calmness, industry, moderation. Others added the Pauline graces perseverance and faith, and depicted him as a 'true Christian gentleman.'" (Desmond and Moore, pp. 675)

The Bishop of Derry gave Darwin a glowing funerary tribute, to rounded applause from his audience, in a speech to the South American Missionary Society, while Desmond and Moore report that the Nonconformist and Independent lamented the loss of Darwin's great 'moral influence'.

After some clever wrangling by his friends Huxley and Hooker, they managed to obtain for Darwin the honor of an official burial in Westminster Abby. According to Desmond and Moore, "Some even inverted the honor of official burial. Westminster did not bestow dignity on the naturalist [Darwin] from Downe - his body was hallowed already. 'The Abbey needed it more than it needed the Abbey'", sermonized The Times. "This saintly man, who had 'borne the flag of science' . . .gave the Abbey 'an increased sanctity, a new cause for reverence' on being laid beneath its stones." (Desmond and Moore, pp. 676)

A fund was raised to erect a statue of him at the Natural History Museum, that great "Temple of Nature" as the London Times called it. Darwin's former colleague Wallace was "conspicuous by his absence" from the Memorial Committee for Darwin (Desmond and Moore, pp. 675) and contributed nothing towards the fund for his statue. We can hardly wonder why.

Sadly enough, even today (October, 1995) a prominent writer and Professor from a professedly evangelical college has written a book recently attacking creationist scientists and theologians, and he has had the strong endorsement and backing of one of the nations leading Christian magazines. That such theological turncoats would be in the prominent positions that they hold within the Christian community only demonstrates that the same scribes and Pharisees, the "whited sepulchers" who refused to believe Moses and the prophets, thus in their hearts not really believing the words of the Lord Himself, (Lk. 16:31), still exist and they will continue to exist as the tares among the wheat until the final harvest.

Unfortunately, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church has recently stated that he believes evolution to be "more than a hypothesis". This man should certainly have realized that if evolution were more than a hypothesis, and consequently if humans evolved from apes or apelike ancestors, then this would mean that the Lord Himself, at least by implication if evolution were true, was descended through his mother's ancestry, from apes, and that the Virgin Mary, the mother of the promised Messiah, whom Christians highly honor, was not much more than a "highly evolved", immaculately conceived member of the ape family herself, if man is truly descended from apes that is.

I am not attempting to denigrate the faith of wonderful, sincere and godly Christians here. I believe, as the Scripture has said, that Mary is most blessed among women.

I do not, however, believe that Mary or our Lord Jesus were descended from apes, and I am simply pointing out the inconsistency of the theory of evolution with a traditional Christian view of our Lord and of His mother.

Apparently, near the same time (October 22, 1996) that the Pope made this statement, a certain Harvard paleontologist was skulking around Europe and Rome, insinuating himself into the confidence of various liberal members of the clergy of this particular church, and although I can’t say that he headed up or was involved in a campaign to persuade this leader to make some kind of statement that would supposedly agree with what is called science, but what St. Paul called “science falsely so called,” it is an odd coincidence that the visiting professor was ingratiating himself (rather shamelessly I might add) with certain more liberal clergy at the same period of time that the Pope made this statement.

Perhaps from debilitation and age the leader of this church, after some shrewd and subtle diplomatic tactics from the evolutionists, consented to say something on this issue to appease them. At any rate, even though his intentions were undoubtedly good, it is a great tragedy that he made this statement. In effect he gave much ammunition to the enemies of Christ, and has seriously damaged the cause of Christianity with this statement.

Apart from the fact that Darwin himself never demonstrated any really good evidence for evolution ever occurring, one would also have to believe, if man is continually evolving and improving through evolution, and did not fall from a state of original perfection and sinlessness, thus if death was not the penalty for sin, since men had been dying for thousands of years before Adam, then the Lords sacrificial death on the cross would have less meaning.

In fact, if by a purely naturalistic process of evolution we are progressing to better and smarter types of species continually, then the fall of man did not occur at all, since all of Adam and Eve's descendants would be more evolved than they were. And if evolution has been continuing up to the present day, then present day humans would be more highly evolved than Abraham; Isaac; Jacob; Moses; David; Joshua; Isaiah; the Apostles who wrote the New Testament, or any of the men who wrote the Bible itself! This is of course, at least from a Christian point of view, simply plain, old fashioned heterodoxy.

The contrast between Darwin’s idea of evolution of all life from a common ancestor and the Biblical statement that God created all species unique and separate is emphasized by many evolutionists.  They attempt to try and imply that Christians were offended by the notion that humans had certain characteristics in common with animals, and that this repugnance was the reason why they have not accepted the doctrine of evolution. 

A quote from World Book states: "Darwin's work has had a tremendous impact on religious thought. Many people strongly oppose the idea of evolution - and the teaching of it - because it conflicts with their religious beliefs.  For example, they claim that the theory of evolution disagrees with the Biblical account of the Creation. Some people argue against the theory of natural selection because they believe it diminishes the role of divine guidance in the universe.  Darwin suggested that human beings are similar to other animals in many ways. This idea contradicts the belief that God created human beings and gave them special emotional and intellectual gifts." [ii]

This is not entirely true. Of course, no one, Christian or non-Christian, would dispute the fact that human beings are similar to animals in many ways, that was not the issue at all (indeed, similarity was by creationists used as an argument for design by a Creator, even in Darwin’s day), however the notion that humans descended from apes by a purely naturalistic process would have serious theological consequences.

Even noted evolutionist scholar Richard Leakey himself admitted in the Preface to Human Ancestors.[iii]:

" . . . paleontological histories of our species are not morally neutral. Through their concern with whence we came, the articles in this collection encourage the reader to consider what we are and what we might become."

Thus any theory of man's place in the scheme of the universe, especially one taught in public schools, should be of primary importance to those concerned not only with the physical and psychological well being of their children, but with their moral and spiritual well being as well.

Many writers persist in perpetuating the myth that religion has somehow kept man in ignorance until the dawn of Darwin and others of his persuasion, and that evolution is somehow the result of recent scientific progress but that belief in a deity, particularly the Judeo-Christian Deity, is somehow primitive.

Quotes like this one from Wallace, King and Sanders are a common example: “By that time [the end of the 17th century] the mathematical laws that govern the movements of the earth and planets had been worked out by Kepler and Newton, and the conviction began to grow that the universe was governed not by divine whim, but by fixed laws.” [iv]

This is a gross misstatement of the historical facts of the case, and I can only assume that either Wallace and Sanders (Professor King is since deceased) were terribly ignorant of Newton and Kepler’s viewpoints, or they were simply bending the facts of history.

This quote from Sir Isaac Newton should suffice to dispel this fantasy that religion had somehow hindered the advancement of science. Newton is generally recognized as one of the most brilliant mathematicians in history, he is acknowledged as the father of modern differential calculus, and much of our understanding of celestial mechanics is owed to him. He stated in the General Scholium, the conclusion to his major work, Principia Mathematica: ". . . it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions, since the comets range over all parts of the heavens in very eccentric orbits; . . . This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. Further on he states that "This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God, or Universal Ruler . . .The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect; . . "

Thus Newton stated that coordinated, wonderfully intricate design in the universe could not have existed without their creation by a Designer, i.e. God. He assuredly did not attribute this to the whim of a creator, as Wallace and Sanders imply. The universe and all that is in it was not created by some mere whim, but it was thoughtfully, carefully, and lovingly planned out. The Incarnation of the Son of God and his sacrifice on Calvary was not done at the notion of some whim.

Newton concluded his work Optics with this grand statement: "God is able to create particles of matter of several sizes and figures, and in several proportions to space, and perhaps of different densities and forces . . . and make worlds of several sorts in several parts of the Universe. At least, I see nothing of contradiction in all this. As in mathematics, so in natural philosophy, the investigation of difficult things by the method of analysis, ought ever to precede the method of composition.

This analysis consists in making experiments and observations, and in drawing general conclusions from them by induction, . . . And if natural philosophy in all its parts, by pursuing this method, shall at length be perfected, the bounds of moral philosophy will be also enlarged. For so far as we can know by natural philosophy what is the First Cause, what power He has over us, and what benefits we receive from Him, so far our duty towards Him, as well as that towards one another, will appear to us by the light of Nature.

And no doubt, if the worship of false gods had not blinded the heathen, their moral philosophy would have gone farther than to the four cardinal virtues; and instead of teaching the transmigration of souls and to worship the Sun and Moon [false religions], and dead heroes, they would have taught us to worship our true Author and Benefactor, as their ancestors did under the government of Noah and his sons before they corrupted themselves."

Thus Sir Isaac Newton concluded two of his major scientific works with what amounted to a sermon to his faith in God and testimony that science and religion go hand in hand. It is eminently obvious that a belief in a Supreme Being did not keep Isaac Newton wandering about in superstition and dogma, nor did it keep him from a remarkable scientific career. He also testifies to the pure faith of "Noah and his sons" before it was corrupted into a belief in reincarnation and the false worship of the Sun and Moon and false gods.

It is a strange tribute to the scientific genius and religious faith of Isaac Newton that after Charles Darwin died on April 19, 1882, he was buried next to Newton in Westminster Abbey.

Kepler, the discoverer of the laws of planetary motion (1609), also was a mystic, deeply religious, who found in the precise mathematical relationships of the planetary orbits in the formulation for his Third Law of planetary motion (1619) a vindication for his belief that an Intelligence had formed the Universe, and that it was not simply the result of stellar gasses accidently mixing together. Kepler called his Third Law the Harmonic law, and actually composed notes on a musical scale representing the “song” of the planets. I don’t know how familiar Wallace and Sanders were with Newton’s Principia or with Keplers beliefs, but I would suggest that if they are to consider any subsequent editions to their book that they read up a little bit on their history before attempting any further analysis of the subject.

There were other interesting relationships discovered during this time that drew attention to the idea that the planets and their courses through the heavens could not have occurred by chance.

A most obvious one that had been known for centuries was the fantastically improbable fact that the moon is precisely the right size and at the right distance from the earth to appear to the observer on earth to be the exact same size and shape as the sun is, relative to its size and distance from the earth! Thus we can have a perfect solar eclipse, where the disk of the moon appears to exactly cover the sun during this celestial event!

In 1772 the Titius-Bode law was formally developed by Johann Bode. He discovered that if you take the numbers 0, 3, 6, 12, 24, etc., doubling each number in sequence, beginning with the number 3, and then add the number 4 to each result, then apply this to the distances of the planets from the Sun, using the earth as a standard for 10 astronomical units, this remarkable formula gives the mean distances from the Sun for all of the planets, except Neptune. So Mercury has a mean distance from the Sun of 3.9 astronomical units (0 + 4); Venus has a value of 7.2 a.u., (3 + 4); Earth has a value of 10.0 [(2 x 3) + 4]; Mars would have a value of 16 [(2 x 6) + 4)], while in actual distance it is 15.2 a.u.; between Mars and Jupiter, the asteroid belt fits into the fifth position, 28 [(2 x 12) + 4], with 27.7 astronomical units. Jupiter is 52 astronomical units from the Sun, which is [(2 x 24) + 4], which fits into the formula perfectly. Saturn has a distance from the sun of 95.4 A.U., where the formula gives it a value of 100. This Law predicted the orbits of  Uranus and Pluto before they were discovered. Nine years after this Law was formulated, Uranus was first spotted in the heavens, and it came within a fair range, 191.8 A.U. whereas the formula put it at 196 [(2 x 96) + 4].

Neptune was the only planet that did not fit the equation, although when Pluto was discovered, it fit in remarkably close, 394.4 A.U., where the formula put it at 388 [(2 x 192) + 4]. This amazing relationship does not bode well for those who imagine that this universe came together by mere chance.

Even today, the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Astronomy, noting the symmetry of the galactic clusters, stated “Galaxies are not distributed randomly on the sky. There are clear gaps where the plane of the Galaxy obscures our line of sight. It can be shown beyond doubt that the probability of obtaining by chance the observed distribution of galaxies on the sky is negligible.”[v]

Not only were Newton and Kepler devout believers, but many eminent men of science before and since Darwin’s era on to the present day have been reverent believers, whether they were Christians, Jews, Moslems or Hindus (There have been many great Jewish, Moslem and Hindu mathematicians and scientists in history). In fact quite a few of the founders of our scientific disciplines were devout believers in God. Gregor Mendel, an Austrian Catholic Monk, was the discoverer of the genetic theory, and was totally opposed to Darwin’s theory. Linnaeus and Cuvier, already mentioned, were very devout men. Pasteur, regarded by many as the greatest scientist of the nineteenth century, was a committed Christian and vigorously opposed to Darwin’s theory of evolution. Pascal, Boyle, Faraday, Maxwell, all fathers of modern scientific disciplines, were believers in special creation of life and the universe by God. They were all familiar with the current evolutionary concepts of their day, but they did not adhere to them, clearly seeing from a scientific basis the fraudulent aspects of evolutionary thought.

Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626), regarded as one of the greatest minds in history, the father of the modern scientific method, began his work Advancement of Learning with a quote from 1Corinthians: "'That we be not spoiled through vain philosophy . . . that experience demonstrates how learned men have been arch-heretics, how learned times have been inclined to atheism, and how the contemplation of second causes doth derogate from our dependence upon God, who is the first cause."Bacon said that educated men in educated times, because of their knowledge of "second causes" i.e. naturalistic sciences, have been inclined to deny our dependence upon God as our Creator.

He further stated: "To discover then the ignorance and error of this opinion and the misunderstanding in the grounds thereof, it may well appear these men do not observe or consider that it was not the pure knowledge of nature and universality, a knowledge by the light whereof man did give names unto other creatures in Paradise, as they were brought before him, according unto their proprieties, which gave the occasion to the fall [the fall of man]; but it was the proud knowledge of good and evil, with an intent in man to give law unto himself, and to depend no more upon God's commandments, which was the form of temptation. Neither is it any quantity of knowledge, how great upon God as our Creator.

He further stated: "To discover then the ignorance and error of this opinion and the misunderstanding in the grounds thereof, it may well appear these men do not observe or consider that it was not the pure knowledge of nature and universality, a knowledge by the light whereof man did give names unto other creatures in Paradise, as they were brought before him, according unto their proprieties, which gave the occasion to the fall [the fall of man]; but it was the proud knowledge of good and evil, with an intent in man to give law unto himself, and to depend no more upon God's commandments, which was the form of temptation. Neither is it any quantity of knowledge, how great soever, that can make the mind of man to swell; for nothing can fill, much less extend the soul of man, but God and the contemplation of God...."

This is from the founder of the modern method of scientific investigation.

Bacon blamed the fall of man on man's pride and rebellion, not on knowledge itself, in fact he attributes his belief in God as the reason why man can and should acquire knowledge and wisdom: ". . . God hath framed the mind of man as a mirror or glass, capable of the image of the universal world, and joyful to receive the impression thereof . . . For that nothing parcel of the world is denied to man's enquiry and invention, he doth in another place rule over, when he saith, [quoting Solomon] "The spirit of man is as the lamp of God, wherewith he searcheth the inwardness of all secrets.' If then such be the capacity and receipt of the mind of man, it is manifest that there is no danger at all in the proportion or quantity of knowledge, how large so ever . . ."

He further stated that even though some learned men become atheists, this should not be seen as assuming that the knowledge of second causes [naturalistic sciences] should be discouraged, but much the rather, encouraged, thus, "But further, it is an assured truth, and a conclusion of experience, that a little or superficial knowledge of philosophy may incline the mind of man to atheism, but a further proceeding therein doth bring the mind back again to religion."

He concluded his Advancement of Learning with this notable tribute to the benefits of knowledge: "To conclude, therefore, let no man out of a weak conceit of sobriety, or an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God's word [divine revelation, i.e. the Bible], or in the book of God's works [natural sciences]: divinity or philosophy: but rather let men endeavor an endless progress or proficience in both."

Two more figures that it would be appropriate to touch upon were Copernicus (1473-1543) and Galileo (1564-1642). In many scientific articles, we find statements such as, "Copernicus opened up the new concept, contrary to the Church’s view, that the Earth was not the center of the universe," or “Galileo opposed the Christian idea of a geocentric (earth centered) universe for a heliocentric (Sun centered) universe", and that “Copernicus proved that the earth was not flat.”

First of all these are only half truths, and it is historically inaccurate, to say the least, that Christianity was the source for the prevailing scientific belief in their day that the earth was the center of the universe, or that it was mainly religious opposition to their discoveries. As these kind of statements are repeated on and on let us find out the real story of these two men.

In regard to the accusation that Christian’s held to the flat earth view and Copernicus disproved it, the Copernican controversy had nothing whatsoever to do with the so called “flat earth” view: it was a controversy over whether the earth revolved around the sun or not. Educated men since the time of the ancient Greeks knew that the earth was round-this was never a controversy at all-and the two men who were responsible for discovering the New World and circumnavigating the globe, Columbus and Magellan, were both committed Christians.

Twenty years before Copernicus’ book on the heliocentric theory was published in 1543, Magellan started out on his voyage that eventually led to the first circumnavigation of the world in 1522. Magellan never completed the voyage, having given his life in an attempt to convert the Philippinos to Christianity, which was in large part successful, and one of his five ships, the Victoria, finally made it back to Spain on September 8, 1522. Four of Magellan’s ships had Christian names, and Magellan had given a large sum of money to a community of Christian monks before his embarkation asking them for their prayers for his voyage.

Magellan’s voyage was both a scientific triumph in navigating the globe and a triumph in courage and faith in successfully quelling a mutiny of three of his five ships, and traveling over three times the distance that Columbus did into unknown and treacherous seas. He is one of the greatest heroes in history. Thus the first voyage around the world was led be a deeply devout man inspired by his Christian faith.

The view that held that the Earth was the center of the universe did not come from the Church originally either, but from the Greek philosopher Ptolemy, whose works held a primary place in learning from the time of the Roman Empire down through medieval times. Much of what Ptolemy said was right, but he was obviously wrong about some things as well.

Copernicus was not the first man to proclaim the heliocentric view and to oppose the geocentric theory. The Greek philosopher and mathematician Pythagoras and his followers held that the Sun was the center of the universe, and his ideas were quite well known for centuries, although Ptolemy’s viewpoint won out in popular academic circles by the middle ages in the universities of Europe. Copernicus had already been familiar with both schools of thought when he challenged through mathematical proof the Geocentric theory. Nearly a century later Galileo confirmed Copernicus’ finding by peering out at the vast heavens through a telescope. Let us take note of the fact that Copernicus dedicated his main work to Pope Paul lll and it was received well by the Christian world before he died. It was later condemned by Pope Urban in an attempt to settle a theological debate between the Dominicans and the Jesuits, and to quell protests by Protestants that Catholics did not believe in the Word of God literally. Copernicus had a warm relationship with the Church and had little opposition to his theory during his life, and spent much of his life as a canon of the Church. When he died he was buried with full Church honors in Fruenburg Cathedral.

Concerning Galileo, though, we read in Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol.19, pg.640: "The Aristotelian professors, seeing their vested interests threatened, united against him. They strove to cast suspicion upon him in the eyes of ecclesiastical authorities..." however "a number of ecclesiastical experts were on his side."[vi]

Thus it was not solely Church authorities who opposed him, this was a scientific dispute among jealous scholars who were defending their own mistaken viewpoints. Unfortunately, some in the Catholic Church were afraid what this rift would do in their battle with Protestantism, and a few of these ranking Church authorities did side with the Aristotelians against Galileo (Protestant leaders such as Luther and Calvin also spoke against Galileo as well). In addition, because the Pope had been personally offended by some things that Galileo had said regarding Papal authority and Galileo had mocked the Pope in a work of fiction, Galileo had to fight against Church censorship for much of the rest of his life. It should be remembered that both Galileo and Copernicus owed their educations to Christian Universities, which were the centers of learning and of preservation of Greek thought throughout Europe during the middle and late-middle ages.

It is regrettable that certain ecclesiastics, in their mistaken zeal to preserve orthodoxy had worked against this man of science, sadly enough, even Copernicus’ books were banned for fifty years in the century after his death during the excesses of the Spanish Inquisition, but as we have seen, this was not the norm and Christian institutions have been celebrated for producing many eminent men of learning throughout history, though this one case has been paraded by skeptics as being a typical instance of the false dichotomy of "science vs. religion," which as I have briefly demonstrated, and could bring many more examples to light, have never truly been in conflict with each other.

Even though evolutionists and atheists have used this controversy to attack the Christian faith for centuries, the truth is this was not a controversy between people who believed in God versus people who didn't believe in God; faith in Scripture itself was never an issue. It was not between believers and non believers, there were clerics on both sides of the coin. They were all "people of the Book". It was a controversy between Christians who believed that the earth was the center of the universe and Christians who believed that the sun was the center of the universe. Both sides believed in the divine inspiration of Scripture, there was merely a conflict on how to interpret the Scripture, but neither side ever called into question the authority of Scripture itself. One side had it wrong, but the other side, equally Christian, had it right. So if you want to paint one side as the intolerant "bad guys" you also have to acknowledge that the "good guys" were Christians too.

We should not forget that Galileo and Copernicus were both intensely religious, and actually based their academic careers on the Christian scholastic methods of Aquinas and Bacon, noted Christian monks; they were all great men of science and devout Christians and we owe them a tremendous collective debt.

Getting back to the devil’s advocate, Darwin’s work had a strong influence in the developing science of psycho-analysis. This is interesting, as Freud used hypnotism in many of his early experiments. I am mentioning this because of the work of Mesmer, who pioneered many of the techniques of hypnotism, and from whom we get the term “mesmerize”. In the Soviet and Chinese attempts at brainwashing, they tried to induce the subject to reach a passive state of acquiescence in order to be susceptible to certain suggestions and ideas that they would not otherwise consciously accept.

One of the ways this was attempted was through constant repetition of certain phrases and “keywords”.

In Darwin’s rambling, inconcise style of writing he again and again suggests the theory of evolution, without presenting any really cogent facts (see chapter on The Fossil Record, where I discuss what Davidheiser had to say on the constantly repeated theme of the fact of evolution by evolutionists). His obtuse repetitive style is actually an example of a masterpiece on how to literally disorient somebody with a mass of innuendo, meaningless phrases, and jargon until they are almost “pliable” enough to believe whatever it is you would have to say. His writing style is much like the mumbling of a person on drugs or frighteningly similar to somebody under the classic spell of spirit possession.

I saw a remarkable similarity between Darwin’s writings and a character in one of C.S. Lewis’ books, Out of the Silent Planet, in which a mad scientist had literally lost his wits to the evil one, and was attempting to seduce the “new Eve” by a prolonged rambling, banter of metaphysical psycho-babble. Darwin’s technique is as old as Genesis: “Yea hath God said?”

Jacques Barzun wrote “No sooner, it seemed, had mid (nineteenth century) materialists destroyed the last remnant of belief in the hereafter than appeared Spiritualism, psychical research, Theosophy, Christian Science, Yogi, and innumerable shades of New Thought.”( pp.115, Darwin, Marx and Wagner).

Many of the modern, humanistically based techniques in psychology are really pseudo-sciences, spawned, much like Darwin’s Origin, by the speculations of the so-called father of the modern technique of psychotherapy, Sigmund Freud.

It is amazing that Freud is still given so much credit for having been a grand innovator of some new scientific field of inquiry, since he was an admitted cocaine addict when he did his research (see The Cocaine Papers, by Sigmund Freud) who confessed in writing in 1897 that most of the evidence for his psychoanalytic hypothesis had been cleverly doctored up by none other than himself; he admitted that if something fit in with his theory, even if it was false, he wrote it down as though he had real evidence for it, and if anything conflicted with his theories, he omitted the material. (See Man is a Moral Choice, by Albert H. Hobbs.)

Biologist Jane H. Ingraham has written, “No single aspect of Freudian doctrine has ever been scientifically validated, nor can it be in the true sense of science (The New American, Nov., 24, 1986, pp.38.).

Freud was an ardent atheist and a Darwinist. He said that his materialistic views and his rejection of the idea of a Creator God were among his primary reasons for developing his theories. In his New Introductory Lectures on Psycho-Analysis, delivered at the Vienna Psychiatric Clinic during the winter terms of 1915-1916 and 1916-1917, particularly in his Lecture 35, A Philosophy of Life, he made clear his intention to replace Christian world values with a purely materialistic world view, what he called (ironically enough) a “scientific” world view based on materialism and evolutionary principles.

While not wishing to go into detail, Freud did state as his opinion that both views of life, the Christian outlook and his own psycho-analytic outlook, could not both co-exist in the world at the same time, and he went so far as to say that people should not even have the freedom to choose which viewpoint they would want to believe; that religious faith was a form of mental illness, which he dubbed psychosis, and that faith in God should be replaced by his own theories.

On religious faith, Freud wrote: “ . . . but we cannot overlook the fact that it would be wrong and highly inexpedient to allow such things to be carried over into the domain of knowledge. For in that way one would open the door which gives access to psychosis, whether individual or group (church gatherings) psychosis . . . It is inadmissible to declare that science is one field of human intellectual activity and that religion and philosophy are others, at least as valuable, and that science has no business to interfere with the other two, that they all have an equal claim to truth, and that every one is free to choose whence he shall draw his convictions and in what he shall place his belief.” (Ibid, Lecture 35, Vienna).

Freud’s advocacy of “thought policing” to cleanse society of those who do not adhere to his beliefs is a blueprint for the final days when man will attempt by his own means apart from the grace of God to institute a “perfect society”, and those who do not tow the official party line will be banned from the public arena of discussion. Freud’s vision of the ideal society is a frighteningly banal world of sterile intellect and unbridled instinct, of passion divorced from love, of order with none of the classical virtues of piety, charity and compassion, they would be relegated as mere adult neurosis stemming from childhood guilt.

Freud’s ideal citizen is a monstrous distortion of the half-human/half-Vulcan Spock of Star Trek, only instead of embodying the best and noblest virtues of the Vulcan and human sides to his character, he would be a dialectic human monster, coldly manipulating events and people to satisfy the lusts of his own id, or ego, with none of the constraints of religious virtue.

Freud was a materialist in his beliefs, but there is an equal and opposite extreme, which was the one followed by Karl Gustav Jung. He delved into the spiritual realm, going against the proper guidelines and the warnings that are found in the Bible.

Although he coined the term “collective unconscious” for the spiritual realm that he was dabbling with and claimed that he was merely addressing psychological “archetypes”, he was in fact involved in occultism, which ultimately lead to his own bouts with insanity. It is extremely dangerous, even prohibited by the Scripture, to try and attempt any contact with spiritual beings, dead ancestors, angels, etc. We are meant to live by faith and trust in the triune God: God the Father, Jesus Christ the Messiah, and the Holy Spirit as revealed in the Bible.

The modern pseudo-science of Freudian Psychology should never supersede the Bible, the Word of God, as the primary source for man’s condition, and for his healing.

It is interesting to trace the gradual transmogrification of the word “science” during this period from its original meaning of observation->hypothesis->experiment->analyzation of data->deduction to hypothesis->deduction->observation- sans experiment, thus the word science came to be identified with a certain philosophic predisposition and facts were merely collected to support some particular bias, as in Freud’s doctored up theories.

Let us now once again retrieve Darwin from the shelf, dust him off, and summarize the study of Darwin and Darwinism, or evolution, as the two terms are practically interchangeable. It would seem that in finding out more about the man hidden behind the carefully crafted legend, it would not appear that Charles Darwin contributed very much at all to the theory of evolution, he certainly did not originate the idea.

Shorn of the contrived and fawning adulism showered upon him he is rather more like the sorry sovereign of "The Emperors New Clothes" instead of the much heralded "discoverer" of evolution, as he is being gradually whittled down by the very facts from his own biographers and by these same admiring followers in the evolutionist camp, so that in fact what we are finding is a man of quite ordinary academic accomplishments with an ability to spin tales and present other peoples ideas as though they have come from his own novel discoveries.

Darwin was not a noted scholar in school, in fact he was a rather poor student, given to making up fibs as a youth. He also had a poor academic career while in college, and at the outset of his voyage on the Beagle he had almost no scientific understanding or background at all, but he was full of various theories of evolution that he had acquired as a youth from his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, and from the writings of others. What he is given credit for was his theory of natural selection and of adaption, which were not his original ideas either, and for supposedly showing that the origin of species was, according to the words of Sir John Herschel, "a natural in contradistinction to a miraculous process."

Though he has been highly touted as the originator of the evolutionary theory, in fact Darwin originated nothing at all, and borrowed all of his concepts from predecessors.

Next we will look at Darwin's final refuge for his theory to have any credit, the fossil record, and find out what he had to say on this issue, as well as any discoveries since his time, that might validate his theory, in the next issue of The Darwin Papers.

1. Excerpted from The Nebulous Hypothesis: A Study in the Philosophical and Historical Implications of Darwinian Theory 1996 by James M. Foard, White City Oregon. Regarding a controversy about 1 Tim 6:20, this same Greek word gnosis is used in many other parts of the New Testament and it is used in Luke 1:77 to mean knowledge of salvation. Also in Luke 11:52, Rom. 11:33, and 1Cor 8:1 it is used to mean nearly the same thing as in Luke 1:77, knowledge of God. 

Gnosis meant knowledge, or "knowledge of" or "the study of", which is one of the definitions that the modern word science can still mean, even though the word science is generally equated  with "the scientific method", which it can refer to, but not always. Hence 1 Tim 6:20 does not refer exclusively to the gnostic heresies. See the endnote #1 in Chapter Six for further commentary. Paul did not give Timothy an exhaustive list of all past and future heresies here, but evolution can certainly be included in this general statement

2. Taylor, Gordon Rattray, The Great Evolution Mystery, Harper and Row Publishers Inc., 10 East 53rd Street, New York, N.Y., 10022, 1983, Introduction; pp.140.

3.Howells, William, Mankind So Far, American Museum of Natural History Series, Vol.5, Doubleday and Co., Garden City, New York, 1949, pp.6.

4.Howells, Mankind, pp.6-8.

5.Stein and Rowe, Physical Anthropology, 3rd. Ed., Los Angeles Pierce College, McGraw-Hill Books Inc., Set in Baskerville by Ruttle, Shaw & Wetherill, Inc., R.R. Donelly & Sons, Printer and Binder, 1982, pp.27.


7.Darwin, Charles, Origin of Species, Great Books of The Western World, 6th edition, Darwin, Vol.49, Chapter Ten, On the Imperfection of the Geologic Record, pp.153,Encyclopedia Britannica Pub., 1952, under the editorial advise of the faculty of the University of Chicago.

8. (ibid),pp.152

9. (ibid)

10.Darwin, Charles, Origin of Species, Chapter 10: On the absence of intermediate varieties at the present day-On the nature of extinct intermediate varieties.

11.Darwin, Origin, Chapter One: The Origin of our Domestic Varieties from one or more Species.

12.Darwin, Origin of Species, Chapter One: Effects of Habit and the use or disuse of Parts-Correlated Variation-Inheritance.

13.Darwin, Origin, Chapter Ten: Miscellaneous Objections: Supposed Incompetence of natural selection to account for incipient stages of useful structures, pp.104,(Benton, 1952).

14.Darwin, Origin,(ibid) pp.105, (Benton 1952).

15.Darwin, Origin chapter Six: Difficulties of the Theory: Organs os Small Importance. pp.94.

16.(ibid), Origin, Chapter Six: Difficulties of the theory: Transitions in habits of life, pp.84.

17.Darwin, Origin, Chapter Six: Difficulties of the Theory: Modes of Transition, pp.88.

18.Even Darwin's staunchest defender, Huxley, never really grasped what Darwin was talking about, and according to Barzun (Darwin, Marx and Wagner, pp.37) he thought the work "hopelessly tangled."

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

20.Darwin, Origin, Chapter Six: Organs of extreme Perfection pp.85.

21.In 1872 Darwin was refused membership in the prestigious Zoological Section of the French Institute for which they gave the following reason: " . . .the Origin of Species and still more the Descent of Man, is not science but a mass of assertions and absolutely gratuitous hypothesis, often evidently fallacious. This kind of publication and these theories are a bad example, which a body that respects itself cannot encourage." (From Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol.111, pp.224, note.) Afterward he was admitted in 1878 as a corresponding member of the Botanical Section, which, according to Bowlby (pp.415) Darwin considered as a joke because of his "slender knowledge of botany."

The theory of evolution also runs counter to one of the major laws of physics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics developed and proposed by Classius, which states in so many words that all systems when left to themselves are tending towards a state of randomness, in other words, biological and other organic systems should not be increasing in complexity (without an intelligence to organize and direct their operation) Although some have argued that this is only the case in closed systems, the issue of whether the Universe is finite or infinite is still a matter of philosophical debate, but even with an open system, mere introduction of energy would need a directing and organizing intelligence to arrange mere atoms and molecules into anything as complex as a living cell. A tidal wave washing through an electronics store would not produce a very useful computer.

22. Bowlby, J., Charles Darwin: A New Life, W.W. Norton &Company, New York, pp.344.

23. Barzun, pp.33.

24. Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, ed., Francis Darwin, 1885, Vol. ll, 247-250, letter arrived at Darwin's residence in Ilkley in November or December of 1859.

25. More Letters of Charles Darwin, ed. Francis Darwin and A.C. Seward, 1903, Vol.1,226-228. Another former instructor at Cambridge of Darwin, the Reverend John Stevens Henslow, did not support his work but remained a lifelong friend of Darwin. In the month before Henslow's death in 1861 he asked to see Darwin, however the latter refused, saying that the visit to the dying man might upset his stomach. (From Unpublished materials on Darwin, Cambridge University, pp.115)

26. Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol.111, pp.136.

27. (ibid).

[i]Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Chapter Four: Natural Selection: ON the Degree to Which Organization Tends To Advance & Summary of Chapter.

[ii] World Book Encyclopedia, 1983, Volume 5, Charles Robert Darwin, pp. 33 Scott Fetzer Company, Chicago, London.

[iii] Human Ancestors, Scientific American, 1979, from Leakey and Isaac’s Preface to the Book.

[iii]Erasmus and his ideas were quite popular in France before the Revolution. Erasmus left France shortly before the French Revolution erupted, having sowed his seeds (along with those of the other freethinkers) quite effectively, afterwards returning to England to watch the results from the safety of the British isles. One can quite clearly trace the seed of Jacobin thought on down through the writings of Marx and into the late nineteenth and early twentieth century utopians, among whom were H. G. Wells and Upton Sinclair, common examples during the period of the English Fabian Society. 

[iv] Wallace, King, and Sanders, Biosphere, The Realm of Life, pp. 5.

[v]The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of Astronomy, Editor in Chief, Simon Mitton, M.A., Ph.D., University of Cambridge, Institute of Astronomy, Trewin Cobblestone Pub., Ltd., 1977, pp.353.

[vi] Encyclopedia Britannica, Volume 19, pp. 640, 1986.