Contents Menu



I do not pretend to adduce direct evidence of
 species changing into another. Charles Darwin, 1861

 The Darwin Papers may be downloaded,
copied and distributed for free for non-profit.

We have seen from the earlier chapters that Charles Darwin, though highly touted as the originator of the evolutionary theory, in fact did not originate anything at all.
He borrowed all of his concepts from predecessors, and the theory of evolution has been around for centuries. Now let us find out if Darwin's major work, The Origin Of Species even lived up to it's name, i.e. was he correct in his theory and does current scientific evidence validate his views: Did Darwin truly present any sound facts to show that species originate by an evolutionary process of natural selection?

Gordon Rattray Taylor, formerly Chief Science Adviser to BBC Television and the winner of numerous scientific awards, began chapter seven of his epochal and eye opening book, The Great Evolution Mystery, titled The Unsolved Origin Of Species, with this remarkable statement:

"Since Darwin's seminal work was called The Origin Of Species one might reasonably suppose that his theory had explained this central aspect of evolution or at least made a shot at it, even if it had not resolved the larger issues [he refers to the chaos and failure of Darwinian theory gone into at length in the first six chapters of his book] we have discussed up to now. Curiously enough this is not the case. As Professor Ernst Mayr of Harvard, the doyen of species, studies, once remarked, the 'book called The Origin of Species is not really on that subject,' while his colleague Professor Simpson admits: (2) 'Darwin failed to solve the problem indicated by the title of his work.'"

Taylor went on to say: "You may be surprised to hear that the origin of species remains just as much a mystery today, despite the efforts of thousands of biologists . . . But in the last thirty years or so speciation [the supposed descent of many species from a common ancestor] has emerged as the major unsolved problem."

In point of fact speciation has always been the major unsolved problem.

These are statements that you don't find in your average High School or College textbook, where we are smoothly assured of the "fact" of evolution, and that it has been proven beyond any doubt. Taylor himself was no creationist, he was firmly committed to the evolutionary hypothesis, but he honestly saw the almost reckless and inconsistent assumptions in Darwinian theory and wrote of them.

This fascinating and little known secret has been admitted among evolutionists for years but not been told to the general public, that  in Darwin's entire Origin he had never really come up with a plausible example for the origin of any species.

Darwin even confessed in his Origin that he was totally at a loss to explain how life itself came into being in the first place: "Looking to the first dawn of life, when all organic beings, as we may believe, presented the simplest structure, how, it may be asked, could the first steps in the advancement or differentiation of parts have arisen?

Mr. Herbert Spencer would probably answer that, as soon as simple unicellular organism came by growth or division to be compounded of several cells, or became attached to any supporting surface, his law "that homologous units of any order become differentiated in proportion as their relations to incident forces become different" would come into action. But as we have no facts to guide us, speculation on the subject is almost useless . . . But as I remarked towards the close of the Introduction, no one ought to feel surprise at much remaining as yet unexplained on the origin of species, if we make due allowance for our profound ignorance on the mutual relations of the inhabitants of the world at the present time, and still more so during past ages."(Darwin, Origin of Species: Chapter 4, Natural Selection-Survival of the Fittest: On the Degree to which Organization tends to Advance, 6th edition, 1872)

Since the title of Darwin's book was The Origin of Species by Natural Selection, we could therefore, at least expect that natural selection would play a significant part in the process of evolution.

Harvard evolutionist and anthropologist William Howells, who was practically the Dean of Twentieth century anthropologists, wrote: "What Darwin did was to publish in 1859, after half a life of travel and of the most patient observation and study, the first consistent explanation of evolution in his theory of natural selection. This, and not evolution itself, is his monument. His reasoning and examples he was able to cite at first hand were devastating, and the impact on the world was great indeed."(3)

After Howells' paean of praise for Darwin's theory of natural selection, it is rather astounding that farther on from the same page of the book Howells wrote: "It can be said right away that this view of Darwin's is out of date. Evolution is not as simple as that, and natural selection, which once bore all before it, is no longer accepted by naturalists generally as the only key, or even the main one . . . The naturalists are, in fact, still pretty much in the dark . . . Moreover, some of the evidence of Darwin and his followers has been found faulty, and the reality of certain things which he assumed, such as the severity of the struggle for existence, is in doubt  . . . Darwin was somewhat mistaken as to the source of the raw materials from which selection picks and chooses . .  You might, therefore propose to say that Darwin was wrong."(4)

In light of Howells stating just prior to this that Darwin made some great contribution to evolutionary thought with his idea of natural selection, these admissions are incredible and they are devastating to Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection.

For the evidence for evolution and the claims of it’s adherents, let us look at the cover jacket of Howells book, Mankind So Far: "The Story of Man in all of his stages of development is the theme of this brilliant book by W.W. Howells, an outstanding American anthropologist. There has been, perhaps, no more romantic story ever pieced together than this scientifically impeccable and highly readable account of the emergence of that physical type which we call man."

This sounds as though we have some pretty good documentation for human evolution, however Howells makes this pronouncement near the beginning of his book: "We are totally bewildered, of course, about the beginnings of life and the reasons for our existence . . . "(22)

Statements like this, although not front-page items in National Geographic and Discovery, are usually hidden deep within articles that have bold headings proclaiming the “facts” of evolution. They can be found when one searches diligently for them, but they are not always presented along with the usual propaganda that evolutionists present as fact as they follow in Darwin's footsteps.

He proceeds: "Evolution is a fact, like digestion . . . There is much uncertainty along these frontiers of knowledge, of course, but there is no confusion about evolution itself . . .".
Howells then defines evolution as "descent with modification", making these telling remarks: "In itself, it is no more than the inescapable presumption that existing kinds of life, with all their advanced or special organs, have been derived by some natural process of change out of preceding forms . . . It does not pretend to explain how life began. That is another thing entirely. The human line, in fact, can be traced back only to the fishes (sic). Nor is it known just why evolution occurs, or exactly what guided it's steps, but Darwin produced the first really cogent answer, and in that way he made evolution respectable." (23)

In other words, Howells basically said that biologists and paleontologists who adhere to Darwin's ideas have no understanding from their theory of the real origin of life, they haven't the foggiest idea how the theory works or why (or if it works), but that Darwin made evolution sound respectable, dressed it up, sort of like putting an inexpensive lady into a very expensive dress.

First of all, let us define our terms. What did Darwin meant when he was addressing the subject of natural selection? He wrote in the Origin: “Natural selection acts exclusively by the preservation and accumulation of variations, which are beneficial under the organic and inorganic conditions to which each creature is exposed at all periods of life. The ultimate result is that each creature tends to become more and more improved in relation to its conditions. This improvement inevitably leads to the gradual advancement of the organization of the greater number of living beings throughout the world . . .But if variations useful to any organic being ever do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterized will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life: and from the strong principle of inheritance, these will tend to produce offspring similarly characterized. This principle of preservation, or the survival of the fittest, I have called Natural Selection.” [i]

Notice that Darwin only mentioned the preservation of favorable characteristics, not the origin of those characteristics, but Darwin extrapolated natural selection to mean that indefinite variation could occur that would eventually cross the species barrier, which evolutionists have done ever since. Of course he had no evidence of this, for he wrote to F.W. Hutton two years after the publication of his Origin: “I do not pretend to adduce direct evidence of one species changing into another,” however he stated that he preferred this theory because it suited his fancy. (Letter to F.W. Hutton on April 20, 1861, Complete Correspondence of Charles Darwin; also Online Correspondence of Charles Darwin, # 3122)

In Physical Anthropology, Philip L. Stein and Bruce M. Rowe of Pierce College, Los Angeles reveal that natural selection has nothing to do with the origin of any species, it only has the ability to preserve what already exists, merely eliminating those unfit for survival, thus reducing the gene pool, not increasing it: "Note that an animal does not evolve characteristics in order to survive, but must possess in advance characteristics that will allow it to survive."(5)

Howells stated pretty much the same thing: "The implication that practice makes perfect in evolution, or that usefulness can call a bodily feature into being is purely figurative speech, a device which I shall have to use again for the sake of simplicity. There is actually no evidence or explanation for the phenomena of adaption: even natural selection could explain only the modification of organs or features that already exist." (6)

So we find that an animal does not evolve a new organ or characteristics in order to survive, it must possess in advance those characteristics that enable it to survive. Natural selection can only preserve and reduce the number of already existing species, it cannot originate a new species. In Darwin's theory of natural selection in the supposed "struggle for existence," the number and variety of species should be increased, not reduced, but the facts show that just the opposite is the case, natural selection reduces the amount of genetic variation, not increasing it.

So the main idea that most people credit Darwin with, along with it’s abhorrent ideas of “survival of the fittest,” the theory of natural selection, explains nothing at all in so far as how various species could originate in the first place.

It must be remembered that Stein and Rowe, as well as Howells, were committed evolutionists, they are not attempting to discredit Darwinism, but hidden amidst all of the hoopla in most texts on evolution, you may find the admission that there really is no good evidence to support their views, though sifting through most of the propaganda on the subject can be like looking for a needle in a hay­stack. Many of these facts don't come into the possession of the general public through typical radio or television "educational programs", and they are usually left out of school texts. We actually find out that natural selection does not have the property of creating anything new, no new organs, wings, legs on fish, etc. thus no new species either.

We have also seen in earlier issues that Darwin's one great claim to fame in regard to evolution, natural selection, was not his own idea at all, that the entire theory of evolution had been around for centuries and been fully worked out by his predecessors, with much of the credit for natural selection going to Edward Blyth, a forgotten scientist who was a confirmed creationist, and from whom Darwin took and twisted most of Blyth's ideas around from creation by an omnipotent power to inferring the evolutionary descent of all life from a common ancestor.

Now we are finding out that natural selection has nothing to do with originating any new organ, only preserving traits that already exist! 

Let us now come to the main corpus of our work, let us investigate Darwin's Origin to uncover his profound insights into the process by which one species will evolve from another.

In the first section of Chapter Ten of his Origin, (Chapter Nine of the 1859 edition) titled On the Imperfection of the Geological Record, Darwin wrote: "So, that the number of intermediate and transitional links between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory [evolution] be true, such have lived upon the earth." (7)

Darwin clearly stated here that if his theory of evolution was true, then there must have been uncounted intermediate links upon the earth between species.

He continued: "The main cause, however of innumerable links not now occurring everywhere throughout nature, depends on the very process of natural selection, through which new varieties continually take the places of and supplant their parent-forms."(8)

That's interesting. There is no present evidence of evolution taking place, according to Darwin. And what is his reason for this? Darwin plainly said in the above quote that the reason why we don't see any evidence of evolution through natural selection taking place at the present time is because of natural selection!!

What a novel concept! Talk about disposing of the corpse. Well, he does an outstanding job of explaining all this away. I believe that when Darlington called Darwin equivocal, which means to deceive, to seduce, to say one thing and mean another, he was merely describing the tip of the iceberg. Fascinating.

Darwin's argument only mentions the aspect of preserving beneficial principles, not originating any, he presents no evidence on how beneficial modifications develop. His Descent of Man carries on this false idea of philosophic reductionism in his theory of the evolution of modern men, and Hitler and Stalin obviously took him at his word (as can be seen from Chapters 12 and 13 of The Darwin Papers). The full title of his book was The Origin of Species by Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Existence."

Darwin stated that there was no present evidence to lend credibility to his theory, no real living species slowly transforming from one kind into another: "Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed; but the very process of natural selection constantly tends, as has been so often remarked, to exterminate the parent-forms and the intermediate links. Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains, which are preserved, as we shall attempt to show in a future chapter, in an extremely imperfect and intermittent record." (Origin, Chapter Six: On the Absence or Rarity of Transitional Varieties)

It should be noted that Darwin did not say that evolution was not occurring at present, he just gave his rather frank and brutal reason as to why we do not see intermediate links occurring today (see Chapter Two), thus explaining away the lack of evidence. In other words, we still just have a theory without any evidence.

So the only evidence for evolution, according to Darwin, would come from the fossil record. However, we have a major problem with this as well. He also stated in the tenth chapter to his Origin that there was no fossil evidence for evolution having taken place in the past either! "So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon the earth. Independently of our not finding fossil remains of such infinitely numerous connecting links . . ."(10)

His only excuse was that they hadn't looked long enough to find any fossils. In the next chapter we shall investigate the fossil evidence to find out if there has ever been any proof that evolution occurred in the past, but for now we see that Darwin could not provide any current evidence or past evidence for the existence of those elusive intermediate links that would demonstrate that his theory of evolution was correct.

Darwin floundered on the matter of the origin of our domestic animals. In Chapter One of his Origin, in the sections The character of Domestic Varieties; difficulty of distinguishing between Varieties and Species; origin of Domestic Varieties from one or more Species, he wrote:

"In attempting to estimate the amount of structural difference between allied domestic races, we are soon involved in doubt, from not knowing whether they are descended from one or several parent species . . ."

Thus he stated in essence that he had no idea where our domesticated animals descended from. He went on to say, "In the case of most of our anciently domesticated animals and plants, it is not possible to come to any definite conclusions.."

So he shed absolutely no light on the issue. Of the second part of the section, "origin of Domestic Varieties from one or more species," Darwin again confessed his bewilderment: ". . . it is not possible to come to any conclusion, whether they are descended from one or several wild species..."

He summed up his observations on the evolution of our domestic animals with this definitive piece of information: "The origin of most of our domestic animals will probably be in doubt."

Darwin stated in the first chapter of The Origin, in a section titled Variety of Domestication, that there were two factors involved in the evolutionary process: "The nature of the organism and the nature of conditions [environment]."

He revealed his understanding of how these two factors influenced the evolution of species:

"It is extremely difficult to come to any conclusion in regard to the extent of the changes which have thus been definitely induced," but "there can be little doubt about many slight changes-such as from the amount of food, colour from the nature of food, thickness of the skin and hair from climate, &."

Thus Darwin confessed his ignorance as to how variations from hereditary changes could truly bring anything like a new species into existence. He did claim that environment could produce slight changes, which we know does not change the genes of a species at all, but he extrapolated this, as evolutionists have done time and time again in this manner, by drawing from this an unwarranted and unsubstantiated claim that, "Indefinite variability is a much more common result of changed conditions than definite variability." (This statement clearly shows that Darwin did indeed follow in the footsteps of Lamarck, despite the denial of his most ardent defenders)

So Darwin stated his belief that differentiation can go on indefinitely until we have a brand new plant or animal, a new species with entirely different genetic structure, behavior, reproductive system, etc. Although he demonstrated no evidence for this, he presented his assumption as fact, which has been the same tactic practiced by evolutionists from his time ever on.

We know however that there are definite limits to variability, as dogs can only reach a certain size, since after that the smaller proportion of their hearts to their body weight becomes a disadvantage. Cattle can only be bred to certain limits in variety and size, the earlier cited authorities have shown that no new genetic material is produced by breeders either. Even so-called antibiotic resistant bacteria have not "evolved" into anything other than bacteria, and in fact they only shared genetic material with other bacteria that already had the antibiotic resistant gene, thus no new DNA, no new genetic material, was actually created, and no new species were created either. 

As scientist Sylvia Baker has pointed out, simply because a man might start out jogging a mile every day in twelve minutes during his first week out, then by the second week he could jog it in ten minutes, etc, until after six months he could jog it in five minutes, that does not mean that after a year he could jog a mile in one minute! (Bone of Contention, by Sylvia Baker M.Sc., Australian Creation Science and Christian Education Resource Centre; P.O. Box 302, Sunnybank, Queensland 4109, Australia, 1993)

Darwin seriously undermined his theory of survival of the fittest when he stated: "How many animals will not breed, though kept in an almost free state in their own country (i.e. where they are perfectly adapted for survival but produce no offspring)..."

Still more evidence against his own theory, when he wrote: "Many cultivated plants display the utmost vigor and yet rarely if ever breed!"(11)

Continuing on: "When, on the one hand, we see domesticated animals and plants, though often weak and sickly, breeding freely under confinement: and when, on the other hand, we see individuals, though taken young from a state of nature perfectly tamed, long-lived and healthy...yet having their reproductive systems so seriously affected by unperceived causes as to fail to act, we need not be surprised at this system, when it does act under confinement, acting irregularly..."

So Darwin said that some plants and animals unfit for survival produce more offspring in confinement than some apparently more fit for survival, but that "the nature of conditions is of subordinate importance in comparison with the nature of the organism," i.e. environment doesn't really matter much in producing any new organisms or species in the first place, thus in so many words he said that his theory of adaption and modification of species was a lot of hot air.

Darwin's Origin ought to be required reading for all prospective trial lawyers. It is a classic example for the defense of a theory that has absolutely no evidence to back it up, but is simply a prolonged jumble of rhetoric and clever observations of various natural phenomena, with no actual facts to substantiate his premise.

Darwin finally summed up his understanding of the entire process of the descent of species: "The results of the various, unknown, or but dimly perceived laws of variations are infinitely complex and diversified . . . The laws governing inheritance are for the most part unknown."(12) In essence: "I can't make heads nor tails of this."

Speaking of tails, scientists have cut off the tails of rats for as many as 100 generations, yet the new offspring still grow tails. It must be remembered that Darwin wrote his book with no knowledge of genetics. The Origin was written before Mendel's development of the genetic theory and discovery of the laws of heredity. Because Mendel's findings conflicted with Darwin's views, Mendel's work was ignored for many years. When it was "rediscovered" more than forty years later, there was a temporary eclipse of Darwin's theory until those in the evolutionist camp were able to cover up the differences between Mendel's facts and Darwin's fabrications with some smooth rhetoric that only served to cloud the issue.

The Origin was also written before Pasteur made his historic proof of the law of biogenesis, i.e, that life can only come from pre-existing life, and that like produces like forms of life as well.

Pasteur, incidentally, was a devout believer that God had created all animals after their kind, as spoken of in the book of Genesis, and that no new living creatures were being produced through evolution, either today or in the past. (See in the full biography of Louis Pasteur by his son.)

The amazing fact, as previously noted, is that throughout Darwin's entire Origin itself he admitted that he had never seen evidence for evolution occuring for any species, neither in the present nor in the past, thus he never saw any evidence for evolution ever having occurred at all, it was all just, well, I mean it sounded like a good idea at first.

Actually, evolution all along was merely meant to write God and His creative process out of the picture; this was the main impetus behind Darwin's motive and his work, and the so-called "scientific" evidence for evolution was lacking in Darwin's day and has been lacking ever since.

In Chapter Seven of the Origin: Objections To the Theory of Natural Selection, Darwin mentioned that the giraffe supposedly gained her long neck after many generations while "browsing on the higher branches of acacias."(13)

He gave us his explanation as to how this situation occurred by the process of evolution:

"Why, in other quarters of the world, various animals belonging to this same order have not acquired either an elongated neck or a proboscis, cannot be distinctly answered: but it is as unreasonable to expect a distinct answer to such question, as why some event in the history of mankind did not occur in one country, whilst it did in another. We are ignorant . . . we cannot even conjecture . . . Why this should be so we do not know. . . whatever the cause may have been . . ." (14)

This was all from one and the same paragraph in the Origin, where Darwin, lost in redundancies, confessed his absolute bewilderment, his complete ignorance as to how the giraffe developed her elongated neck! Darwin was always utterly helpless to answer any valid objections to his theory.

In much of the Origin, Darwin had the uncanny habit of restating what he had just said, where his style of writing took on the aspect of the muttering of a person under the influence of an opiate, rambling on (and on) in incoherent, meandering gibberish, tossing around a whole list of technical terms, yet without any logical reasoning.

Returning to the giraffe, others have pointed out that it would be reasonable to expect all browsing animals that live near forested regions to have long necks just like giraffes; horses, deer, goats, etc., at least from an evolutionary viewpoint that might make sense. Horsefeathers you say?

A wing is a marvelously intricate instrument for flight, composed of delicate feathers and hooks and barbules to give the bird every advantage for soaring in the air, but of what advantage would a half formed wing be in survival value after it was no good anymore to use as a forelimb for climbing, running, and defense, yet before it had been fully developed into an appendage for smooth and swift flying?

In the chapter Difficulties Of The Theory (which would have been a vastly better title for his entire book than The Origin of Species), after a very prolonged and obtuse dissertation on the different varieties of birds, Darwin wrote: ""We are profoundly ignorant of the cause of each slight variation or individual difference . . ." etc. of the various species of birds and other animals.(15)

Darwin does though give us his amazing theory on how wings may have formed. He wrote:

". . . It is conceivable that flying-fish, which now glide far through the air, slightly rising and turning by the aid of their fluttering fins, might have been modified into perfectly winged animals." (!)(16)

Going on in this manner, I would dare to say that, according to Darwin, perhaps if you and certain members of your family began to run about through the neighborhood swooshing your arms and screaming out bird sounds, well, who knows? Your descendants could very well have wings after a few thousand years, or at the very least be sprouting feathers after a few generations, according to Darwin.

As far as the real evidence of wings forming in this way , after a brief diversion, he wrote: ". . . Thus to return to our imaginary illustration . . ."

Darwin also demonstrated his ground-breaking insight on the origin of lungs: " . . .all vertebrate animals with true lungs are descended by ordinary generation from an ancient and unknown prototype."(17)

Darwin often admitted his own complete ignorance as to how evolution might have occurred, but he continued to insist that it did occur, without offering a shred of proof. Whatever subject Darwin was addressing; the fossil record, embryology, or the different races of man, he first would advance a premise, then offer at best an imaginative explanation to support his theory, often running on for quite a few pages, then he would throw in a few observations of some natural occurrences on a related topic, then rework his theory, restate it again, state that it must be so, and that this is how it must have happened, yet he never presented any real evidence to prove his thesis. Nevertheless after a couple of pages of repetitious jargon, the reader has become so befuddled by the sheer amount of stuff and nonsense that it looks like something profound has been said, when in fact there has simply been a great deal of verbal sophistry.(18)

In a classic maneuver to turn the tables on those questioning his logic, he wrote: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."(19)

It seems to me that the burden of proof should be upon Darwin to prove his theory, after all, if someone were to say that if it could be proven that space aliens aren't actually plotting to take over the earth, then their entire theory would absolutely break down, it might be kind of hard to actually disprove such a theory, but who in their right mind would follow such a person?

Darwin uses this same technique noted above, appearing to answer an unanswerable objection to his theory, with his story of the eye. An eye is an incredibly intricate organ, if every part of it were not working in perfect harmony, fully developed from the very beginning, then total blindness would be the result, a half formed eye would be useless, and this is all the more damaging when Darwin says in the Origin: (20)

"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."

Even though Darwin freely admitted here that the very idea of a specialized organ originating by natural selection through gradual modification of inherited characteristics seemed "absurd to the highest degree" nevertheless he still assumed that it did occur, and he attempted to downplay the utter improbability of the evolution of the eye through using the incredible comparison that since the sun only appears to rotate around the earth, but in fact it is the earth that revolves around the sun, then this would somehow lend credence to his theory!

But developing a rambling "just so" story of how something might have happened, constructing a simplistic scenario entirely crafted from his own imagination while skipping over the multitude of complex chemical and physiological processes that would be involved in this extraordinary process, and attempting to equate this fanciful story to the entire science of planetary motion, thus to compare Darwin's yarn, lacking any facts at all, about how the eye might have evolved with Copernicus's scientific evidence that the earth, despite appearances, revolves around the sun, which later provided the basis for Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion and for Newton's Laws of Celestial Mechanics is extrapolation of such ludicrous proportions that, using Darwin's method of reasoning, one might use the example of the sun's apparent rotation to propose any sort of fantastic claims and proposals (more on this later concerning Newton's Law of gravity and Darwin's "theory" of evolution).

Nevertheless, based on this simplistic yarn evolutionists have made the incredible claim that he somehow did prove this, based entirely upon his own speculation, without one iota of factual evidence!

Darwin devoted an entire chapter of his Origin to objections to his theory; objections that did not come from ignorant wild eyed fanatics, but from sober, serious men of science, many of them defending the Christian idea of created "kinds" of species, and he did not present one iota of valid evidence to answer any of these objections either, except to use "imaginary illustrations" or extrapolations of the kind just mentioned; in most cases he had no response at all - he simply listed them and wandered on with his diatribe. This is absolutely incredible.

As in much of his writings Darwin has proven to be a master at obfuscation and clouding the real issue at hand. In his responses to critics, the way he danced around the issue was reminiscent of a tap-dancer on a stage in a Wild West Saloon, dodging bullets fired off by rowdy cowboys while preforming his act and not missing a step.

I have mercifully been concise in my brief excerpts from his writings; the reader is free to pick up a copy of the Origin and see for themselves that reading through Darwin is like wading through quicksand. After you have slogged your way through a veritable mountain of verbosity, in the end if you're not careful you might not realize he hasn't actually said anything of substance, just a lot of prattle about "variation" and natural selection.

His penchant for erudition lent a pseudo-intellectual facade to his writings and again made it appear as though he has said something of importance, when in fact he has said absolutely nothing of significance at all. One has to be cautious about how one handles him, its kind of like handling a snake, the earlier description of him by Darlington, his equivocation, suggests someone being disingenuous, or "slippery", having the ability to charm, to lie, to be evasive, delude, to suggest something that isn't true with intent to deceive. Plato said, "Everything that deceives may be said to enchant."

Remember the story of Snow White and her wicked stepmother? The stepmother was enamoured with her own beauty and out of jealousy plotted to kill Snow White. She gave Snow White a poisoned apple. The apple looked good to Snow White; it was beautiful and shiny and red-but it was laced with poison. So it is with the lies of the evolutionists - they lace the truth with the lie of evolution to seduce the minds of our youth. And once you have taken a bite of that apple and swallowed the lie of evolution, like a computer virus, it will work its way into your entire belief system and poison your understanding of the world.

The stepmother worked her wiles through deception, which is how evolutionists work their wiles today. In the Bible the devil caused the fall of man through deception and lies, and in the last book of the Bible, the book of Revelation, the devil is called the deceiver of the whole world (Rev. 12:9, 20:10). He is also called a liar and the father of lies (John 8:44). St. Paul warned against being deceived by science "falsely so called" (1Timothy 6:20, see endnote #1 in Chapter Six on the words "science" and "gnosis") or false science, and to be watchful of cunning schemes of man (Ephesians 4:14) and to "beware lest anyone spoil you through philosophy and empty deceit." (Colossians 2:8)

Evolution is a false philosophy that is in opposition to the truth of God's word and we need to be on guard against being deceived by it, and not be swayed from the truth by the cunning plots of ungodly men.

Continued in Part 2: