It is high time that people throughout the world realised that there is absolutely no evidence whatever supporting the theory of evolution.
Indeed the very man who proposed the theory, Charles Darwin, wrote this,
"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."
And, even more devastatingly, he points to the fatal flaw in his own theory - namely that it is not borne out by facts.
Once again we are quoting Darwin himself, "As, by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is all nature not in confusion instead of being as we see them, well-defined species? Geological research does not yield the infinitely many fine gradations between past and present species required by the theory; and this is the most obvious of the many objections which may be argued against it."
Precisely.
If evolutionary theory were supported by fact we would expect to see transitional forms now (nature 'in confusion') and in the past (in the geological record). We do not see anything of the sort. We see no evidence at all to support the idea of evolution from one species to another. On the contrary we see well defined species which reproduce after their own kind. If we do attempt to cross the species what happens?
Well, what happens if we cross a donkey with a female horse?
We get a mule.
End of story.
The mule is sterile. If we want to get another mule the process must be repeated.
And if we cross a lion with a tiger we get a liger - not perhaps a very imaginative name - but the same result: sterility.
What Darwin did observe were changes within the species. No one is arguing about that. But what he did not observe, and what no one ever has observed, was change from one species into another.
Once again let Charles Darwin speak,
"Not one change of species into another is on record....we cannot prove that a single species has been changed."
Now however we come to the building erected on this altogether shaky and sandy theory of evolution, a theory admitted by its author as leading to a proposition "absurd in the highest degree" and which is utterly flawed in the absence of transitional forms.
Upon this, then, the 'Geological column' was built.
Evolutionists argued that the supposed changes from one species into another (for which, remember, there is no evidence) took many millions, even billions of years to accomplish. Of course they didn't know how many (since of course it never happened, and even if it had happened, as they mistakenly supposed, they hadn't been there to see it.)
So what did they do?
They guessed!
They guessed the number of years it might have taken, they supposed, for one species to evolve into another!
Then they looked for the fossils of the species they were talking about and said that not only were the fossils the different ages they had guessed but so were the "strata" or layers of rock where they had found them!
They then gave these strata names, 'Cambrian', 'Devonian' and so forth and assigned to them ages according to their own guessed ages of the fossils they had found in them.
Now, please remember, all this was sheer guess work, depending on the supposed time for (unobserved) changes between the species to have occurred.
But worse was to follow.
Some alert people started asking questions like, "How do you know it took so many million years for, say, a certain species of shell fish to develop from some other species?"
"Oh!" came the reply, "That's easy. We find the one species in the Tertiary period strata 65 million years ago, we find the other in the Mississipian period 350 million years ago. So therefore it took about 350 - 65 = 285 million years to evolve!"
That is what's called a circular argument and I cannot help recalling the, no doubt apocryphal, story about the cannon at Edinburgh Castle.....
Apparently it was the custom, at the time of the story, for a cannon to be fired off, precisely at midday from the precincts of Edinburgh Castle. A journalist one day happened to ask the man responsible (it was presumably before the days of radio) how he knew just when to fire the cannon.
"Oh, that's easy," he replied, "I've got a large pocket watch, look!"
"But," persisted the journalist, "how do you know your watch is accurate?"
"Oh that's no problem," continued the cannon-firer, "every morning, on my way to work, I check my watch against the big clock in the window of (such and such) jeweller's in the city."
The investigative journalist was eager for more. Thanking the cannon-firer he headed for the jeweller's in question.
"Excuse me," he asked, having entered the beautifully set out shop, "That's a very fine clock you have in the window there. How do you know it shows the right time?"
"Well thank you sir, it is indeed a fine clock," the jeweller replied. "The answer to your question is really very simple. Every day at midday a cannon is fired off at the castle and I always set the clock by that!"
So you see the evolutionist says "Palaeontology proves Evolution", and the palaeontologist says, "Evolution proves Palaeontology," both ignoring , or choosing to ignore, the fact that both are based on sheer guess-work, which in turn is based on - nothing!
However it is only fair to point out that not all palaeontologists share the evolutionary view. Dr. Etheridge, world famous palaeontologist at the British Museum in London admitted "Nine tenths of the talk of evolution is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum there is not one particle of evidence of the transmutation of species."
There we have it again, "There is not one particle of evidence of the transmutation of species." Darwin did not observe it either! And a great palaeontologist at one of the greatest museums in the world says there is "not a particle of evidence" for it in all his vast museum.
One must be forgiven if one is beginning to suspect that such evidence simply doesn't exist!
And if the evidence doesn't exist, doesn't that suggest that the process never occurred?
On the other hand there is plenty of evidence to support the singularity of the species. We've already seen what happens when we mate a horse with a donkey and so on: sterility.
Let's now look at a modern scientific discovery, one of the greatest insights into - no not the meaning of life, not even the nature of life, - but into the mechanism of reproduced characteristics and the propagation of one species as distinct from all others. I'm referring of course to the discovery of DNA.
DNA is the chief constituent of the chromosomes of all organisms. It is self replicating and is the mechanism by which hereditary characteristics are transmitted from one generation to the next. It is, in fact, information - information which allows the species to reproduce according to its own kind.
So the modern-day evolutionist not only looks at creation and says there is no Creator, he looks at DNA - information - and says there is no informant. The idea that information can just happen is utterly preposterous. Just look at the information on any computer - you know perfectly well somebody put it there!
Look at a watch, you know it was made by a watchmaker. Look at a pot, you know it was made by a potter. Look at a building, you know there must have been a builder.
Look at creation, you know there must have been a Creator.
The great Scottish physicist, Lord Kelvin, wrote this, "Overwhelmingly strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us....the atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into words."
So we've shown why evolution is nonsense.
Unfortunately we've still got to show why it's dangerous nonsense.
You may of course reject the idea of a Creator because you don't like the thought that you may be held accountable to your Creator for your actions. If there is no Creator, no God, we can all do just as we please. We can be as evil and corrupt as possible. We can rape, torture and pillage, kill babies and cripples and old people, exterminate all who disagree with us and trample on all who get in our way.
We have indeed seen, and still do see, the fruit of evolutionary philosophy throughout our present blood-stained century. The doctor who makes his living killing unborn babies, the Hitlers and the Stalins of our century differ only in the scale of their atrocities, not in their nature.
If there is no Creator, no God, no judgement, it really is illogical to behave in any other way.
If survival of the fittest is seen as the reason for our existence then it really is illogical not to trample to death all who annoy or inconvenience us or get in our way.
The evolutionist with his irrational and unfounded disbelief in the integrity of the species would indeed have us gather grapes from thorns, and figs from thistles.
Jesus Christ however told us, "You'll know them by their fruits!"
Do men gather grapes from thorns or figs from thistles? Of course not. Anybody who tried to do so, or thought they were doing so would no doubt soon be locked up as insane. The integrity of the species is plain for all to see. So too is the moral depravity which results from evolutionary and atheistic beliefs. Truly we know them by their fruits.
Our last point is about the so called 'importance' of teaching evolution in our schools.....
If you teach children that there is no Creator, no God, no judgement, then sooner or later you're going to educate someone with the sense to realise what "survival of the fittest" really means. Then you'll have your Stalin, your Hitler, your abortionist.
You've educated him and you must surely pay the consequences.
What else do you expect?
Copyright © David Lawrie 1998
This article "Why Evolution is Dangerous Nonsense" may be freely copied and distributed, provided that this Copyright notice and permission is included, and that there is no alteration either to this notice or to the text of the article itself.
