The Voyage of the Beagle


Advanced Search
Charles Darwin's father at first refused to allow his 22-year-old son to go on this voyage around the world in 1831-1836: he felt it was not a wise career choice. Fortunately, his father relented, and we have Darwin's journal, which may be the greatest scientific travel narrative ever written. Revised by the author in 1860, this is an account of his experiences on the Beagle, which led to his formulation of the theory of evolution. He was able to observe coral reefs, fossil-filled rocks, earthquakes, and more, first-hand, and made his own deductions. Original (of course) and entertaining!

Fan of this book? Help us introduce it to others by writing a better introduction for it. It's quick and easy, click here.


Recent Forum Posts on The Voyage of the Beagle

No Subject

Darwinian Evolution: Allow me to begin at the
beginning of Mr. Darwin¡¯s life. Charles Darwin was born
February 12, 1809, (the birth date of Abraham Lincoln).
Charles Darwin was the son of a well to do physician in
England, Dr. Robert Darwin. It is reported that the Dr. was
6'6" and weighed 320 pounds and Charles¡¯ mom was from
the Wedgewood china family. Later, when Charles was
being groomed to follow father¡¯s profession, footsteps, it
was learned Charles didn¡¯t have the stomach for surgery.

But when we read of his time and surgery practices,
one may better understand. This was not an enlightened
time. In the days Charles Darwin was training, surgeons
performed surgery in their street clothes. Cleanliness was
not known to be important. Although they usually wiped off
the surgical tools, they carried them from patient to patient
in a doctor¡¯s bag without sterilization or other cleansing.

One in five surgeries was an amputation performed
with very little and often no pain killer. Approximately one
half of the amputation patients died from infection,
secondary infection, shock or a combination of the three.

Other methods of medicine included bleeding
patients to rid them of their ¡°bad blood.¡± It was not
uncommon to bleed them of one half or more of their total
blood supply. There were generally no transfusions.
Dehydration was another method prescribed by physicians.
Doctors were prescribing blood sucking leeches for
infection. The leading cause of death was tuberculosis with
doctors often being the carriers. It was this practice of
medicine the young Charles had rejected.

In 1825 Charles entered Edinburgh Medical school.
After his problems with surgery, in 1827, Charles
transferred to Christ¡¯s College, Cambridge. Most people
are shocked to learn that Charles Darwin was not trained
as any kind of scientist, but . . . as an Anglican (episcopal)
pastor at Christ¡¯s College Cambridge. Young Charles
completed his studies to be an Anglican pastor in 1831.

While at Cambridge, Charles met Professors John
Henslow (1796-1861) and Rev, Dr. Adam Sedgwick (17xx-
18xx). These two men were instrumental in encouraging
young Darwin to take an around the world cruise on the
H.M.S. Beagle as an unpaid naturalist, before taking his
first pastorate.

The H.M.S. Beagle, under Captain Robert Fitzroy,
set sail on 27 January, 1832. Although not scheduled to
take that long, the voyage took almost five years to
complete. When Charles boarded the Beagle, he would
quote the Bible as ¡°the¡± answer in matters of morals.
However, the sailors chided him for his narrow beliefs.
Slowly Charles Darwin abandoned his belief in the Bible
and became a racist. Darwin also read Lyell¡¯s Principles of
Geology while on the voyage. Based upon what Lyell wrote
and what Darwin believed he was observing, Darwin
became a uniformitarian (vast age believer) before he
arrived at the Galapagos islands in 1835. Charles believed
that Lyell¡¯s principals might be applied to what he saw on
these islands. Young Charles arrived back in England on 2
October, 1836. This decision to take the ocean trip before
beginning his career as a minister had markedly altered his
life. It would serve as a motivating factor leading to the
publication of his career defining Origin of Species.

Twenty-three years later, in 1859, Charles Darwin
published the imaginative speculation: On the Origin of
Species, By Means of Natural Selection, Or The
Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle For
Life. Pastor Darwin was only a self taught geologist.
When Mr. Darwin wrote Origin of Species he admitted he
had problems with the fossil record. He also wrote
that he hoped as more fossils were discovered, there
would be proof for his ¡°imagination.¡± Charles Darwin wrote
the following admitting the complete absence of fossil
evidence in the rocks (geologic record) for his imagined
transmutation. Darwin wrote:
In the sixth chapter I enumerated the chief
objections which might be justly urged against the
views maintained in this volume. Most of them have
now been discussed. One, namely the distinctness
of specific forms, and their not being blended
together by innumerable transitional links, is a very
obvious difficulty. I assigned reasons why such links
do not commonly occur at the present day,... . . .
But just in proportion as this process of
extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so
must the number of intermediate varieties, which
have formerly existed on the earth, be truly
enormous. Why then is not every geological
formation and every stratum full of such
intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not
reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and
this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest
objection which can be urged against my theory. The
explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme
imperfection of the geological record. (Darwin,
Charles. On the Origin of Species, By Means of Natural
Selection, Or the Preservation of Favoured Races, In the
Struggle For Life, Chapter 9, Online (6th?) edition, 1859)

Translation: I know there is no scientific evidence of
fossils (dead animals) linking one species to another. I
know this is a most serious (gravest) objection ¡°against my
theory.¡± (It was not really a theory, but only his imagined
ideas, ideas that as one can see, were in opposition to the
facts). One may rightly define Darwin¡¯s book as speculation
since when Darwin wrote he did not have any factual basis
for his imagined ideology (evolution).

A continued translation of Darwin would be: I do not
know why there is no proof, but the ¡°explanation¡± (I really
hope) is because of the ¡°extreme imperfection of the
geologic record.¡± (We have not dug up enough rocks yet to
see what the record will show). When we dig up enough
rocks, I really, really, really hope it will show what I am
writing here today.

Mr. Darwin spent part of another chapter in the book
apologetically naming great scientists of his day who
Darwin feared, would all (but perhaps one) reject his
theory. This is what Charles Darwin wrote. I quote:

". . . We see this in the plainest manner by the
fact that all the most eminent paleontologists,
namely Cuvier, Owen, Agassiz, Barrande,
Falconer, E. Forbes, &c., and all our greatest
geologists, as Lyell, Murchison, Sedgwick, & c.,
have unanimously, often vehemently, maintained
the immutability of species. But I have reason to
believe that one great authority, Sir Charles
Lyell, from further reflexion entertains grave
doubts on this subject. I feel how rash it is to
differ from these great authorities, to whom, with
others, we owe all our knowledge. Those who
think the natural geological record in any degree
perfect, and who do not attach much weight to
the facts and arguments of other kinds even in
this volume, will undoubtedly at once reject my
theory. . . ." -Darwin, Charles On the Origin of Species,
chapter 9.

Darwin¡¯s contemporaries: Brother Hughes, didn¡¯t the
great majority of well known scientists of Darwin¡¯s day
support Darwin? Not on your life!

I Laughed: Darwin¡¯s former geology professor, Rev. Dr.
Adam Sedgwick who had been department head at
Cambridge, a most prestigious British university read
Darwin¡¯s book. The professor wrote to Darwin that his
book was a joke. Sedgwick told Darwin the reports of what
Darwin had seen in various parts of the world were good.
However, Sedgwick said that about certain parts of the
work, ¡°parts I laughed at till my sides were almost
sore; . . . .¡± Sedgwick concluded Darwin¡¯s position
untenable and absurd. Sedgwick went on to condemn
Darwin for mischief with the facts. (He alleged Darwin had
been deceptive)

Another of the scientists referred to by Darwin in the
above quote in Origin of Species (and other places in that
work) was Louis Agassiz, a Harvard professor. Professor
Agassiz was Darwin¡¯s contemporary. He wrote there was
no ¡°factual basis¡± for Darwin¡¯s theory. Agassiz reported
that ¡°all¡± the scientific evidence was ¡°against¡± Darwin and
¡°his henchmen.¡± Agassiz said highly complex organisms
had been found in the oldest rocks. This clearly proved
there was no evolution of species. Why? It was because
Darwin argued life evolved from simple to complex. With
these complex fossil life forms in the oldest rocks, there
was no room for simple to complex evidence. Therefore,
the fossil findings of 1859 said, ¡°NO¡± to evolution. Do you
understand why?

If evolution had been true, you would not find highly
complex forms alone. They would be changing from a
simpler form to a more complex (evolved) form. Darwin
wrote we would find unnumberable (literally thousands or
more) of simple forms, slowly changing from simple to
complex. BUT what did the fossil record show? The fossil
record of Darwin¡¯s day revealed highly complex organisms
in the oldest layer of rocks in which there was evidence of
life, the Cambrian layer of rocks. There was absolutely
NOT ONE prior life form. NOT ONE!

As both Darwin and Professor Agassiz declared
evolution could not be true without these innumerable
fossils in the geologic (rocks) record. The only scientific
conclusion one could make is: highly complex life forms
suddenly and explosively appeared in the fossil record
without any prior simpler life forms in the fossil record.
This is evidence against simple to complex evolution. It is
in favor of the creation mandate: ¡°In the beginning God
Created the Heaven and the Earth . . . ¡±

All the scientists named by Darwin in his book, but
one, did reject the speculation in his publication about
transmutation or evolution. In spite of this rejection, Mr.
Darwin hoped his slow and gradual, simple to complex
speculation would be eventually revealed in the fossil
record. Was the fossil evidence found?

20th Century Fossil Record: In the next one
hundred eighteen (118) years, hundreds of expeditions dug
and searched for fossil evidence to prove Darwin¡¯s theory.
At the end of that period, Stephen Jay Gould, Harvard
professor and Niles Eldredge, a curator of The American
Museum of Natural History, New York City, concluded the
fossil record did not support Darwin¡¯s evolution. These men
had been thorough Darwinian evolutionists. Yet, while
proposing another imagined theory, Gould made this
observation of the fossil record:
2 Sudden appearance: In any local area, a
species does not arise gradually by the steady
transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at
once and ¡°fully formed.¡±

Hmm. Do I understand? Darwin admitted he
needed fossil proof. Darwin¡¯s esteemed contemporaries
rejected his imagination because the 1859 fossil record
was against Darwin. Evolutionists searched for fossil proof
for more than one hundred years. They found hundreds of
thousands of additional fossils. However, the additional
fossils supported the earlier conclusion that there was no
simple to complex record. All fossils appeared fully
formed, not evolving. Conclusion: Evolution has no proof!

Evolutionists claim some fossil finds are older than
the ones of Darwin¡¯s day. BUT none are transitional
fossils. Darwin wrote there would have to be innumerable
(hundreds of thousands, if not millions) of prior life forms
showing slow, gradual, incremental changes. There was
no such evidence in Darwin¡¯s 19th century. There was no
such evidence found by the end of the 20th century.

Jeffery H. Schwartz reported in his 1999 book,
Sudden Origins, that those who believe evolution, even if
they believe in rapid (punctuated) evolution, recognize that
a considerable number of generations would be required
for one distinct "kind" to evolve into another more complex
kind. There ought, therefore, to be a considerable number
of true transitional structures preserved in the fossils.
Schwartz noted there are billions of non-transitional
structures found But (with the exception of a very few,
very doubtful creatures such as the controversial feathered
dinosaurs and the alleged walking whales) there are no
transitional fossils. Instead of filling in the gaps in the fossil
record with so-called missing links, honest, thinking
paleontologists discovered that the finds solidified the
¡°gaps¡± (absence of transitional forms) in the fossil record.
No transformational evidence of intermediates between
documented fossil species had been found. (Schwartz, Jeffery
H. Sudden Origins (New York. John Wiley, 1999)

Dr. Schwartz indicated that although billions of
fossils had been found, there was no such evidence of
transitional fossils. Certainly there were not prior multiple
transitional life forms in the fossil record that Darwin wrote
would be found. Gould, Eldredge and Schwartz thus
confirm Darwin¡¯s contemporaries were justified in declaring
the fossil record said, ¡°No¡± to Darwin¡¯s imagined evolution.
In like manner, the fossil record of today says ¡°No.¡± In short
Darwin¡¯s hoped for proof was not found. Darwin conceded
in Origin of Species that lack of fossil evidence was a
¡°grave¡± objection against his ideas. Darwin hoped it would
one day be found. It has not been found. Conclusion:
Darwin was wrong! (Not the book )

We could stop our inquiry here and conclude that Mr.
Darwin had speculated improperly that all the species on
Earth had come forth in a natural manner. But Darwin tried
to overcome the question of ultimate origin or first
beginning. Mr. Darwin wrote in chapter 15 about a
Creator. Darwin confers on God a small ¡°walk on¡± role:
¡°. . . powers, having been originally breathed by
the Creator into a few forms or into one;. . . ¡±

Darwin said perhaps a few or one had life breathed
into it. Thus he concluded that life had not spontaneously
arisen BUT proclaimed all other species came via random
chance and natural selection. Darwin imagined slow,
continual, gradual evolution which required unnumberable
slow incremental changes. Yet, by the end of the next
century (1999), there was no proof in the fossil record or
the live animal kingdom, that species evolved as

What was Darwin arguing? That after all was started
(probably by God) God was not relevant to creation of
species. He argues God is not needed. The Bible is at
odds with Darwin. It was very clear Darwin did not believe
God created man ¡°in His own image.¡± (Gen.1:27)

Sir Frederick Hoyle (1915-2001 A.D.), 20th century
astronomer, Cambridge University, left Christianity
because Gospel writers didn¡¯t agree on the number of
angels at the Resurrection. Hoyle became an agnostic. In
1984 Hoyle wrote of Darwinism and its failure: I quote:
"How the Darwinian theory of evolution by natural
selection managed, for upwards of a century, to
fasten itself like a superstition on so called
enlightened opinion? Why is the theory still
defended so vigorously? Personally, I have little
doubt that scientific historians of the future will find
it mysterious that a theory which could be seen to
be unworkable came to be so widely believed. The
explanation they will offer will I think be based less
on the erroneous nature of the theory itself and more
on the social changes and historical circumstances
that surround its development." (Hoyle, Sir Fred. The
Intelligent Universe, Holt, Rineheart & Winston, NY p.25)

Do You believe in Changing Truth ? Evolutionists have no
problem in reversing positions. They once falsely claimed
as proof or their ¡°truth¡± the fossil record. In the first half of
the 20th century up until 1960 Dr. Carl Dunbar, PhD, wrote:

Although the comparative study of living animals
and plants may give very convincing circumstantial
evidence, fossils provide the only historical,
documentary evidence that life has evolved from
simpler to more and more complex forms. (Carl O.
Dunbar, PhD (geology) Historical Geology, John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., New York, 1960, p.47)

However, by 1981, the view had radically changed.
It was no longer their ¡°truth.¡± The fossil record did not
support Darwin. Gould and Eldredge (1977) had already so
concluded. Thus zoologist Ridley, from Oxford, wrote:
In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist
or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence
in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to
special creation.

In twenty-one years they departed from professing
faith in the fossil record as ¡°the¡± basis for evolution in 1960,
to repudiating that so-called ¡°truth¡± by 1981. Dr. Ridley
then boldly states ¡°no real evolutionist¡± uses the fossil
record. Wow! What an example of changing... ¡°truth¡±?
As observed, Darwin hoped fossil record evidence would
be found. The fossil record did not then and does not today
support evolution. It never has supported Darwin. How
can we trust anything they tell us? Their ¡°truth¡± is in
conflict with the real truth and is ever changing.

BE NOT Conformed: Christians must not be conformed
to this ever changing evolutionary ideology. Why? It is in
opposition to the Bible. Today, many former evolutionists
do not pretend Darwin¡¯s evolution is true. Yet, public
school students for about five generations had been
propagandized, brainwashed with or filled with the fable:
darwinian evolution. It is ¡°the¡± belief system taught in
public schools. It is not testable, replicable science. It is
something contrary to the evidence. It is a belief system.

To better understand this is a belief system, to learn
of its fallibility, we need to meet and learn about the three
key men responsible. The three were: Darwin, who built
upon the uniformitarian ideas of Charles Lyell, who had
built upon James Hutton¡¯s complete fantasy.

Charles Lyell (1797-1875): Who was Charles Lyell?
Lyell is the man who links Darwin to Hutton¡¯s ideas of
uniformitarianism. Mr. Lyell was not a geologist. He was
not trained in any scientific field. Yet, Lyell wrote a three-
volume set entitled Principles of Geology (1830-1835).
What was his training? Lyell was educated as an attorney.
An attorney wrote geology books? Yes. Charles Lyell
was credited with ¡°making popular¡± the Hutton belief
system in geology labeled uniformitarianism (all Earth
geology results from slow, gradual, continual, virtually
eternal erosion). Although much could be written about
Charles Lyell and his life, it is sufficient for our purposes to
know that: 1) he was from Scotland. 2) He was educated
as an attorney, who apparently was more fascinated with
dirt and rocks than law. 3) Lyell wrote the 3 volume work
¡°Principles of Geology.¡± Young attorney Lyell believed
and advocated the Hutton ideas with great force and
believability. Lyell had a profound effect on a clergyman,
then acting as a ship¡¯s scientist (naturalist), named Darwin.
Mr. Darwin knew (but the world at large does not know) the
theory upon which evolution is based was the idea of a
man named Hutton.

James Hutton (1727-1797) James Hutton is not known
by Christians. He is not well known except to those in
related areas of study. James Hutton should be known
widely, since his imagined ideas have ¡°held captive¡±
geology and other branches of science, for over a century.
His ideas were presented by Lyell then by Darwin for his
imagined evolution. Evolution spread widely throughout
society. It was challenger to Creator God. And indeed, it
was James Hutton who fathered this revolution.

James Hutton, a young Scottish man, was ever
learning. First he studied the law. When he was clerking
(apprentice in a law office), he spent much time helping a
friend invent a process, rather than on his duties. Hutton
was dismissed from his clerkship. Hutton went back to
school and earned a medical degree. After a short time at
the practice of medicine, (some report no practice of
medicine) Hutton, who had inherited a farm, became a
farmer. (Hutton and friend were developing the process).
As a farmer Hutton was more interested in studying the
rocks and the dirt of his land than in farming it. (Although,
admittedly, he enjoyed some farming success).

Soon Hutton began to speculate about how all dirt
and rocks came to be. Hutton decided that the key to the
past is the present. The thought of the era before Hutton
and the present era is the key to the present is the past.
Hutton believed the opposite and explained all of Earth in
a simplistic model of slow, gradual, continual. This was
contrary to the belief of Earth scientists of his day. It was a
reversed view of Earth geology. It denied the dominant
teaching of that day: catastrophism.

In the 1780s Hutton began to voice and publish his
ideology about Earth's surface. He probably built upon:

1) the 1594 view of Loys leRoy, who taught that the
land and sea changed places through erosion and
catastrophe;
2) the 1637 work of Rene Descartes (Discoures de
la Methode) (earth as a cooling fire ball);
3) Robert Hooks (1705) lectures and discourse of
earthquakes that cast doubt upon the flood of Noah;
4) Conte deBuffon in his work, Epochs of Nature
(1774) directly attacked the Biblical time records and
calculated the age of the earth to be 75,000 years.
5) Jean deLuc in 1778 accepted the Bible, BUT
assumed the six days of Creation were l-o-n-g
periods.

Allow me to roughly explain Hutton¡¯s idea.



Slow, Continual Erosion: Hutton noticed dirt falling into a
creek. This was called erosion. Hutton speculated that
eventually all dirt and worn rock on Earth erodes into
streams. The streams carried it to the rivers. Rivers
carried this dirt to the ocean. This excess dirt was
deposited upon the ocean floor. The extra weight built up.
The pressure forced the ocean bottom downward. In
another spot, far away where there was weakness,
mountains thrust upward forming mountain ranges. This
was his hypothesis or belief.

James Hutton decided that then the new mountains
would erode their dirt and worn rock into creeks. Creeks
carried it to rivers. Rivers delivered the material to the
oceans. The extra weight of the continuing deposits
caused pressure that pushed down on the ocean floor. In
another weak spot new mountain ranges were thrust up.
Then the process begins and repeats, repeats and repeats,
over and over and over and over and over. Hutton wrote
he believed this had occurred over a massive period of
time. It was a slow, continuous, repetitive process. It
explained, Hutton asserted, everything we saw on Earth.
Does this sound familiar? Isn¡¯t it what you were taught in
elementary science? Isn¡¯t it now taught in the seventh, and
eighth grades? But, is it true? You thought they were
teaching you ultimate reality or fact. Not true. Hutton¡¯s
ideas were not based upon fact. Hutton¡¯s ideas were
contrary to the Earth¡¯s scientists of his day. It was just one
way of looking at things, a philosophy. And I bet they never
told you that in school!

The Hutton assumption or conjecture of geology
made little progress, however, against the teachings of the
school of Abraham Gottlob Werner, a German geologist.
Werner taught the long standing principle of
catastrophism. . Thus Earth scientists of Hutton¡¯s day
believed earth geology was explained by catastrophic
events including the world wide flood of Noah¡¯s day.

Hutton reduced his mental inspiration and
speculation to writing in his ¡°Theory of the Earth¡± (1785,
1795). This was further expounded by another
Scotsman, John Playfair, in his Illustrations of the Huttonian
Theory (1802). Catastrophism was consistent with the
teachings of the Bible and most great thinkers, including
those of the greatest scientist: Isaac Newton.

Most people do not realize there was major
opposition to uniformitarianism (and later evolution) from
scientists of that time, including well known prominent
members of the scientific community. These men, and
many whom they influenced, believed the Biblical time
scale and catastrophism explained the geology of the
Earth. The uniformitarian view of Hutton did not receive
much acceptance in the scientific community until another
Scotsman and an attorney, Charles Lyell, wrote his three-
volume work : Principles of Geology (1830-1835).

¡°Uniformitarianism¡± was the name of the view from
the imagination of James Hutton (1726-1797). He
supposed a system of natural ongoing processes such as
river erosion and weathering. This he improperly contended
would explain all the surface of the Earth. Hutton wrote
Theory of Earth (1795). Hutton¡¯s ideas affected Lyell.
Lyell, building on James Hutton¡¯s Earth age conjecture of
1795, argued all Earth geology could be explained as
gradual, continual, slow: grain by grain, erosion. He
ignored and repudiated catastrophes: all catastrophes,
including Biblical explanations such as The Great Flood of
Noah. Lyell affected Darwin. These three men, who had
published after 1776 (American Revolution) were to turn
geology, biology and all scientific philosophy upside down.

Building on what Rock? Uniformitarianist Geology:
Darwin borrowed his slow, continual, gradual idea
from the uniformitarianism written of by Charles Lyell.
Lyell alleged everything on Earth is supposedly explained
by this speculated teaching of slow, gradual, continual
processes. This became a geological principal, only when
made popular by the attorney, Mr. Lyell in his three volume
publication entitled: Principles of Geology.
Soon it became a uniting principle of natural
philosophy, as science was then labeled. And an attorney
proclaimed ¡°uniformitarianism¡± as the geological
principal. Uniformitarianism, surprisingly, spread quickly
from geology (geo=Earth ology=study of) from Hutton to
Lyell, then from Lyell to Darwin. Everything on Earth is
supposedly explained by their speculated teaching of slow,
gradual, continual processes. Yet they ignore land slide,
flood, volcano, as factors in forming our mountains, valleys,
and canyons. It is now well accepted that the geologist who
ignores catastrophes does not have a credible explanation
of Earth geology.

Hutton-Lyell-Darwin: Who were these three men who
argued for this then new belief (slow, gradual) system, later
labeled uniformitarianism (everything is slow, gradual and
continual)? As mentioned: Hutton, Lyell and Darwin, were
not trained Earth scientists. Not one of them. Although
Hutton had been trained as a physician, that was in the
days when leeches, blood letting and non sterilized surgery
was the standard of practice. Yet, three, self taught, non-
geologists, reversed the geological belief system. What is
amazing and ironic is that today the three might not be
published. Why? They do not have the requisite academic
qualifications so they may publish or speak.

When evolutionists debate, write to criticize or want
to exclude from publication, certain articles, they often cite
the lack of academic credentials as a reason to not believe
the author and to exclude them from having articles
published in any leading scientific magazine. Perhaps
farmer Hutton (only because of his medical degree) might
have a chance at publication. What do you suppose would
happen if an attorney with a new theory of geology (Lyell)
wanted to publish? We all know the result if a clergyman
(Darwin) wanted to publish a new belief in one of
evolutionist journals. NO CHANCE!

But, the farmer-attorney-doctor (Hutton), a second
attorney (Lyell) and a clergyman (Darwin), changed the
basic scientific philosophy. How ironic, when today their
imagined assumptions would likely not be published in
any enlightened scientific journals because of their lack
of academic credentials.

Not An Ancient Belief: This method of slow, incremental,
vast Earth age calculation, named uniformitarianism, has
been used by evolutionary geologists for ONLY the last
one hundred and seventy-five (175) years. Before Lyell¡¯s
publication (1830), which spread Hutton¡¯s theory, no
credible geologist believed uniformitarianism described
Earth geology. Did you hear me? NO CREDIBLE man of
science believed in this imagination; not until Lyell.
Brother Hughes, are you certain of that? Let us consult
professor, astronomer, theorist, author, vast ager, Sir Fred
Hoyle, PhD. (1915-2001A.D.) reports: I quote:
¡°. . . The great geologist Charles Lyell (1797-1875)
repeated and extended Hutton¡¯s observations in the
field, and soon came to the conclusion that Hutton¡¯s
¡°principal of uniformity¡±, as it became called, was
indeed correct. Lyell¡¯s ¡°Principles of Geology,¡± the
first volume of which appeared in 1830, was in
considerable measure responsible for the
disappearance of the Biblical time-scale from all
serious discussion. Indeed, Lyell¡¯s books were
largely responsible for convincing the world at large
that the Bible could be wrong, at any rate in some
respects, a hitherto unthinkable thought.¡± (Hoyle, The
Intelligent Universe, NY 1983, p. 29)

In the 20th century (1985) Charles E. Merrill
Publishing Company, a textbook company, in Section 9,
Geologic Time and Earth History, p.211, declared:

¡°Almost 200 years ago James Hutton recognized that
the earth is very old. But how old? Scientists tried
to date the earth for many years, but their attempts
were not very successful. Instead they had to rely
on techniques which helped them place events in
their proper order without knowing how long ago
each event occurred. . . .¡± (p. 211)
. . .

During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the
doctrine of catastrophism strongly influenced the
formulation of explanations about the dynamics of
the earth. Briefly stated, catastrophists believed that
the earth¡¯s landscape had been developed primarily
by great catastrophes. Features such as mountains
and canyons, which today we know
take great periods of time to form, were explained as
having been produced by sudden and often
worldwide disasters produced by unknowable
causes that no longer operate. This
philosophy was an attempt to fit the rate of earth
processes to the then-current ideas on the age of
the earth. . . . (emphasis added) (Ibid.)

So as to a date when the vast ages became
accepted by the world at large, we would have to agree
with Hoyle, it was after attorney Lyell¡¯s publication of the
three volumes on geology in the early to mid 1830's. Thus
it was after 1830 when geologists contended for great
ages of the Earth. They based this upon calculations of
grain by grain uniformitarianism. Also we note these
geologists have designated the competing explanation (and
proper) catastrophism, a philosophy, not science. Thus
the textbook concludes that a way of looking at things is a
philosophy, not science. Please remember that.

Well, what in the world caused Darwin¡¯s imagination
to be accepted by so many seemingly intelligent persons?

Darwinian Theory built upon
Made Up Evidence, Fraud, Error & Hoax

One of the reasons Darwin was believed was
because of those who Professor Agassiz labeled ¡°Darwin¡¯s
henchmen.¡± These would include British naturalist Thomas
Huxley and German professor Ernst Haeckel. The two
¡°evangelized¡± for Darwin when his ideas were under attack.
They defended Darwin in debate and then ¡°made up¡± false
proof that misled multitudes.


Made Up Evidence

Wanted: Early Life Form: Evolutionary followers knew
of the long standing problems and the attacks by
contemporaries of Darwin. The evolutionists could not
show any life forms, evolving below the Cambrian rock
layers. The millions of fossils in the Cambrian bed of rocks
was called the Cambrian explosion. These were complex
fossils fully formed. Opponents of Darwin took this as the
perfect expression of God¡¯s creation. (And it is). There
was no sign of (slow, incremental, continual) evolution, but
instead the explosion of complex fossilized life. This had
always been evidence for creation and of great concern to
evolutionists since and including Darwin.

This explosion of life was found not at the Earth¡¯s
lowest and oldest rocks, but about 5/6 of the way up to the
surface. There was not a trace of pre-Cambrian life when
Darwin wrote: Origin of Species. Since there were no
actual earlier life forms, how did the evolutionists react?
The evolutionists made up two phoney pre-Cambrian
forms and gave them names: Eozoon and Bathybius. The
only purpose for them was to support Darwin¡¯s fragile
theory. These were said to be part of the monera of life, a
term made up by Ernst Haeckel of Germany. Haeckel
made it his life¡¯s practice to create deceptions to bolster¡¯s
Darwin¡¯s fragile imagination.

Darwin was delighted with these new so-called pre-
Cambrian ¡°discoveries.¡± Eozoon (which was supposed to
closely resemble Bathybius) entered the 4th edition of
Origin of Species with Darwin¡¯s blessing. Darwin stated
¡°It is impossible to feel any doubt regarding its organic
nature.¡± Was Darwin correct? No.

When these two disciples of Darwin (British scientist,
Huxley and the German professor Haeckel) proposed false
gelatinous forms, with unusual names, there was more than
a little speculation. But, the disciples argued, primitive life
forms allegedly covered the floors of the seas.

The Challenger expedition of the 1870s set sail to
explore the world¡¯s oceans and hoped to find these life
forms. Great amounts of deep sea mud was dredged and
lifted onto the deck of Challenger. The so-called life forms
were not found. But, as they preserved samples for later
analysis by adding preserving alcohol to the mud, that B
word, Bathybius suddenly appeared. They found and
admitted the so-called early life form was a substance
created by adding alcohol to mud. It was not organic life.
It was a precipitate of calcium sulfate produced when deep
sea mud reacted to the alcohol.

Was Darwin correct in saying it was organic life?
No! It was not organic (alive, living). It occurred only upon
mixing deep sea mud with preserving alcohol. Again
Darwin and his disciples were without a pre-Cambrian form
of life. Evidence again exhibited and proved ONLY sudden
creation of complex organisms in the Cambrian rock layer.

Gemmules Anyone? Darwin¡¯s most colossal error, aside
from the imaginary evolution itself, was his false belief in
gemmules. Gemmules? What are gemmules?

¡°Gemmules¡± were presumed quite small and thought
able to carry ¡°acquired characteristics¡± through the blood
into the sperm of the male and the egg of the female to the
next generation. Darwin, in error, believed newly acquired
characteristics were passed through the blood of both
father and mother through ¡°gemmules¡± to their offspring.
The traits were supposed to be carried through these
reproductive cells via gemmules. Would we thus conclude
that a father who was a weight lifter, who had acquired
large muscles, who then had five daughters would have
five large strong muscular girls? Would a mother, who had
developed a very slim waist and had worked to have a
particularly feminine body, pass this onto her sons?
Fortunately for the girls of the muscle bound weightlifter
and the boys of the very feminine mother, this gemmules
imagination is as inaccurate as the other imaginations
written by Darwin. (Origin of Species and Descent of Man.
☻¢Ð☺☻¢Ð)

What proof did they have of these gemmules, other
than the imagination of their minds? None ! I.L. Cohen,
educated as an engineer, a lifelong researcher into
humankind¡¯s past and noted author, stated, and I quote:

We now know that gemmules did not exist outside of
Darwin¡¯s imagination. Many scientists defended this
theory, simply because they assumed it to be true.
Gemmules were taken quite seriously at the time -
they had been advanced by an authoritative scientist
and couched in ¡®scientific¡± terms.

With time, however, it was realized that heredity did
not work according to the fantasies of Darwin¡¯s
imagination. Instead Gregor Mendel¡¯s theory of
genes. . . proved to be scientifically correct...; in
those years Darwin¡¯s magnetism was much too
strong to overcome. The scientific community of the
19th century preferred to continue theorizing with
Darwin¡¯s hypothetical pronouncements, rather than
evaluate the solid, factual data submitted by Mendel.
His significant laboratory results were brushed aside
by all the ¡°learned¡± scientists, as though they meant
nothing. Instead Darwin¡¯s illusory gemmules theory
was paid serious attention and subscribed to as
being established scientific fact.

Groundless Beliefs: Eozoon, bathybius and
gemmules, were humiliating errors, groundless beliefs.
These grave errors were first laughed off, then hidden.
Why? Darwin¡¯s notion was tenuous, at best. The Truth
shining in on it might destroy it as quickly as the noonday
summer Kansas sun melts butter left out on a dish near a
window. Evolutionists, rather than admit darwinism was in
serious trouble, allowed their misplaced faith in Darwin to
carry them deeper into error. When the errors became
apparent, evolutionists preferred to bury them or keep them
quiet. Why? Negative results and discoveries within a
decade and one half of the darwinian articulation caused
serious doubts about Darwin¡¯s announcements.

Engineer, author I.L. Cohen, in 1984, wrote: I quote:

Unfortunately, . . . realistic carefulness and scientific
humility was not widely exercised during the 19th
century and Darwin¡¯s theory was virtually acclaimed
as the arrival of the scientific Messiah. Still more
unfortunately, we continue to consider that theory as
law, without having the intellectual courage to
question anew each aspect of it as if there were no
alternatives. Darwin¡¯s theory is not scientific law - it
still lacks conclusive proof in spite of its plausibility
and popularity. (I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong, . . .
New Research Publications, Inc. NY {1984} p.20)


Post a New Comment/Question on The Voyage of the Beagle



Quizzes on Charles Darwin

Please submit a quiz here.



Related links for Charles Darwin

Here is where you find links to related content on this site or other sites, possibly including full books or essays about Charles Darwin written by other authors featured on this site.

    Sorry, no links available.






Art of Worldly Wisdom Daily
In the 1600s, Balthasar Gracian, a jesuit priest wrote 300 aphorisms on living life called "The Art of Worldly Wisdom." Join our newsletter below and read them all, one at a time.
Email:
Sonnet-a-Day Newsletter
Shakespeare wrote over 150 sonnets! Join our Sonnet-A-Day Newsletter and read them all, one at a time.
Email: