No Subject

If the point of the writer is to discount the theory of evolution, he/she is not quite making it. In fact this letter is overlong, bungling, and just plain wierd. I can't imagine what the writer was thinking; maybe this is someone who writes for British tabloids. And where did all those strange symbols come from?

Wow, this is pretty ignorant stuff. Not only does this person seem to know almost nothing about Darwin, he knows little more about nineteenth-century science of the general history of the period.<br>

Darwinian Evolution: Allow me to begin at the<br>beginning of Mr. Darwin¡¯s life. Charles Darwin was born<br>February 12, 1809, (the birth date of Abraham Lincoln). <br>Charles Darwin was the son of a well to do physician in<br>England, Dr. Robert Darwin. It is reported that the Dr. was<br>6'6" and weighed 320 pounds and Charles¡¯ mom was from<br>the Wedgewood china family. Later, when Charles was<br>being groomed to follow father¡¯s profession, footsteps, it<br>was learned Charles didn¡¯t have the stomach for surgery.<br> <br> But when we read of his time and surgery practices,<br>one may better understand. This was not an enlightened<br>time. In the days Charles Darwin was training, surgeons<br>performed surgery in their street clothes. Cleanliness was<br>not known to be important. Although they usually wiped off<br>the surgical tools, they carried them from patient to patient<br>in a doctor¡¯s bag without sterilization or other cleansing.<br><br> One in five surgeries was an amputation performed<br>with very little and often no pain killer. Approximately one<br>half of the amputation patients died from infection,<br>secondary infection, shock or a combination of the three.<br><br> Other methods of medicine included bleeding<br>patients to rid them of their ¡°bad blood.¡± It was not<br>uncommon to bleed them of one half or more of their total<br>blood supply. There were generally no transfusions. <br>Dehydration was another method prescribed by physicians. <br>Doctors were prescribing blood sucking leeches for<br>infection. The leading cause of death was tuberculosis with<br>doctors often being the carriers. It was this practice of<br>medicine the young Charles had rejected.<br> <br> In 1825 Charles entered Edinburgh Medical school.<br>After his problems with surgery, in 1827, Charles<br>transferred to Christ¡¯s College, Cambridge. Most people<br>are shocked to learn that Charles Darwin was not trained<br>as any kind of scientist, but . . . as an Anglican (episcopal)<br>pastor at Christ¡¯s College Cambridge. Young Charles<br>completed his studies to be an Anglican pastor in 1831. <br><br> While at Cambridge, Charles met Professors John<br>Henslow (1796-1861) and Rev, Dr. Adam Sedgwick (17xx-<br>18xx). These two men were instrumental in encouraging<br>young Darwin to take an around the world cruise on the<br>H.M.S. Beagle as an unpaid naturalist, before taking his<br>first pastorate.<br><br> The H.M.S. Beagle, under Captain Robert Fitzroy,<br>set sail on 27 January, 1832. Although not scheduled to<br>take that long, the voyage took almost five years to<br>complete. When Charles boarded the Beagle, he would<br>quote the Bible as ¡°the¡± answer in matters of morals.<br>However, the sailors chided him for his narrow beliefs. <br>Slowly Charles Darwin abandoned his belief in the Bible<br>and became a racist. Darwin also read Lyell¡¯s Principles of<br>Geology while on the voyage. Based upon what Lyell wrote<br>and what Darwin believed he was observing, Darwin<br>became a uniformitarian (vast age believer) before he<br>arrived at the Galapagos islands in 1835. Charles believed<br>that Lyell¡¯s principals might be applied to what he saw on<br>these islands. Young Charles arrived back in England on 2<br>October, 1836. This decision to take the ocean trip before<br>beginning his career as a minister had markedly altered his<br>life. It would serve as a motivating factor leading to the<br>publication of his career defining Origin of Species.<br> <br> Twenty-three years later, in 1859, Charles Darwin<br>published the imaginative speculation: On the Origin of<br>Species, By Means of Natural Selection, Or The<br>Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle For<br>Life. Pastor Darwin was only a self taught geologist. <br>When Mr. Darwin wrote Origin of Species he admitted he<br>had problems with the fossil [fn] record. He also wrote<br>that he hoped as more fossils were discovered, there<br>would be proof for his ¡°imagination.¡± Charles Darwin wrote<br>the following admitting the complete absence of fossil<br>evidence in the rocks (geologic record) for his imagined<br>transmutation. Darwin wrote:<br> In the sixth chapter I enumerated the chief<br> objections which might be justly urged against the<br> views maintained in this volume. Most of them have<br> now been discussed. One, namely the distinctness<br> of specific forms, and their not being blended<br> together by innumerable transitional links, is a very<br> obvious difficulty. I assigned reasons why such links<br> do not commonly occur at the present day,... . . . <br> But just in proportion as this process of<br> extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so<br> must the number of intermediate varieties, which<br> have formerly existed on the earth, be truly<br> enormous. Why then is not every geological<br> formation and every stratum full of such<br> intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not<br> reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and<br> this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest<br> objection which can be urged against my theory. The<br> explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme<br> imperfection of the geological record. (Darwin,<br> Charles. On the Origin of Species, By Means of Natural<br> Selection, Or the Preservation of Favoured Races, In the<br> Struggle For Life, Chapter 9, Online (6th?) edition, 1859)<br><br>Translation: I know there is no scientific evidence of<br>fossils (dead animals) linking one species to another. I<br>know this is a most serious (gravest) objection ¡°against my<br>theory.¡± (It was not really a theory, but only his imagined<br>ideas, ideas that as one can see, were in opposition to the<br>facts). One may rightly define Darwin¡¯s book as speculation<br>since when Darwin wrote he did not have any factual basis<br>for his imagined ideology (evolution). <br><br> A continued translation of Darwin would be: I do not<br>know why there is no proof, but the ¡°explanation¡± (I really<br>hope) is because of the ¡°extreme imperfection of the<br>geologic record.¡± (We have not dug up enough rocks yet to<br>see what the record will show). When we dig up enough<br>rocks, I really, really, really hope it will show what I am<br>writing here today.<br><br> Mr. Darwin spent part of another chapter in the book<br>apologetically naming great scientists of his day who<br>Darwin feared, would all (but perhaps one) reject his<br>theory. This is what Charles Darwin wrote. I quote: <br><br> ". . . We see this in the plainest manner by the<br> fact that all the most eminent paleontologists,<br> namely Cuvier, Owen, Agassiz, Barrande,<br> Falconer, E. Forbes, &c., and all our greatest<br> geologists, as Lyell, Murchison, Sedgwick, & c.,<br> have unanimously, often vehemently, maintained<br> the immutability of species. But I have reason to<br> believe that one great authority, Sir Charles<br> Lyell, from further reflexion entertains grave<br> doubts on this subject. I feel how rash it is to<br> differ from these great authorities, to whom, with<br> others, we owe all our knowledge. Those who<br> think the natural geological record in any degree<br> perfect, and who do not attach much weight to<br> the facts and arguments of other kinds even in<br> this volume, will undoubtedly at once reject my<br> theory. . . ." -Darwin, Charles On the Origin of Species,<br> chapter 9.<br><br>Darwin¡¯s contemporaries: Brother Hughes, didn¡¯t the<br>great majority of well known scientists of Darwin¡¯s day<br>support Darwin? Not on your life!<br> <br>I Laughed: Darwin¡¯s former geology professor, Rev. Dr.<br>Adam Sedgwick who had been department head at<br>Cambridge, a most prestigious British university read<br>Darwin¡¯s book. The professor wrote to Darwin that his<br>book was a joke. Sedgwick told Darwin the reports of what<br>Darwin had seen in various parts of the world were good. <br>However, Sedgwick said that about certain parts of the<br>work, ¡°parts I laughed at till my sides were almost<br>sore; . . . .¡± Sedgwick concluded Darwin¡¯s position<br>untenable and absurd. Sedgwick went on to condemn<br>Darwin for mischief with the facts. (He alleged Darwin had<br>been deceptive)<br><br> Another of the scientists referred to by Darwin in the<br>above quote in Origin of Species (and other places in that<br>work) was Louis Agassiz, a Harvard professor. Professor<br>Agassiz was Darwin¡¯s contemporary. He wrote there was<br>no ¡°factual basis¡± for Darwin¡¯s theory. Agassiz reported<br>that ¡°all¡± the scientific evidence was ¡°against¡± Darwin and<br>¡°his henchmen.¡± Agassiz said highly complex organisms<br>had been found in the oldest rocks. This clearly proved<br>there was no evolution of species. Why? It was because<br>Darwin argued life evolved from simple to complex. With<br>these complex fossil life forms in the oldest rocks, there<br>was no room for simple to complex evidence. Therefore,<br>the fossil findings of 1859 said, ¡°NO¡± to evolution. Do you<br>understand why?<br><br> If evolution had been true, you would not find highly<br>complex forms alone. They would be changing from a<br>simpler form to a more complex (evolved) form. Darwin<br>wrote we would find unnumberable (literally thousands or<br>more) of simple forms, slowly changing from simple to<br>complex. BUT what did the fossil record show? The fossil<br>record of Darwin¡¯s day revealed highly complex organisms<br>in the oldest layer of rocks in which there was evidence of<br>life, the Cambrian layer of rocks. There was absolutely<br>NOT ONE prior life form. NOT ONE! <br><br> As both Darwin and Professor Agassiz declared<br>evolution could not be true without these innumerable<br>fossils in the geologic (rocks) record. The only scientific<br>conclusion one could make is: highly complex life forms<br>suddenly and explosively appeared in the fossil record<br>without any prior simpler life forms in the fossil record. <br>This is evidence against simple to complex evolution. It is<br>in favor of the creation mandate: ¡°In the beginning God<br>Created the Heaven and the Earth . . . ¡± <br><br> All the scientists named by Darwin in his book, but<br>one, did reject the speculation in his publication about<br>transmutation or evolution. In spite of this rejection, Mr.<br>Darwin hoped his slow and gradual, simple to complex<br>speculation would be eventually revealed in the fossil<br>record. Was the fossil evidence found?<br> <br>20th Century Fossil Record: In the next one<br>hundred eighteen (118) years, hundreds of expeditions dug<br>and searched for fossil evidence to prove Darwin¡¯s theory. <br>At the end of that period, Stephen Jay Gould, Harvard<br>professor and Niles Eldredge, a curator of The American<br>Museum of Natural History, New York City, concluded the<br>fossil record did not support Darwin¡¯s evolution. These men<br>had been thorough Darwinian evolutionists. Yet, while<br>proposing another imagined theory, Gould made this<br>observation of the fossil record:<br> 2 Sudden appearance: In any local area, a<br> species does not arise gradually by the steady<br> transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at<br> once and ¡°fully formed.¡± [fn]<br><br> Hmm. Do I understand? Darwin admitted he<br>needed fossil proof. Darwin¡¯s esteemed contemporaries<br>rejected his imagination because the 1859 fossil record<br>was against Darwin. Evolutionists searched for fossil proof<br>for more than one hundred years. They found hundreds of<br>thousands of additional fossils. However, the additional<br>fossils supported the earlier conclusion that there was no<br>simple to complex record. All fossils appeared fully<br>formed, not evolving. Conclusion: Evolution has no proof!<br><br> Evolutionists claim some fossil finds are older than<br>the ones of Darwin¡¯s day. BUT none are transitional<br>fossils. Darwin wrote there would have to be innumerable<br>(hundreds of thousands, if not millions) of prior life forms<br>showing slow, gradual, incremental changes. There was<br>no such evidence in Darwin¡¯s 19th century. There was no<br>such evidence found by the end of the 20th century.<br><br> Jeffery H. Schwartz reported in his 1999 book,<br>Sudden Origins, that those who believe evolution, even if<br>they believe in rapid (punctuated) evolution, recognize that<br>a considerable number of generations would be required<br>for one distinct "kind" to evolve into another more complex<br>kind. There ought, therefore, to be a considerable number<br>of true transitional structures preserved in the fossils.<br>Schwartz noted there are billions of non-transitional<br>structures found But (with the exception of a very few,<br>very doubtful creatures such as the controversial feathered<br>dinosaurs and the alleged walking whales) there are no<br>transitional fossils. Instead of filling in the gaps in the fossil<br>record with so-called missing links, honest, thinking<br>paleontologists discovered that the finds solidified the<br>¡°gaps¡± (absence of transitional forms) in the fossil record.<br>No transformational evidence of intermediates between<br>documented fossil species had been found. (Schwartz, Jeffery<br>H. Sudden Origins (New York. John Wiley, 1999)<br><br> Dr. Schwartz indicated that although billions of<br>fossils had been found, there was no such evidence of<br>transitional fossils. Certainly there were not prior multiple<br>transitional life forms in the fossil record that Darwin wrote<br>would be found. Gould, Eldredge and Schwartz thus<br>confirm Darwin¡¯s contemporaries were justified in declaring<br>the fossil record said, ¡°No¡± to Darwin¡¯s imagined evolution. <br>In like manner, the fossil record of today says ¡°No.¡± In short<br>Darwin¡¯s hoped for proof was not found. Darwin conceded<br>in Origin of Species that lack of fossil evidence was a<br>¡°grave¡± objection against his ideas. Darwin hoped it would<br>one day be found. It has not been found. Conclusion:<br>Darwin was wrong! (Not the book [fn] )<br> <br> We could stop our inquiry here and conclude that Mr.<br>Darwin had speculated improperly that all the species on<br>Earth had come forth in a natural manner. But Darwin tried<br>to overcome the question of ultimate origin or first<br>beginning. Mr. Darwin wrote in chapter 15 about a<br>Creator. Darwin confers on God a small ¡°walk on¡± role:<br> ¡°. . . powers, having been originally breathed by<br> the Creator into a few forms or into one;. . . ¡± <br><br> Darwin said perhaps a few or one had life breathed<br>into it. Thus he concluded that life had not spontaneously<br>arisen BUT proclaimed all other species came via random<br>chance and natural selection.[fn] Darwin imagined slow,<br>continual, gradual evolution which required unnumberable<br>slow incremental changes. Yet, by the end of the next<br>century (1999), there was no proof in the fossil record or<br>the live animal kingdom, that species evolved as <br><br> What was Darwin arguing? That after all was started<br>(probably by God) God was not relevant to creation of<br>species. He argues God is not needed. The Bible is at<br>odds with Darwin. It was very clear Darwin did not believe<br>God created man ¡°in His own image.¡± (Gen.1:27)<br><br> Sir Frederick Hoyle (1915-2001 A.D.), 20th century<br>astronomer, Cambridge University, left Christianity<br>because Gospel writers didn¡¯t agree on the number of<br>angels at the Resurrection. Hoyle became an agnostic. In<br>1984 Hoyle wrote of Darwinism and its failure: I quote:<br> "How the Darwinian theory of evolution by natural<br> selection managed, for upwards of a century, to<br> fasten itself like a superstition on so called<br> enlightened opinion? Why is the theory still<br> defended so vigorously? Personally, I have little<br> doubt that scientific historians of the future will find<br> it mysterious that a theory which could be seen to<br> be unworkable came to be so widely believed. The<br> explanation they will offer will I think be based less<br> on the erroneous nature of the theory itself and more<br> on the social changes and historical circumstances<br> that surround its development." (Hoyle, Sir Fred. The<br> Intelligent Universe, Holt, Rineheart & Winston, NY [1984] p.25)<br><br>Do You believe in Changing Truth ? Evolutionists have no<br>problem in reversing positions. They once falsely claimed<br>as proof or their ¡°truth¡± the fossil record. In the first half of<br>the 20th century up until 1960 Dr. Carl Dunbar, PhD, wrote:<br><br> Although the comparative study of living animals<br> and plants may give very convincing circumstantial<br> evidence, fossils provide the only historical,<br> documentary evidence that life has evolved from<br> simpler to more and more complex forms. (Carl O.<br> Dunbar, PhD (geology) Historical Geology, John Wiley & Sons,<br> Inc., New York, 1960, p.47)<br><br> However, by 1981, the view had radically changed.<br>It was no longer their ¡°truth.¡± The fossil record did not<br>support Darwin. Gould and Eldredge (1977) had already so<br>concluded. Thus zoologist Ridley, from Oxford, wrote:<br> In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist<br> or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence<br> in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to<br> special creation. [Mark Ridley (zoologist) Oxford Univ.;<br> Who doubts evolution? New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June<br> 1981, p.831]<br><br> In twenty-one years they departed from professing<br>faith in the fossil record as ¡°the¡± basis for evolution in 1960,<br>to repudiating that so-called ¡°truth¡± by 1981. Dr. Ridley<br>then boldly states ¡°no real evolutionist¡± uses the fossil<br>record. Wow! What an example of changing... ¡°truth¡±? <br>As observed, Darwin hoped fossil record evidence would<br>be found. The fossil record did not then and does not today<br>support evolution. It never has supported Darwin. How<br>can we trust anything they tell us? Their ¡°truth¡± is in<br>conflict with the real truth and is ever changing.<br><br>BE NOT Conformed: Christians must not be conformed<br>to this ever changing evolutionary ideology. Why? It is in<br>opposition to the Bible. Today, many former evolutionists<br>do not pretend Darwin¡¯s evolution is true. Yet, public<br>school students for about five generations had been<br>propagandized, brainwashed with or filled with the fable:<br>darwinian evolution. It is ¡°the¡± belief system taught in<br>public schools. It is not testable, replicable science. It is<br>something contrary to the evidence. It is a belief system.<br><br> To better understand this is a belief system, to learn<br>of its fallibility, we need to meet and learn about the three<br>key men responsible. The three were: Darwin, who built<br>upon the uniformitarian ideas of Charles Lyell, who had<br>built upon James Hutton¡¯s complete fantasy.<br><br>Charles Lyell (1797-1875): Who was Charles Lyell?<br>Lyell is the man who links Darwin to Hutton¡¯s ideas of<br>uniformitarianism. Mr. Lyell was not a geologist. He was<br>not trained in any scientific field. Yet, Lyell wrote a three-<br>volume set entitled Principles of Geology (1830-1835). <br>What was his training? Lyell was educated as an attorney. <br>An attorney wrote geology books? Yes. Charles Lyell<br>was credited with ¡°making popular¡± the Hutton belief<br>system in geology labeled uniformitarianism (all Earth<br>geology results from slow, gradual, continual, virtually<br>eternal erosion). Although much could be written about<br>Charles Lyell and his life, it is sufficient for our purposes to<br>know that: 1) he was from Scotland. 2) He was educated<br>as an attorney, who apparently was more fascinated with<br>dirt and rocks than law. 3) Lyell wrote the 3 volume work<br>¡°Principles of Geology.¡± Young attorney Lyell believed<br>and advocated the Hutton ideas with great force and<br>believability. Lyell had a profound effect on a clergyman,<br>then acting as a ship¡¯s scientist (naturalist), named Darwin. <br>Mr. Darwin knew (but the world at large does not know) the<br>theory upon which evolution is based was the idea of a<br>man named Hutton.<br> <br>James Hutton (1727-1797) James Hutton is not known<br>by Christians. He is not well known except to those in<br>related areas of study. James Hutton should be known<br>widely, since his imagined ideas have ¡°held captive¡±<br>geology and other branches of science, for over a century. <br>His ideas were presented by Lyell then by Darwin for his<br>imagined evolution. Evolution spread widely throughout<br>society. It was challenger to Creator God. And indeed, it<br>was James Hutton who fathered this revolution.<br><br> James Hutton, a young Scottish man, was ever<br>learning. First he studied the law. When he was clerking<br>(apprentice in a law office), he spent much time helping a<br>friend invent a process, rather than on his duties. Hutton<br>was dismissed from his clerkship. Hutton went back to<br>school and earned a medical degree. After a short time at<br>the practice of medicine, (some report no practice of<br>medicine) Hutton, who had inherited a farm, became a<br>farmer. (Hutton and friend were developing the process).<br>As a farmer Hutton was more interested in studying the<br>rocks and the dirt of his land than in farming it. (Although,<br>admittedly, he enjoyed some farming success).<br><br> Soon Hutton began to speculate about how all dirt<br>and rocks came to be. Hutton decided that the key to the<br>past is the present. The thought of the era before Hutton<br>and the present era is the key to the present is the past. <br>Hutton believed the opposite and explained all of Earth in<br>a simplistic model of slow, gradual, continual. This was<br>contrary to the belief of Earth scientists of his day. It was a<br>reversed view of Earth geology. It denied the dominant<br>teaching of that day: catastrophism.<br><br> In the 1780s Hutton began to voice and publish his<br>ideology about Earth's surface. He probably built upon:<br><br> 1) the 1594 view of Loys leRoy, who taught that the<br> land and sea changed places through erosion and<br> catastrophe;<br> 2) the 1637 work of Rene Descartes (Discoures de<br> la Methode) (earth as a cooling fire ball); <br> 3) Robert Hooks (1705) lectures and discourse of<br> earthquakes that cast doubt upon the flood of Noah; <br> 4) Conte deBuffon in his work, Epochs of Nature<br> (1774) directly attacked the Biblical time records and<br> calculated the age of the earth to be 75,000 years.<br> 5) Jean deLuc in 1778 accepted the Bible, BUT<br> assumed the six days of Creation were l-o-n-g<br> periods. <br><br> Allow me to roughly explain Hutton¡¯s idea. <br><br><br><br>Slow, Continual Erosion: Hutton noticed dirt falling into a<br>creek. This was called erosion. Hutton speculated that<br>eventually all dirt and worn rock on Earth erodes into<br>streams. The streams carried it to the rivers. Rivers<br>carried this dirt to the ocean. This excess dirt was<br>deposited upon the ocean floor. The extra weight built up.<br>The pressure forced the ocean bottom downward. In<br>another spot, far away where there was weakness,<br>mountains thrust upward forming mountain ranges. This<br>was his hypothesis or belief.<br><br> James Hutton decided that then the new mountains<br>would erode their dirt and worn rock into creeks. Creeks<br>carried it to rivers. Rivers delivered the material to the<br>oceans. The extra weight of the continuing deposits<br>caused pressure that pushed down on the ocean floor. In<br>another weak spot new mountain ranges were thrust up. <br>Then the process begins and repeats, repeats and repeats,<br>over and over and over and over and over. Hutton wrote<br>he believed this had occurred over a massive period of<br>time. It was a slow, continuous, repetitive process. It<br>explained, Hutton asserted, everything we saw on Earth. <br>Does this sound familiar? Isn¡¯t it what you were taught in<br>elementary science? Isn¡¯t it now taught in the seventh, and<br>eighth grades? But, is it true? You thought they were<br>teaching you ultimate reality or fact. Not true. Hutton¡¯s<br>ideas were not based upon fact. Hutton¡¯s ideas were<br>contrary to the Earth¡¯s scientists of his day. It was just one<br>way of looking at things, a philosophy. And I bet they never<br>told you that in school!<br><br> The Hutton assumption or conjecture of geology<br>made little progress, however, against the teachings of the<br>school of Abraham Gottlob Werner, a German geologist.<br>Werner taught the long standing principle of<br>catastrophism. [fn]. Thus Earth scientists of Hutton¡¯s day<br>believed earth geology was explained by catastrophic<br>events including the world wide flood of Noah¡¯s day.<br> <br> Hutton reduced his mental inspiration and<br>speculation to writing in his ¡°Theory of the Earth¡± (1785,<br>1795). [fn] This was further expounded by another<br>Scotsman, John Playfair, in his Illustrations of the Huttonian<br>Theory (1802). Catastrophism was consistent with the<br>teachings of the Bible and most great thinkers, including<br>those of the greatest scientist: Isaac Newton.<br><br> Most people do not realize there was major<br>opposition to uniformitarianism (and later evolution) from<br>scientists of that time, including well known prominent<br>members of the scientific community. [fn] These men, and<br>many whom they influenced, believed the Biblical time<br>scale and catastrophism explained the geology of the<br>Earth. The uniformitarian view of Hutton did not receive<br>much acceptance in the scientific community until another<br>Scotsman and an attorney, Charles Lyell, wrote his three-<br>volume work : Principles of Geology (1830-1835).<br> <br> ¡°Uniformitarianism¡± was the name of the view from<br>the imagination of James Hutton (1726-1797). He<br>supposed a system of natural ongoing processes such as<br>river erosion and weathering. This he improperly contended<br>would explain all the surface of the Earth. Hutton wrote<br>Theory of Earth (1795). Hutton¡¯s ideas affected Lyell.<br>Lyell, building on James Hutton¡¯s Earth age conjecture of<br>1795, argued all Earth geology could be explained as<br>gradual, continual, slow: grain by grain, erosion. He<br>ignored and repudiated catastrophes: all catastrophes,<br>including Biblical explanations such as The Great Flood of<br>Noah. Lyell affected Darwin. These three men, who had<br>published after 1776 (American Revolution) were to turn<br>geology, biology and all scientific philosophy upside down.<br><br>Building on what Rock? Uniformitarianist Geology:<br> Darwin borrowed his slow, continual, gradual idea<br>from the uniformitarianism written of by Charles Lyell. <br>Lyell alleged everything on Earth is supposedly explained<br>by this speculated teaching of slow, gradual, continual<br>processes. This became a geological principal, only when<br>made popular by the attorney, Mr. Lyell in his three volume<br>publication entitled: Principles of Geology.<br> Soon it became a uniting principle of natural <br>philosophy, as science was then labeled. And an attorney<br>proclaimed ¡°uniformitarianism¡± as the geological<br>principal. Uniformitarianism, surprisingly, spread quickly<br>from geology (geo=Earth ology=study of) from Hutton to<br>Lyell, then from Lyell to Darwin. Everything on Earth is<br>supposedly explained by their speculated teaching of slow,<br>gradual, continual processes. Yet they ignore land slide,<br>flood, volcano, as factors in forming our mountains, valleys,<br>and canyons. It is now well accepted that the geologist who<br>ignores catastrophes does not have a credible explanation<br>of Earth geology. <br><br>Hutton-Lyell-Darwin: Who were these three men who<br>argued for this then new belief (slow, gradual) system, later<br>labeled uniformitarianism (everything is slow, gradual and<br>continual)? As mentioned: Hutton, Lyell and Darwin, were<br>not trained Earth scientists. Not one of them. Although<br>Hutton had been trained as a physician, that was in the<br>days when leeches, blood letting and non sterilized surgery<br>was the standard of practice. Yet, three, self taught, non-<br>geologists, reversed the geological belief system. What is<br>amazing and ironic is that today the three might not be<br>published. Why? They do not have the requisite academic<br>qualifications so they may publish or speak. <br> <br> When evolutionists debate, write to criticize or want<br>to exclude from publication, certain articles, they often cite<br>the lack of academic credentials as a reason to not believe<br>the author and to exclude them from having articles<br>published in any leading scientific magazine. Perhaps<br>farmer Hutton (only because of his medical degree) might<br>have a chance at publication. What do you suppose would<br>happen if an attorney with a new theory of geology (Lyell)<br>wanted to publish? We all know the result if a clergyman<br>(Darwin) wanted to publish a new belief in one of<br>evolutionist journals. NO CHANCE!<br><br> But, the farmer-attorney-doctor (Hutton), a second<br>attorney (Lyell) and a clergyman (Darwin), changed the<br>basic scientific philosophy. How ironic, when today their<br>imagined assumptions would likely not be published in<br>any enlightened scientific journals because of their lack<br>of academic credentials.<br><br>Not An Ancient Belief: This method of slow, incremental,<br>vast Earth age calculation, named uniformitarianism, has<br>been used by evolutionary geologists for ONLY the last<br>one hundred and seventy-five (175) years. Before Lyell¡¯s<br>publication (1830), which spread Hutton¡¯s theory, no<br>credible geologist believed uniformitarianism described<br>Earth geology. Did you hear me? NO CREDIBLE man of<br>science believed in this imagination; not until Lyell. <br>Brother Hughes, are you certain of that? Let us consult<br>professor, astronomer, theorist, author, vast ager, Sir Fred<br>Hoyle, PhD. (1915-2001A.D.) reports: I quote:<br> ¡°. . . The great geologist Charles Lyell (1797-1875)<br> repeated and extended Hutton¡¯s observations in the<br> field, and soon came to the conclusion that Hutton¡¯s<br> ¡°principal of uniformity¡±, as it became called, was<br> indeed correct. Lyell¡¯s ¡°Principles of Geology,¡± the<br> first volume of which appeared in 1830, was in<br> considerable measure responsible for the<br> disappearance of the Biblical time-scale from all<br> serious discussion. Indeed, Lyell¡¯s books were<br> largely responsible for convincing the world at large<br> that the Bible could be wrong, at any rate in some<br> respects, a hitherto unthinkable thought.¡± (Hoyle, The<br> Intelligent Universe, NY 1983, p. 29)<br> <br> In the 20th century (1985) Charles E. Merrill<br>Publishing Company, a textbook company, in Section 9,<br>Geologic Time and Earth History, p.211, declared:<br><br> ¡°Almost 200 years ago James Hutton recognized that<br> the earth is very old. But how old? Scientists tried<br> to date the earth for many years, but their attempts<br> were not very successful. Instead they had to rely<br> on techniques which helped them place events in<br> their proper order without knowing how long ago<br> each event occurred. . . .¡± (p. 211)<br> . . .<br><br> During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the<br> doctrine of catastrophism strongly influenced the<br> formulation of explanations about the dynamics of<br> the earth. Briefly stated, catastrophists believed that<br> the earth¡¯s landscape had been developed primarily<br> by great catastrophes. Features such as mountains<br> and canyons, which today [the textbook says] we know<br> take great periods of time to form, were explained as<br> having been produced by sudden and often<br> worldwide disasters produced by unknowable<br> causes [the textbook says] that no longer operate. This<br> philosophy was an attempt to fit the rate of earth<br> processes to the then-current ideas on the age of<br> the earth. . . . [the textbook says] (emphasis added) (Ibid.)<br><br> So as to a date when the vast ages became<br>accepted by the world at large, we would have to agree<br>with Hoyle, it was after attorney Lyell¡¯s publication of the<br>three volumes on geology in the early to mid 1830's. Thus<br>it was after 1830 when geologists contended for great<br>ages of the Earth. They based this upon calculations of<br>grain by grain uniformitarianism. Also we note these<br>geologists have designated the competing explanation (and<br>proper) catastrophism, a philosophy, not science. Thus<br>the textbook concludes that a way of looking at things is a<br>philosophy, not science. Please remember that. <br><br> Well, what in the world caused Darwin¡¯s imagination<br>to be accepted by so many seemingly intelligent persons?<br><br> Darwinian Theory built upon <br> Made Up Evidence, Fraud, Error & Hoax<br><br> One of the reasons Darwin was believed was<br>because of those who Professor Agassiz labeled ¡°Darwin¡¯s<br>henchmen.¡± These would include British naturalist Thomas<br>Huxley and German professor Ernst Haeckel. The two<br>¡°evangelized¡± for Darwin when his ideas were under attack. <br>They defended Darwin in debate and then ¡°made up¡± false<br>proof that misled multitudes. <br><br><br> Made Up Evidence<br><br>Wanted: Early Life Form: Evolutionary followers knew<br>of the long standing problems and the attacks by<br>contemporaries of Darwin. The evolutionists could not<br>show any life forms, evolving below the Cambrian rock<br>layers. The millions of fossils in the Cambrian bed of rocks<br>was called the Cambrian explosion. These were complex<br>fossils fully formed. Opponents of Darwin took this as the<br>perfect expression of God¡¯s creation. (And it is). There<br>was no sign of (slow, incremental, continual) evolution, but<br>instead the explosion of complex fossilized life. This had<br>always been evidence for creation and of great concern to<br>evolutionists since and including Darwin. <br><br> This explosion of life was found not at the Earth¡¯s<br>lowest and oldest rocks, but about 5/6 of the way up to the<br>surface. There was not a trace of pre-Cambrian life when<br>Darwin wrote: Origin of Species. Since there were no<br>actual earlier life forms, how did the evolutionists react? <br>The evolutionists made up two phoney pre-Cambrian<br>forms and gave them names: Eozoon and Bathybius. The<br>only purpose for them was to support Darwin¡¯s fragile<br>theory. These were said to be part of the monera of life, a<br>term made up by Ernst Haeckel of Germany. Haeckel<br>made it his life¡¯s practice to create deceptions to bolster¡¯s<br>Darwin¡¯s fragile imagination.<br><br> Darwin was delighted with these new so-called pre-<br>Cambrian ¡°discoveries.¡± Eozoon (which was supposed to<br>closely resemble Bathybius) entered the 4th edition of<br>Origin of Species with Darwin¡¯s blessing. Darwin stated<br>¡°It is impossible to feel any doubt regarding its organic<br>nature.¡± Was Darwin correct? No.<br><br> When these two disciples of Darwin (British scientist,<br>Huxley and the German professor Haeckel) proposed false<br>gelatinous forms, with unusual names, there was more than<br>a little speculation. But, the disciples argued, primitive life<br>forms allegedly covered the floors of the seas.<br><br> The Challenger expedition of the 1870s set sail to<br>explore the world¡¯s oceans and hoped to find these life<br>forms. Great amounts of deep sea mud was dredged and<br>lifted onto the deck of Challenger. The so-called life forms<br>were not found. But, as they preserved samples for later<br>analysis by adding preserving alcohol to the mud, that B<br>word, Bathybius suddenly appeared. They found and<br>admitted the so-called early life form was a substance<br>created by adding alcohol to mud. It was not organic life. <br>It was a precipitate of calcium sulfate produced when deep<br>sea mud reacted to the alcohol.[fn]<br><br> Was Darwin correct in saying it was organic life? <br>No! It was not organic (alive, living). It occurred only upon<br>mixing deep sea mud with preserving alcohol. Again<br>Darwin and his disciples were without a pre-Cambrian form<br>of life. Evidence again exhibited and proved ONLY sudden<br>creation of complex organisms in the Cambrian rock layer. <br><br>Gemmules Anyone? Darwin¡¯s most colossal error, aside<br>from the imaginary evolution itself, was his false belief in<br>gemmules. Gemmules? What are gemmules?<br> <br> ¡°Gemmules¡± were presumed quite small and thought<br>able to carry ¡°acquired characteristics¡± through the blood<br>into the sperm of the male and the egg of the female to the<br>next generation. Darwin, in error, believed newly acquired<br>characteristics were passed through the blood of both<br>father and mother through ¡°gemmules¡± to their offspring. <br>The traits were supposed to be carried through these<br>reproductive cells via gemmules. Would we thus conclude<br>that a father who was a weight lifter, who had acquired<br>large muscles, who then had five daughters would have<br>five large strong muscular girls? Would a mother, who had<br>developed a very slim waist and had worked to have a<br>particularly feminine body, pass this onto her sons? <br>Fortunately for the girls of the muscle bound weightlifter<br>and the boys of the very feminine mother, this gemmules<br>imagination is as inaccurate as the other imaginations<br>written by Darwin. (Origin of Species and Descent of Man.<br>☻¢Ð☺☻¢Ð)<br><br> What proof did they have of these gemmules, other<br>than the imagination of their minds? None ! I.L. Cohen,<br>educated as an engineer, a lifelong researcher into<br>humankind¡¯s past and noted author, stated, and I quote:<br><br> We now know that gemmules did not exist outside of<br> Darwin¡¯s imagination. Many scientists defended this<br> theory, simply because they assumed it to be true. <br> Gemmules were taken quite seriously at the time -<br> they had been advanced by an authoritative scientist<br> and couched in ¡®scientific¡± terms.<br><br> With time, however, it was realized that heredity did<br> not work according to the fantasies of Darwin¡¯s<br> imagination. Instead Gregor Mendel¡¯s theory of<br> genes. . . proved to be scientifically correct...; in<br> those years Darwin¡¯s magnetism was much too<br> strong to overcome. The scientific community of the<br> 19th century preferred to continue theorizing with<br> Darwin¡¯s hypothetical pronouncements, rather than<br> evaluate the solid, factual data submitted by Mendel. <br> His significant laboratory results were brushed aside<br> by all the ¡°learned¡± scientists, as though they meant<br> nothing. Instead Darwin¡¯s illusory gemmules theory<br> was paid serious attention and subscribed to as<br> being established scientific fact. [fn]<br><br>Groundless Beliefs: Eozoon, bathybius and<br>gemmules, were humiliating errors, groundless beliefs.<br>These grave errors were first laughed off, then hidden.<br>Why? Darwin¡¯s notion was tenuous, at best. The Truth<br>shining in on it might destroy it as quickly as the noonday<br>summer Kansas sun melts butter left out on a dish near a<br>window. Evolutionists, rather than admit darwinism was in<br>serious trouble, allowed their misplaced faith in Darwin to<br>carry them deeper into error. When the errors became<br>apparent, evolutionists preferred to bury them or keep them<br>quiet. Why? Negative results and discoveries within a<br>decade and one half of the darwinian articulation caused<br>serious doubts about Darwin¡¯s announcements.<br> <br> Engineer, author I.L. Cohen, in 1984, wrote: I quote:<br><br> Unfortunately, . . . realistic carefulness and scientific<br> humility was not widely exercised during the 19th<br> century and Darwin¡¯s theory was virtually acclaimed<br> as the arrival of the scientific Messiah. Still more<br> unfortunately, we continue to consider that theory as<br> law, without having the intellectual courage to<br> question anew each aspect of it as if there were no<br> alternatives. Darwin¡¯s theory is not scientific law - it<br> still lacks conclusive proof in spite of its plausibility<br> and popularity. (I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong, . . . <br> New Research Publications, Inc. NY {1984} p.20)<br>