Week 6 Outline

• In Week 1, we learned that the Theory of Evolution does not even qualify as a valid scientific theory, and can best be thought of in terms of a Model.
• We also learned the importance of this subject.
• Also, the different ideas about Evolution, such as the Day-Age Theory, The Gap Theory, Progressive Creation, Concordism, Panspermia, Punctuated Equilibrium (or "punk eek"), etc.
• We also learned what the Bible says about Evolution.
• Then we learned the definitions of Creation, Evolution, Science and Model.
• We learned that Evolution cannot be fitted into the Bible.
• Lastly, we looked at the universe and saw, not only evidence of a Creator, but the overwhelming evidence of a young universe. We saw how this complex universe is breaking down at a faster rate than would be predicted in the Evolution Model, but at a rate predicted by the Creation Model.

• In Week 2, we first learned the definitions of uniformitarianism, and catastrophism.
• Then we learned how the Mt. St. Helens eruption can possibly be paralleled with the formation of the Grand Canyon.
• We also saw that the origin of the earth and it's rocks can be better explained in the Creation Model than the Evolution Model.
• We saw next that the fossil fuels can be formed rapidly and, in fact, had to be as they can not be old and cannot be formed by uniformitarianism.
• Next we saw how the chemicals flowing into the sea, the dust entering the atmosphere, etc.; when dated using the amount of accumulation and a deposition rate based on the assumption of uniformitarianism, yielded ages for the earth far too young to be acceptable to Evolutionists, many fitting in line directly with the age for the earth suggested in the Bible.
• Later we looked at the idea of the geologic column, and saw the intense problems associated with interpreting geology by it. We then saw how a fossil could only be formed by sudden, rapid, complete burial in a cement-like substance.
• We saw how there are no conclusive transitional fossils which have ever been found. also that the main standard fossil finds, such as the Archeopteryx, and the Dawn Horse, really were not transitional fossils at all, and were poorly handled scientifically, blown out of proportion, and baseless.
• What we found next was that the fossil record cried out that it was laid down under catastrophic conditions, that the animals died worldwide, under torturous conditions.
• We found impossible things fossilized, such as giant human footprints, dinosaur tracks and human tracks in the same layer, ripples of water fossilized, etc.
• Lastly, we saw the wierd things buried deep within the geologic column, out of place according to Evolutionary time scales. these included the human artifacts found in layers deposited long before man would have evolved.

• In Week Three, we talked about the dinosaurs, and the theories about why they "died out".
• Then we discussed evidence that they may not even be extinct. stories of dinosaur sightings post-flood and up to the present were shared.
• Then we talked about the supposed "missing links" and discussed the faults with all of these, including the hoaxes, controversies, poor science, etc.
• Then we looked at the evidence from history that man has always been the same, and in fact was technologically advanced in the past, maybe in some instances more than today.
• Lastly, we talked about the types of various dating methods for the rocks. we looked at the circular reasoning involved in the index fossils. we also discussed the various mistakes in the dating of rocks sent to laboratories.

• In Week Four, we looked at the cell, and found it to be extremely complex.
• Next we looked at the astronomical odds of a cell coming together by chance, being very, very generous with the numbers.
• We then looked at mutations and natural selection, the twin "dieties" of the religion of Evolution. We discovered the Second Law of Thermodynamics was doing it's job wonderfully, along with the Law of Genetics.
• We then discussed traits, and the various types in the animal world possessed by a few individuals.

• In Week Five, we discussed first the living fossils, and why they are called that.
• Next we talked about the plant world, and the impossible traits of a few marvels of engineering.
• Next, we discussed the behavior of a few animals, which, like all living things, defy explanation according to the Evolution Model.
• Then we discussed the idea of "Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny", and the false science practiced by all involved.
• Later, we looked at the supposed vestigial, or "useless" organs in the human body, and the fact that they are not in any way vestigial.
• Lastly, we looked at the marvelous inventions of our creator in the living world, and how man has really only copied them.

Darwin Not First

• One of the biggest misconceptions that people have is that Charles Darwin is responsible for the theory of Evolution. This could be no farther from the truth.
• With the rapid pace of archeological discoveries in the last 100 years, the historic record shows that Evolutionary ideas have been around for thousands of years. It may someday soon be possible to trace it all the way back to babylon and the confusion of tongues.
• The idea of naturalistic origins did not necessarily take on the form of that the present day Evolutionist believes, but the concepts are all so common that they can only have originated from one source, the devil himself. There is too much coincidence in the fact that all pagans past and present have a common thread in their myths about origins. whether they believed in the eternalness of matter, or the gods of polytheism, they all believed in Evolution.
• The Israelites were the only people on earth who accepted a Creator God, a young universe, and the stories of Adam and Eve, the Flood, etc. as historical fact.
• For the sake of importance, the older references to the idea of Evolution will be brief, because although the early peoples had a concept, the worldwidee acceptance of it, and especially the united states, has been recent. the more recent players in the game have been more involved with it.

The Greek Philosophers(B.C.): Thales, Anaximander, Democritus, Aristotle, and the idea of Spontaneous Generation

• I do not claim to be an expert on the philosophers, and my point here will be simply this: all you really need to do to witness to any philosopher is to go to the root of the matter-Evolution. it does not matter what philosopher they follow, you do not have to be an expert. if they are not following the Jesus of the Bible, then the root is Evolution-rest assured on it. However, if you know all about all of the great philosophers, you will still never get too far very easily without Biblical apologetics. Either you can use the style of evidence that demands a verdict, by Josh McDowell, or Creation Science. The reason? Because, to a philosopher, one religion is as good as another since that is the premise of all philosophies. Yours is right and yours is wrong, His is right and his is wrong, to the philosopher. There are no absolute truths to a philosopher, unless demonstrated conclusively.

Thales(600 B.C.)

• Water was the first cause.
• The earth sort of floated on it like a frisbee.

Anaximander(570 B.C.)

• He believed that the first cause was some unknown substance he called "apeiron".
• This is believed by many to be some sort of sea slime (sound familiar?).
• Or this may be some metaphysical idea.
• From this apeiron, came heat and cold.
• From this came water. Then came earth from the water. next came air after the earth. from this came the fire.
• The living part of it went something like this: the sea slime evolved into a sort of crustacean, then it shed it's skin to make an insect, then it evolved into all of the rest of the terrestrial life. Very much like the modern theory of Evolution, minus the scientific jargon.

Democritus(400 B.C.)

• Democritus was a materialist. he believed that atoms and space were all that existed. he even coined the word "atoms".
• He rightly believed in the idea of cause and effect, later to be a scientific law.

Socrates(469-399 B.C.)

• Taught plato, who became the teacher of aristotle. also, the "great chain of being" was his philosophy and idea of naturalistic origin and Evolution.
• Socrates left no writings, but his ideas lived on in Plato's.

Plato(422-347 B.C.)

• Plato, Socrates and Aristotle were the three most influential Evolutionary philosophers of ancient Greece.
• Plato believed that the universe was a living being, and that the heavenly bodies were dieties.
• This is called pantheism.
• His philosophy was very close to naturalistic Evolution of today. Gradual progression of life forms from simple to complex was the idea.
• He believed in reincarnation.
• He had a concept called the Great Chain of Being, much like Darwinism.
• He believe that there are no absolutes.(with all areas of life)

Aristotle(384-322 B.C.)

• Aristotle was a student of Plato.
• He was a real naturalist and also a pantheist. He drew pictures of animals, and classified them, too.
• His idea of Evolution was the same as the modern version, namely the "molecules to man" concept.
• His works were very influential in his day and continued to be until the middle ages.
• In those days, a philosopher like Aristotle wielded a lot of power.
• To aristotle, the universe was infinitely old, made by a god who wanted nothing to do with it.
• He taught that the earth was the center of it. the Bible does not teach this.
• He wrote scala naturae.
• Spontaneous generation was the method of life from non-life.
• Aristotle's god was an impersonal intelligent being, but you could never know "it". so he was not really atheistic in his approach.
• He also had an Evolutionary concept for life systems. from the water came the earth(condensed as mud), then animals and plants.
• Finally, he had an idea for the origin of man. first came the sea, followed by the fish. the fish shed their skins to become human.
• This is quite a detailed outline for so long ago.
• Question: did the ancient greek philosophers have a most modern concept of Evolution, one without the long scientific words? henry fairfield osborn, of "nebraska man" fame: "when i began the search for the anticipations of the Evolutionary theory....i was led back to the greek natural philosophers and i was astonished to find how many of the and basic features of the Darwinian theory were anticipated even as far back as the seventh century B.C." h.f. osborn, from the greeks to Darwin,(new york, scribner's, 1929, p.11). to quote henry Morris in the Long War Against God, p.217:"the theory of Evolution is not the epochal discovery of modern science that modern scientists like to proclaim it to be. it has been around a long, long time!"

The Modern Scientists(A.D.)

• Many people have the mistaken notion that Darwin was the sole person responsible for the publication of on the origin of species. the fact is that many scientists were working on a comprehensive theory at the time of Darwin. among them were Alfred Russell Wallace, benjamin franklin, Charles naudin from france, and others. a chain of events occurred that prompted the hasty publication of his book, from a letter by Wallace to the prodding of Charles Lyell. the scientific community at large exerted great pressure on a somewhat reluctant Charles Darwin to get his notes, from the galapagos islands and other travels, into a concrete theory.
• The ancients, while having a rudimentary concept of the modern day theory of Evolution, were not visibly as anti-god as the "moderns". this is not to say that their reason for having and developing a naturalistic concept of origins was mostly a scientific one. for anyone who embraces Evolution will ultimately cling to it, not on a scientific basis, but a philosophicic one(ie. you don't believe in Evolution because of the facts of nature, but in spite of them).
• For the moderns, the story is completely different. from thomas Huxley (Darwin's bulldog), to voltaire, Darwin's grandfather erasmus, to Lyell, hutton; and on to carl sagan, stephen jay gould and isaac asimov, the motive is purely anti-christian. these people hate christiantiy, which becomes readily and supremely apparent from reading their writings. now, in this last decade of scientific research rapidly outpacing mankind's ability to even document it, the evidence is more than ever in all of human history set against the theory of Evolution. these scientists, much more than the average citizen, know the pitfalls and the stumbling blocks discovered and uncovered daily in the laboratory, the field, etc.
• The secular scientists, media, and schools deliberately filter, censor, and distort any scientific information and coverage of any type when dealing with Creationism. the best books to read on this subject are the Evolution conspiracy, by roger oakland and caryl matrisciana; the rise of the Evolution fraud, by malcolm bowden, pages 128-133; Darwin's enigma, by the late luther sunderland; the creator in the courtroom, by norman l. geisler, and others.
• When you go to the library and look up a book by an Evolutionist whether the area is astronomy, paleontology, biology, chemistry, etc. the author almost inevitably turns to the book of genesis, Creationism, the Bible, god, jesus, christianity, etc. why does a secular writer of science want to include an attack on religion in his work?
• Well, the answer is not as apparent as it may seem. the reason is that Creation scientists have now become the biggest enemy that the Evolutionists have ever seen. many full blown phd scientists have jumped off of the Evolutionary bandwagon in the past few years for the simple reason of lack of evidence or insurmountable evidence against the theory. many Evolutionists have written books critical of the theory from the inside, though never becoming Creationists themselves. the reason for the book the bone peddlers: the selling of Evolution, by william r. fix, was because then president reagan had said, in a campaign stop in the south, that he had "a great many questions about Evolutionary theory" and "the theory is not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was believed." this one statement raised the eyebrows of the entire scientific community and a letter was sent to dan rather of cbs stating among other things that "there were 100 million fossils proving Evolution." mr. fix decided that there had to be a reason why the scientific community would get so upset. i mean, if Evolution is a fact and the evidence is all "sewed up", then what is the big deal? why do Evolutionists write about the Bible in their "science" books? if Creation is religious, why even mention it?
• The answer becomes clear in the light(or shadow, depending on the side of the fence that you are on) of the Creation-Evolution debates of the seventies. owing to the rout of the debates by the Creationists over the opposition, isaac asimov wrote a letter to the a.c.l.u. asking for millions of dolllars to be spent on both promoting Evolutionism and squashing Creationism. from this fallout we now have the dinosaur fad. can you name a place where that has not reached?
• Within and without the church there is a renewed attack on the Creationist. there have been some forty or more anti-Creationist books written in the last few years. some have even been written as Creationist books, only written by an Evolutionist, and they have been a deliberate attack on Creationism.
• Well meaning, compromising christians have also written anti-Creationist books. some of these includes the fingerprint of god, by dr. hugh ross, science held hostage, by howard j. van till, davis a. young, and clarence menninga.. these people pass themselves off as Creationists, but really they are theistic Evolutionists.
• Whenever and wherever the Creationist viewpoint, even if it is just dealing on a scientific level, is mentioned, it is presented wi th scorn, ridicule, mocking, and worse-censorship. Creation science is presented as a purely religious viewpoint, while Evolution is presented as scientific, and the only acceptable worldview. as henry Morris puts it,"...Evolution is the world's religion!" the Long War Against God, henry Morris, baker book house, 1989, p.
• In every case when both sides of the coin concerning origins is presented, in a totally scientific environment and manner, without bias or prejudice,(which can easily be done with Creation science) the students in every case were found to be much more well-rounded, informed, and objective, scientifically.
• A recent poll taken by gallup showed that most of the people who believe in Creation were of the southern, poor, low education type. nothing could be further from the truth! the system of filtering and biasing can once again be seen at work. they completely forgot to take into consideration the almost innumerable group disposed to Creation science from universities, the Bible-science associations, business, the government, the private sector of scientists, teachers, etc.
• The obvious intent is to present the Creationist as stupid, low educated, narrow-minded fundamentalist bigoted kooks, etc., all the while presenting Evolutionists as intellectuals!
• This being the case then why now, more than ever, do they insist that Evolution is a fact? why do they insist on keeping all contrary evidence from the media, and the classroom? why this sudden charge of boldness?
• I personally believe that the Evolutionary scientists are on the run. the objective, unbiased, uninterpretted, unfiltered evidence is stacked up against them, and they are in a corner. the only way out is to admit that the whole idea is wrong, that they lied, and that they really have a belief, a religion. the problem for them then is that the citizens would never again trust the scientific community in regards to anything from medicine to weather reports. this puts them on the horns of a dilemma. the media is all too willing to oblige in the conspiracy at this point, being run by the secular humanist minority since the seventies. and secular humanism is, of course, based on Evolution.
• If you really want how modern day people think, and why, then you must start with the history of Evolution. it is the Evolutionary viewpoint, more than any other factor, bar none, which is responsible for modern thought. to deny this is to deny the total impact of Evolutionism on society, pretty hard to do in the face of a secular society which has unofficially established Evolutionism as a religion, with and without the help of any congress.

Thomas Aquinus(1225-1274)

• Thomas aquinas tried to compromise the word of god with philosophy.
• He believed that man had not been affected from the fall in an intellectual way, only his will.
• Taking on aristotlean concepts, he figured that man could reason his way out of his problem.
• Nature and god were totally autonomous.
• With reason, he coupled Biblical revelation.
• His naturalistic origin ideas were borrowed from aristotle.
• The lesson to learn from all of this is that, if you really want to know how closely someone walks with the lord jesus, check their beliefs on genesis.

Imanuel Kant(1724-1804)

• The origin of the our solar system is considered only one small part of the overall universal origin.
• The universe started out as a huge dust cloud. from there it condensed to form the stars and planets. this collapse was considered due to gravity. the gravity was also responsible for rotation. when the outside particles rotated around the center, there was a spontaneous ignition of the first star. the star "turns on". this idea forces the concept that all stars must, by necessity of common processes, have planets.
• This is called the "nebular hypothesis".
• Rationalism is in, revelation is out.
• There definitely are no absolutes.
• Because of the naturalistic origin of man, the naturalistic future will follow, with man in charge.

Carolus Linneaus

• Carolus Linnaeus was, as mentioned earlier, a Creationist. so how does he figure in the history of Evolution?
• His invention of the system of classification of plants and animals was so thorough, that the Evolutionists used it for their theory.
• He wrote Systema Naturae. his sole purpose in the classifying of the plants and animals is to get a grasp on identification, not a line of descent. he used a system of homology as his guide. his conclusions were the same as his presuppositions and premises: that a creator was behind all of life, and that the similarities were due more to common use and purpose and not from the result of divergence from a common ancestor.

• Buffon was the first one to do a study similar to the one by linnaeus(taxonomy), but from an Evolutionary standpoint. in other words, buffon was not really looking for a system to chart the way in which the hand of the creator used design in his Creation, but rather how the different organisms descended from one another(line of descent).
• Buffon wrote a forty four volume work on the subject called histoire naturelle]
• He was a "uniformi-catastrophist". that is, he believed in a natural history of the earth marked by a series of catastrophes. one idea was that of the sun and a comet meeting in a collision and forming a planet.
• These catastrophes caused mass extinctions, and gaps in the fossil record.(sound familiar?)
• Buffon had an idea that the germ cells of a man and a woman were both some type of sperm. this sperm was then made up of "organic particles" equipped with the directions to form a baby. how these "organic particles" did this and what exactly they were made of he never clearly defined, in fact he never defined them at all.

Jean-baptiste de Lamarck(1744-1829)

• Lamarck was the man responsible for the idea of the origin of the long giraffe neck. he reasoned that the giraffe got it from some ancestor who, looking for tender leaves and, not finding any, reached up to the branches with his neck. in time, so lamarck believed, the neck muscles, bones, vessels, nerves changed, so as to allow the giraffe to reach higher. in short, his neck grew.
• The view of eighteenth century biologists was "structure determines use". in other words, the type of neck you had would determine what trees you would, and would be able to eat from. lamarck's idea was novel. his idea was "use determines structure"- just the opposite of the mainstream scientists of his day.
• This new trait was then passed on to the next generation and eventually produced a giraffe.
• This idea has been totally falsified by modern discoveries in genetics. if you worked out and got large muscles, would your offspring be born with this trait? if they grew up and did none of the exercises that you did but just did the normal amount of exercise, would they be as muscular as you? of course not! there is no gene for large muscle in your seed just because you worked out, there are just large muscles on your arms and legs, etc.
• The neck of the female giraffe is a full two feet shorter than the male's. how could this shorter giraffe survive if a long neck was needed to eat from the same trees?
• Lamarck was not very well received in the scientific community of his day. he still is not.
• He offered this very same solution to the origin of the horns of ruminants. he reasoned that, because the males were fighting, horn-making fluids were produced to the head to eventually produce a horn. we now know that this idea is totally false, scientifically.
• He wrote several works, among them Philosophic Zoologique(1809), and histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertebres(1815).
• Lamarck started out as a botanist, classifying plants. he had no formal higher education, and was self-taught.
• He hated christians, and was very bitter towards them. though he is not credited with the infiltration, propogation, and infection of the Evolutionary theory, he made as much of an impact as did Charles Darwin. he influenced all of the key players in the nineteenth century rise of Evolutionism.
• The lengths to which Evolutionary scientists have stretched to prove lamarckian theory is remarkable to say the least, laughable and sad at the same time.
• In the 1930's a scientist named Harry Schroeder attempted to prove Lamarckianism was true using the willow moth. He had some moths ready to build a cocoon and, knowing that the moths use the tip of a leaf to curl around to make the cocoon, he cut the tips off of the leaves. the moths all switched thier tactics to using the sides of the leaves. the subsequent generations of moths then did the same thing, tips or not! the genetic information to use the side of the leaves was passed on to the progeny. but no new feature or limb had emerged on the successive generations-only the behavior pattern. to call this Evolution means a misunderstanding of the word Evolution. it means that you will not get a moth in the future generations-not a moth that acts differently.
• In the years 1918-1923 two scientists named guyer and smith took the lenses of the eyes of rabbits, smashed them up and injected them into domestic birds. they then took this from the birds and injected it back into rabbits. the rabbits gave birth to offspring with little or no eyes. this went on for nine generations and even got worse generation by generation.
• In 1940 a man named conrad waddington of edinburgh university gave a bunch of fruit flies heat shock and got a generation of flies that had wings lacking the veins. he did this repeatedly and it got worse with each successive generation. then this new trait began to appear without a heat shock.
• And on and on it goes. the problem with all of this is that Evolution never occurs. the scientists always get the same organism. this is not macroEvolution, but micorEvolution. the amount of our tax dollars spent annually for decades has been staggering for this kind of research, and this despite the fact that it has never shown Evolution. this is a total waste of time and energy, better used to cure diseases.

Erasmus Darwin(1731-1802)

• Erasmus Darwin was Charles's grandfather. though Charles never met his grandfather, he was in some way, maybe even in a great way, influenced by him. erasmus hated the Bible and christians with a passion.
• He was a doctor, a poet and a writer. he wrote a two volume book called zoonomia, in 1794. it is very likely that his Evolutionary ideas lived on completely in his grandson Charles, as erasmus was well advanced theoretically for his day.
• Erasmus Darwin was radical in his political views, to say the least. he sympathized with the rEvolutionaries in their nicknamed battles.
• He also founded the lunar society, a group of scientists and engineers who had obvious alterior motives.
• He was a friend of rosseau.
• He had a modern day version of the big bang theory, complete with other "earths". he beleived that the universe produced stars, planets, etc. purely from an explosion of matter.
• The earth produced the moon, the origin of it being the south sea.
• He had a naturalistic origin of life as well. the upward drives for his Evolutionary movement were the following three things:
  1. Sexual Drive.
  2. Hunger.
  3. Survival(self-preservation).
• There was no room for altruism in his theory. there is altruism in real life, as evidenced in week five.
• Unlike his grandson Charles, erasmus did not put forth any documentation from observation or experimentation in his writings, he just propounded his ideas.

Thomas Robert Malthus(1766-1834)

• He came from a well-to-do family.
• From the time he was a small baby, Malthus had two philosophers in his house-david hume and jacque rosseau.
• Malthus went to cambridge university and, upon graduation, entered the anglican church as a curate. after a short time there, he returned to cambridge-this time to teach.
• In his early days he was also influenced by gilbert wakefield, a heretic from the clergy.
• Malthus did not believe the notion that mankind was evolving toward ultimate perfection or "godhood", as the new-agers do today.
• His idea of Evolution is almost not even a concept of Evolution. he had the idea that mankind would so populate the planet that he would have to struggle in a kind of "survival of the fittest" existence. whatever the result, man would remain the same after the struggle.
• Malthus wrote the work an essay on the principles of population as it affects the future improvement of society.
• The idea for all of this allegedly originated from a story he had once been told of a bunch of goats left on a tiny remote island off of the coast of chile by a man named juan fernandez.
• The goats apparently multiplied very rapidly and soon overpopulated. next some dogs were allegedly dropped off to control the goats and they multiplied to control the goat population.
• He carried over a theme recurrent to this day in Evolutionary circles-namely that the weakest survive, the strongest live, and balance, as in the case of the island, is restored.
• This idea was taken by Darwin later on, as he took ideas from many sources, and turned into the idea that the survivors of the struggle would be different. Malthus never inferred variation, only selection.
• The fallacies with the whole story is that:

• First: there is no recording of any dogs landing on the island.
• Second: that the goats would inevitably inhabit the rock cliffs on the island, thereby making themselves inaccessible to the dogs.
• Third:that the island shores were inhabited with seals-easy prey for a dog.

• In his essay Malthus wrote that plants and animals would increase in number in an arithmetic progression(1,3,5,7,9,11...), but people would tend to increase in a geometric progression (1,2,4,8,16,...)
• He felt that population controls were absolutely necessary to prevent the ruthless starvation of the masses.
• Strangely, he did not advocate birth control of any type. instead he advocated abstinence before marraige. this is a departure from the usual values for the average Evolutionist.
• Malthus's solution to the overpopulation problem was rather extreme to say the least. he advocated forcing the people to overpopulate, and removing sanitation, medicines and all antiseptics from the group, hoping that this would "cull" the population through sheer death rates.
• He even advocated the killing the poorer babies, simply by cutting off all food etc. does this whole idea sound familiar?
• Incidentally, Malthus had no real data to support his essay.
• Malthus also considered man to be just another animal, not unlike your average Evolutionist today.
• His ideas, presuppositions, mathematics, tables, figures, and finally his conclusions are not the least bit scientific, and were handled throughout in a rather shoddy fashion.
• There is no way to ever substantiate his wild claims. in fact, most of them are now known to be untrue.
• The word "Malthusian" comes from Malthus and refers to people who advocate birth control.

• He wrote The Vestiges Of The Natural History Of Creation in 1844. but the book was published anonymously. it stirred up much controversy and ire from the scientific community.
• The result of the book was to set in concrete, albeit not hardened completely, the seed for the lie. Evolution was not really fully embraced at this time, but the wheels were turning.
• Chambers wanted to come up with an all inclusive, comprehensive system, or idea, for Evolution. he wanted to tie it all in(geology, life sciences, ethics and morality, etc.).
• He had a kind of nebular hypothesis: the concept that the universe started with a static cloud of dust which condensed to form the present heavenly bodies.
• Chambers was a cross between a catastrophist, and a uniformitarian. he thought the geology of the earth reflected a gradual but violent and drastic series of periods of changes.
• He also believed in spontaneous generation. during chamber's day, a claim of this generation was made concerning an insect from a spark of electricity. this, of course was later proven to be fallacious.
• One thing that later bothered chambers which he never initially addressed in his vestiges was the problem of diversity. by this i mean, if birds came from reptiles, why do we still have reptiles? if man came from apes, why do apes still exist?
• This dilemma forced him to theorize that the organisms all paralleled each other during thier descent. the following chart is what he came up with:

This conceptual chart was then to be futuristically applied in a leap to "superman".

Alfred Russell Wallace(1823-1913)

• If history could be rewritten, then Alfred Russell Wallace would be given parallel credit along with Charles Lyell and others for the origin of the theory of Evolution by natural selection.
• Wallace had little formal education, but he became self-taught through his own field research. he worked for a time as a land surveyor.
• Wallace was a world wide traveler in search for the evidence for a naturalistic explanation on origins. he spent four years in the amazon jungles and eight years in malaysia.
• On a trip to Malaysia, Wallace became extremely ill. he also fell at this time what can only be determined to be an occultic trance. He brought with him a copy of Charles Lyell's principles of geology and Thomas Robert Chamber's vestiges of the natural history of Creation. He then explains the rest:
  "Then it suddenly flashed upon me that this self-acting process would necessarily improve the race, because in every generation the inferior would inevitably be killed off and the superior would remain-that is, the fittest would survive. then at once i seemed to see the whole effect of this...."
  
  -Alfred Russell Wallace, My Life, (London, 1905, p. 362)
  • He wrote a brief idea of his theory and sent it off to Charles Darwin for review. when Darwin reviewed it, this prompted him to write his book. Wallace had no idea that, miles away, a pressured Charles Darwin was frantically rushing to get his book finished and off to press.
  • Meanwhile, Wallace was rushing to get his own theory written and published, totally unaware that Darwin was beating him to the punch.
  • Living among the pagans in the jungles at the places he visited, Wallace soon became a spiritist himself. he believed in fire walking, clairvoyance, psychic phenomena, automatic writing, appiritions, healings, etc. he was very much like the typical new-ager today.
  • In 1876, he published two volumes, one on psychic phenomena called miracles and modern spiritualism and the other called the geographic distribution of animals.
  • Wallace, unlike his contemporaries, was not prejudiced. he felt that man was far enough from the animals that he was superior in intelligence beyond all else. his scientific friends largely disagreed with him. after all, racism is based on Evolution.

  Herbert Spencer(1820-1903)

  • Nicknamed the father of "Social DDarwinism".
  • He fell head over heels for Darwinism and was very influential in the spread of it here in the u.s.
  • He is responsible for the saying "Survival of the Fittest".
  • He hated Christianity.
  • Spencer wrote several works, most notably was principles of biology.
  • He had no formal education and worked on the railroad as an engineer for a time.
  • In the area of Social Darwinism, Spencer is said to have as much impact as Darwin or Marx, or Hitler or any other big name in recent history.
  • Herbert Spencer once said:
    "if they are sufficiently complete to live, they do live, and it is well they should live. if they are not sufficiently complete to live, they die, and it is best they should die."
    -Herbert Spencer, Social Status, 1850, pp. 414-415.
    • This is typical secular humanism. this is the rationalization and justification for abortion, euthanasia, and... ?????
    Charles Darwin(1809-1882)
    • Since so much is known about Charles Darwin, i should like to talk about some of the things that are not known. the best sources for information about his life are books by gertrude himmelfarb, the life and letters of Charles Darwin, Darwin and the Darwinian rEvolution. also the rise of the Evolution fraud by malcolm bowden, the autobiography of Charles Darwin, by n. barlow, and of course, to find out how Darwin really thought, on the origin of species.
    • Incidentally, to quote the great Evolutionist ernst mayr in his book systematics and the origin of species,"Darwin never really did discuss the origin of species in his origin of species."
    • Suffice it to say that mr. Darwin, rightly or wrongly, always gets the credit for the theory of Evolution.
    • Charles Darwin came from a wealthy family.
    • He was not the fiend that everyone envisions. he was a warm, friendly family person.
    • His father sent him to various schools, but Charles was not exactly the Model student. he loved to hunt and spent many a day doing this, much to the chagrin of his father, who scolded him and tried to instill in him a sense of shame about his being aloof.
    • When Charles was sixteen, his father robert sent him to edinburgh university to study to become a doctor. this never panned out, as Charles instead gained an interest in studying different types of beetles, and natural history.
    • Thinking that his son was a complete failure and possibly a disgrace to the family, his dad sent him to cambridge university to enter the clergy.
    • At cambridge, he was introduced to paley's evidences for christianity. he, at this point, believed in the fixity of species and looked at the living world as just the "handywork of the creator".
    • Also at cambridge he met a rev. john henslow, and thier friendship lasted the rest of charle's life. he also met adam sedgewick there.
    • Ironically, Darwin left cambridge disgusted and decided to go into the ministry.
    • About this time, reverend henslow was supposed to go on the beagle voyage, but declined because of family commitments. around it went until it was suggested by henslow that Darwin go on the voyage of the beagle, a voyage that could have possibly changed history.
    • Henslow was the person who gave Darwin the interest in nature.
    • While on the beagle, Darwin was still a literal Creationist, and he kept his belief in the Bible even in the face of persecution from his shipmates. this is not usually the view presented of Darwin to the general public.
    • Many books and movies about Darwin portray him as being greatly affected in his thinking on origins by the voyage of the beagle. they are given the impression that Darwin saw different varieties of finches and tortoises and concluded that they evolved from each other. Darwin makes this claim himself in his book.
    • This is not true at all. gertrude himmelfarb destroys all of the myths spread by the Evolutionists about this particular voyage in her books. malcolm bowden does the same in the rise of the Evolution fraud. himmelfarb has studied the life and the correspondence of Charles Darwin and cuts through the confusion.
    • First of all, it was the natives on the galapagos who first showed Darwin the difference beween the tortoises on different islands. they had the ability to identify the tortoise's particular island of origin by sight. it appears that Darwin himself never caught on to this at all.
    • Darwin went on the voyage for the purpose of collecting fossils, and this solely to study geology, not zoology.
    • It was later, upon classifying the different animals brought back from the voyage that people around Darwin and Darwin himself even began to question the fixity of species.
    • It was some twenty years later, after several volumes on other subjects, that Darwin, from intense pressure from Charles Lyell and joseph hooker, began to reopen his notes on the voyage of the beagle. by this time he had been influenced by many people, like thomas Huxley, sir Charles Lyell, james hutton, william paley, edward blyth, patrick matthew, etc.
    • Darwin used very scant, irrelevant evidence in support of "his" new theory of Evolution. he tried to breed pigeons for a while to see the varieties. from this and other "evidences", he formulated an idea propounded in his book that, even though there was a visible limit to variation(as his pigeons were still pigeons), there could be in the distant future generations, if the conditions changed a mechasnism which would allow the pigeons, or any other organism for that matter, to change even more. over time the pigeon would become a different bird.
    • Darwin got a lot of ideas for his theory from other sources. for instance, the idea of natural selection came from edward blyth, the idea of long geologic ages of course came from Charles Lyell. the concept of "survival of the fittest" originated with herbert Spencer.
    • The thing is that he never mentioned the mechanism. in fact, in his book on the origin of species he never mentions once the origin of all species, he only deals with the organisms that already exist. he never says where they came from. this is the meaning for the word origin!
    • Darwin, "was able to put across his ideas not so much because of his scientific integrity, but because of his opportunism, his equivocation and his lack of historical sense. though his admirers will not like to believe it, he accomplished his rEvolution by personal weakness and strategic talent more than by scientific virtue."
    • Darwin, being independently wealthy from his many investments, never had to endure the hardships that would face a Creationist today. he may have ruffled everyones feathers, but this did not prevent him from getting a job-he didn't need one. he could, as he often did, hide in utter obscurity in his home free from the probing questions of the enemies of "his" theory.
    • In 1876 his autobiography was written and was edited by frances Darwin. when, in 1958 the real version was republished by Darwin's grand-daughter, it was discovered that some 6,000 words were replaced since they were discovered to have been removed from the original. this act of dishonesty was done at the request of emma Darwin, Charles's wife, as a matter of saving the dignity of the family. apparently the idea of Charles being irreligious(anti-christian) were played down.
    • There is also another controversy in the life of mr. Darwin-the missing correspondence of the years from 1856 to 1859. the problem is that he was known to be a meticulous record keeper and this went against his nature. the letters were found in 1961 along with some missing correspondence of none other than sir Charles Lyell himself.
    the Huxleys thomas henry Huxley(1825-1895)
    • The first person in the Huxley family who came along to influence the theory of Evolution is thomas Huxley-"Darwin's bulldog".
    • The best place to start for information about Huxley is the rise of the Evolution fraud, by malcolm bowden.
    • Huxley's childhood was not a very pleasant one. he suffered with depression in his teens, his father wound up being committed, and his mother died at an early age.
    • Huxley was a biologist, but he was not one of the well known biologists of his day. the big name ones made big money. the clergy also made big money. he did not. from this fact in Huxley's life there arose a root of bitterness and hatred towards the clergy especially.
    • He was the person who coined the word agnostic.
    • Huxley sought fame and recognition more than money. he got it, with the origin of species publication.
    • Huxley was not exactly a supporter of the theory of Evolution ever in his life. he just wanted some way to bet back at his enemies(those who gained more money or recognition than him).
    • In fact, he wrote a very critical critique of robert chamber's book vestiges of the natural history of Creation.
    • When Darwin's book arrived, the whole story of the life of thomas Huxley was changed. for the first time he would gain the respect, admiration, money and recognition that he so desired. this is not because of anything he had to do with the writing of Darwin's book, but rather the promotion. it was in this capacity that Huxley earned his nickname "Darwin's bulldog".
    • Huxley now had the ammunition to go after the church which he so adamantly loved to hate. Huxley had a forceful, dogmatic approach to the whole thing, a thing he later felt remorse about.
    • The only person who Huxley did not confront on this was Charles spurgeon. this was more than likely due to the ability of spurgeon to defend the word of god through apologetics. as malcolm bowden puts it, "had Huxley met his match?"
    • If you are going to go after an establishment and destroy it, you need to go after the leader. if ever there was a big leader in the church at that time, it was Charles spurgeon.
    • Huxley became famous for the first time in his life, but this apparently did not fare well with him. he suffered with more depression and to observers, with emotional instability. the fight had taken a toll on him.
    • Huxley never really accepted the ideas set forth in Darwin's book. he especially did not see any use in applying them to sociology. he felt that the explanations given by the Evolutionary philosophers(especially Spencer) were totally inadequate in explaining the real problem of mankind as a whole. man was being reduced to a simple formula in Evolution. he knew that it was not that simple.
    sir julian sorell Huxley(1887-1975)
    • It is constructive to start by giving a quote from julian Huxley before going any further. this came from an interview with the associated press on november 27, 1959; at the centennial celebration for the publication of Darwin's book on the origin of species. "in the Evolutionary system of thought there is no longer need or room for the supernatural. the earth was not created; it evolved. so did all the animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul, as well as brain and body. so did religion." Huxley continues: "Evolutionary man can no longer take refuge from his loneliness by creeping for shelter into the arms of a divinized father figure whom he himself has created."
    • I once worked with someone who said "on the eighth day man created god." this person was so adamantly opposed to christianity, as was mr. Huxley, that the persons present in the room overhearing the conversation that day, thought for sure he would hit me. i did, too.
    • Julian Huxley, along with ernst mayr and theodosius dobzhansky, is considered the most influential of all of the Evolutionary philosophers of the twentieth century.
    • Julian Huxley was the grandson of thomas henry Huxley. he was bitterly opposed to religion-especially christianity.
    • He wrote and edited many works, including the science of life, with h.g. wells(1930), editting the new systematics(1940), and writing Evolution:the new systematics(1942).
    • He also wrote the introduction to the origin of species, in which he claims Evolution is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt in the book, and that it is factual, and that it must of necessity apply to all aspects of the universe.
    • His occupation was a biologist, but he spent much ti me writing about how to apply the theory of Evolution to the society. this was his real specialty. he bitterly mocked any form of Creationism and christianity. he wrote many articles for humanist causes and spoke about humanism like a religion, even though he was bitterly anti-religion.
    • For julian, humanism was the cure-all for society. he felt that applying Evolution to society would fix man. he did not know about man's heart. russia, china, hitler, mussolini, marx, stalin,and many others also tried to apply Evolution to society. they have killed many, many more people throughout history than all of the religious wars combined. the numbers do not even begin to compare. Evolution is not the natural cure all that the scientists, sociologists, media, professors, etc. would have you believe.
    aldous Huxley(1894-1963)
    • Aldous Huxley is considered by the hippie generation as the guru of the drug culture, and one of it's founding fathers.
    • For aldous, drugs were the only reality, answer, and escape from life's problems. he experimented with l.s.d., and was very influential in the promotion of hallucinogenic drugs within the rock music industry.
    • From an Evolutionary standpoint, he does not play much in the saga of the history of Evolution, but rather in the application of the theory of Evolution to life, much like his brother julian.
    hutton, Lyell james hutton(1726-1797)
    • The origination of the idea of uniformitarianism is credited to james hutton, although he never really went too far with it. it was Lyell who got the idea off of the ground.
    • James hutton came up with an even more novel, although less accepted and controversial, idea in geology- the concept of vulcanism. the theory popular at the time of hutton that was widespread was the idea of neptunism, or the "retreating- ocean theory". this idea came from a man named abraham gottlob werner.
    • You see, the knowledge that all of the basic formations on the earth were obviously laid down in water had to be explained without a creator and without the flood of noah. this called for various theories- anything but the Bible. naturalistic causes had to be thought up to account for the layers.
    • Neptunism was the idea of explaining the geologic formations of the earth in terms of slow processes. the idea was that the oceans would first cover large areas of the earth,and they hold many particles in suspension.
    • Over a period of time, precipitation, deposition, and crystallization, would occur on the ocean floor. this would be the beginning of a formation. later this area would be exposed, as the ocean level would sink, to form an island, continent, etc.
    • As the sea level would drop further, land erosion from storms, etc. would influence the shape of the formation, and these deposits were called transitional rocks.
    • These transitional rocks would then be exposed along with the original rock deposits.
    • The present was not considered the key to the past, but this was in no way the catastrophism if the Bible. it may be explained in terms of a series of small catastrophies, but not one worldwide one. this would be tantamount to a literal acceptance of the book of genesis-not exactly hutton's intention, nor that of his contemporary Evolutionist colleagues.
    • About this time, hutton came along with his idea of the origin of the layers of the crust, once again without the need for a creator or a flood.
    • Hutton came up with the idea of vulcanism. in vulcanism, the material is derived from the existing lands via erosion. the deposits on the ocean floor were then uplifted through the agency of volcanoes, vents, and all of the other seismic activity that the earth had to offer. this process would be comparable to a balloon under a series of blankets. the more the balloon is inflated, the more the blankets are bent, contorted, and uplifted.
    • This process was still going on today, according to the theory. the part about the material being derived from previous erosional processes was correct, however it goes much farther than this.
    sir Charles Lyell(1797-1875):
    • At times the Evolutionist camp denies the fact that Lyell's principles of geology had an effect on Darwin. the fact is that Darwin read the book principles of geology, written by Lyell from 1830 to 1833, on the hms beagle. this did not greatly affect Darwin at the time, but it planted a seed later watered at the time some years later when the classification of his fossils occurred.
    • Charles Lyell was a lawyer who decided to pursue geology.
    • Charles Lyell was the man who is credited with coming up with the idea of uniformitarianism. he wanted a way, any way, to discard, dispose, and crush the idea of the flood of noah, then taught in the schools, as the reason for the widely layered and fossil ridden earth.
    • But he wanted to do this in a manner that would not openly offend the church. subtlety was the plan.
    • The method was to explain the fossil record in a novel way-according to the idea that many catastrophes were responsible for it. this way the flood of noah in genesis could almost remain intact, but not really. you see the idea was that many floods were responsible for the fossil record-but never one worldwide-for this meant acknowledging the accuracy of scripture, which was something Lyell had no intention of doing.
    • To achieve this, he proposed a total of twenty seven catastrophes in history and prehistory could account for the record.
    the account went like this: first Creationääääääääääcatastropheääääääääre-Creation ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ re-Creationäääääääääcatastrophe 27 times
    • At the same time he thought that the progression in the biological world was from simple to complex, much like modern theory. he still believed there was a god in the universe. but this was not to be for much longer.
    • He met Charles Darwin and after finding out in Darwin's ideas on the transmutation of species, he finally had no longer a need for a supernatural creator.
    • In 1824, Lyell went with constance prevost, a lamarckian, to southwest england, to study geology.
    • At about this very same time, he reead hutton's book theory of the earth.
    • Like Charles Darwin himself, Charles Lyell, or sir Charles as he later was called, was influenced by many different people in his life. another person whose work Lyell read was "strata" smith, or william smith, who studied the strata and discovered that the layers were layed out in a certain order.
    • On visiting niagara falls one time, sir Charles, intending to determine it's estimated age, asked the rate at which the falls were eroding the rocks backward. the local person told him that it was three feet a year.
    • Knowing that the implication of this was a young age of niagara falls, he rejected this estimate and simply and unscientifically "calculated" the recession(at that time 35,000 feet) at one foot a year, thereby giving a minimum age of 35,000 years. this was the age given to and believed by the public.
    • Lyell and his contemporaries all, rejecting the flood as historically accurate, came up with the notion that the layers were formed by river deposits and other slow processes. in a practice still done by Evolutionists, the jump from theory to evidence was the process taken by Lyell. assuming that the layers were layed out uniformly and over long periods, he then spent the rest of his research trying to prove this.
    • He also included the assumption that the continents rose and fell over periodically over vast stretches of time, thereby depositing the marine fossils so far inland. this "problem" had to be addressed to dispose of the genesis flood.
    • This achievement fulfilled the prophecy in second peter 3:3-4: "first of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following thier own evil desires. they will say, "where is this 'coming' he promised? ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of Creation"
    • Lyell's motives become apparent only after careful study. he figured that the only way to get the Evolutionary idea broadly accepted was to first destroy the genesis account, especially the flood. this could be subtly done with a prior introduction of long ages to the geology of the earth. the idea was not to upset the church all at once but to get a foot in the door with uniformitarianism. this was also the bait needed for Darwin to get "his" ideas accepted.
    • Lyell also believed in biological Evolution, though in his writings he was cautious with his words. he used "progression", "development", etc. to describe Evolution. a frontal assault was not the idea he had in mind for the Bible-side assaults would be more effective.
    "Lyell is most firmly convinced that he has shaken the faith in the deluge far more efficiently by never having said a word against the Bible than if he had acted otherwise... i have read lately morley's life of voltaire and he insists strongly that direct attacks on christianity (even when written with the powerful force and vigor of voltaire) produce little permanent effect; real good seems only to follow the slow and silent side attacks. (parenthesis in original.)
    -Darwin, Charles october 1873 as recorded in Darwin and the Darwinian rEvolution, gertrude himmelfarb, w.w. norton, new york, n.y., 1968, p. 387.
    • Something else that Lyell wanted to do was destroy the judgement of the flood. no water in the past meant no fire in the future. this assumption is still around.
    • The motives for both Darwin and Lyell can be seen in the fact that neither needed money, and as such, did not practice thier "science" for a living. thier scientific endeavors were purely for personal reasons. thier agenda was to get the idea of catastrophism discredited. they succeeded.
    • Most if not all of Lyell's ideas are said to have actually originated from hutton-and rightly so.
      úäääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääää¿ ³ with the writings of Lyell and hutton, phase one was ³ ³ now complete-the removal "scientificaly" of the genesis ³ ³ flood. ³ àäääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääù 10. gould, sagan, asimov, a.c.l.u.
      • The modern scientists are the ones who have for us been the most dogmatic in terms of promoting Evolutionism. in the face of mounting evidence against them in the last thirty years, not to mention the 100 years prior to that, the modern scientists have, more than ever, tried to suppress the truth. their newer writings reflect their hatred of christianity and Creationism more than ever. they are both blatant and subtle, wise and foolish, knowledgeable and ignorant, brave and fearful. stephen jay gould:
      • Stephen jay gould is the head of the geology department at harvard university, and an admitted marxist.
      • In 1972, along with niles eldredge, mr. gould presented a new twist to the theory of Evolution, called the punctuated equilibrium theory. this theory was derived from the fact that there are no transistional fossils to be found. in fact, the theory was so worded by the two Evolutionists so as to sound scientific: "in 1972 my colleague niles eldredge and i developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. we argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record-geologically 'sudden' origin of new species and failure to change thereafter(stasis)- reflect the predictions of (this new)Evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record."
        -stephen jay gould, "Evolution as fact and theory," discover, may 1981, p. 36.
      • Notice very closely the evidence presented for this new theory-lack of transitional fossils-and transitional fossils are the very prediction of the Evolution Model! yet a lack of transitional fossils is the very prediction of the Creation Model! at least mr. gould and his colleague have the courage to admit to the poverty of the Darwinian Evolutionary theory in regards to fossil evidence.
      • Any arguement in a court of law made from a lack of evidence is worthy of being thrown out of that very same court
      • Stephen jay gould did not invent this theory, nor did mr. eldredge. actually, a man named dr. richard goldschmidt proposed this idea in 1940 in a work called the material basis for Evolution, (new haven, yale university press, 1940, p.390.)
      • To say that mr. gould hates Creationists is an understatement.
      • Mr. gould is a prolific writer as a cursory check in any bookstore will confirm this. one work by mr. gould is the panda's thumb( 1980, w.w. norton and co., new york), which claims that since the thumb of the panda appears to be useless, it must have an Evolutionary origin, since a creator, if he exists, obviously would have wasted his time in designing a useless appendage. actually, the Creation moidel would predict this in that the second law of thermodynamics means that many appendages or organs would not do the same job as originally designed to do. second, the panda's thumb may turn out some day to have an unknown use which we have not yet discovered. but if it doesn't, this in no way lends support to the theory of Evolution, as natural selection ought to have removed this useless appendage millions" of years ago.
      • Carl sagan(1934- ):
      • Dr. carl sagan is probably known for his book cosmos, and the accompanying television series.
      • Dr. sagan is a believer in pantheism. that is, that he believes that the universe functions as a living, sensate being. he acknowledges order and design, but not a designer.
      • Dr. sagan also believes in the idea(false) of ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. this is his justification for abortion. he is not alone in this though, as he regularly has in the past written in magazines stating his advocacy for abortion. he supports the feminist movement.
      • Dr. sagan, in word and in speech, sounds as if he is a very religious person when it comes to his worship of the cosmos. he steps out of the realm of science and goes into the metaphysical to proclaim his "message to the masses."
      • It is because of the work of dr. sagan and others like him that we have the s.e.t.i.(search for extraterrestrial intelligence) program. he firmly believes in the concept of panspermia, discussed earlier and has devoted his entire life to this search for intelligent life in outer space. is it just possible that dr. sagan is admitting the impossibility of life evolving by chance on this planet- if life could evolve by chance here, then why the silly notion that someone else from somewhere else did it?
      • Isaac asimov(1920-1992):
      • To begin the discussion on mr. asimov, it is useful to give two quotes from him. this gives a general overview on where he stood on christianity and science. "i am an atheist, out and out. it took me a long time to say it. i've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow i felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. i finally decided that i am a creature of emotion as well as of reason. emotionally, i'm an atheist. i don't have the evidence to prove that god doesn't exist, but i so strongly suspect that he doesn't that i don't want to waste my time."
        -isaac asimov, "an interview with isaac asimov on science and the Bible," free inquiry 2, by paulkurtz,(spring 1982),p.9.
        • Question: "what is your prescription for peace?" asimov: "i don't have a prescription for peace i'm afraid, except that i'm pretty sure christianity doesn't help." -los angeles times magazine, april 26, 1992.
        • Incidentally, isaac asimov even wrote a huge volume on the Bible years ago. mr. asimov also had a regular column in many national newspapers attacking the Bible.
        • Between the writings and words of stephen jay gould, dr. carl sagan and isaac asimov, i really feel that there is more than enough evidence to prove that almost all of the famous Evolutionists:
        a. are very religious. b. are very anti-christian c. know that Evolution is untrue. (as shown in the cogent comment by mr. asimov when he admits his lack of proof of there being no god, and by mr. gould's statement about punctuated equilibrium.) 11. colin patterson, niles eldredge, david raup, george gaylord simpson.
        • Niles eldredge:
        • Mr. eldredge is the head of the american museum of natural history.
        • He is no friend to Creationists. he is very outspoken in his opposition to Creationism, in writing and in word.
        12. the scopes trial.
        • The scopes trial of 1925 was the landmark court trial of the twentieth century, entering Evolution into the american schools and into the minds of all. the publicity for this trial was unsurpassed in it's day and still ranks highly in trhe statistics as one of the most followed trials in all of history.
        • The controversy involved the a. books written b. arguments c. conspiracy d. 13. "scopes ii" Creation scientists: the backbone of modern science > the basis for modern science was Creationism all the way. most of the work done by the scientists in the past several hundred years was done by Creationists. all of the laws, methods, main researches were done by great men of god who felt that they were "just thinking god's thoughts after him."
        • J. robert oppenheimer recognized this, even though he was not a christian. in an article in encounter magazine called "on science and culture", october, 1962, he stated that christianity was totally necessary in order to give birth to modern science. according to the late francis schaeffer in his masterpiece escape from reason, "christianity was necessary for the beginning of modern science for the simple reason that christianity created a climate of thought which put men in a position to investigate the form of the universe." francis schaeffer, escape from reason, inter-varsity fellowship, england, 1968, p. 30.
        • By any standards, including today's, these men would unquestionably be labeled top rate scientists. the only problem is that today there is a good chance that they would be unemployed. in thier day, scientists were mainly Creationists, and believed the Bible as the word of god.
        • One cannot objectively reject the notion that the impact of thier work has been great. without thier work, the scientists of today would still be in the dark ages. modern science is completely based on the work that these men did. various units of measurement, fields of study, etc. are in fact named after these men.

          Louis Agassiz(1807-1873)	glacial geology, icthyology
          Charles Babbage(1792-1871)	mathematics
          Robert Boyle	chemistry, gas dynamics
          David Brewster(1781-1868)	optical mineralogy (kaleidoscope)
          Georges Cuvier(1769-1832)	comparative anatomy, vertabrate paleontology
          Leonardo da Vvinci(1452-1519)	hydraulics
          Humphrey Davy(1769-1832)	thermokinetics
          Henri Fabre(1823-1915)	entomology(insects)
          Michael Faraday(1791-1867)	electro-magnetics, induction, field theory
          John Ambrose Fleming(1849-1945)	electronics(thermionics valve)
          William Herschel(1738-1822)	galactic astronomy(double stars)
          James Joule(1818-1889)	reversible thermodynamics
          Lord Kelvin(1824-1907)	energetics
          Johann Kepler(1571-1630)	celestial mechanics, physical astronomy
          Carolus Linneaus(1707-1778)	systematic biology
          Joseph Lister(1827-1912)	antiseptic surgery
          Matthew Maury(1806-1873)	hydrography
          James Maxwell(1831-1879)	electrodynamics
          Gregor Mendel(1822-1884)	genetics
          Isaac Newton(1642-1727)	calculus
          Blaise Pascal(1623-1662)	hydrostatics,(barometer)
          Louis Pasteur(1822-1895)	bacteriology, law of biogegenesis, fermentation control

          Just Some Religions Based on Evolution

          BUDDHISM	ANIMISM	LIBERAL JUDAISM
          HINDUISM	SPIRITISM	LIBERAL ISLAM
          CONFUCIANISM	OCCULTISM	LIBERAL CHRISTIANITY
          TAOISM	SATANISM	UNITARIANISM
          SHINTOISM	THEOSOPHY	RELIGIOUS SCIENCE
          SIKHISM	BAHAISM	UNITY
          JAINISM	MYSTICISM	HUMANISM
          ATHEISM	GAIA	PANTHEISM
          PAGANISM	NEW AGE	RACISM
          FASCISM	MARXISM	COMMUNISM

          Religions Based Upon Creationism

          Orthodox Biblical Christianity
          Orthodox Judaism
          Scripture verses about Creation and Evolution

          1. 1 Peter 3:15	2. 2 peter 3:3-6	3. 1 timothy 6:20
          4. 2 timothy 4:2-4	5. daniel 12:4	6. psalm 11:34
          7. Psalm 14:1-4	8. proverb 3:19-20	9. 1 peter 3:15
          10. 2 timothy 4:2	11. col. 2:8	12. romans 1:18-22
          13. psalm 11:4