Introduction

Here is a reasoned argument supporting the view that evolution has no part

to play in the origin or development of life. That the basic idea is

fundamentally flawed, so much so that belief in it's doctrine requires an act of

faith greater than those who hold to the notion of a divine creation. To

illustrate this various evolutionary schools from Darwin through to

contemporary interpretations of his theory will be examined, as well as the

antagonism each school holds for the others view.

Acceptance of so called evolutionary proofs will be investigated including the

supposed evolutionary lineage of the horse, and the ancestral whale

progression from land based mammals to sea dwellers. When these ‘proofs’

were first formulated there was an overriding need for sequential evidence to

validate the new theory. Consequently interpretative assumptions were made

that were anything but scientific or indeed logical. They were accepted as

fact and to this day have been taught as such without any serious

investigation as to the validity of this progressive lineage. Every generation

since Darwin, has been immersed in this evolutionary folk-law. This book tries to answer how it can be, that a theory while impossible to

prove has nevertheless ingrained itself on the majority of scientific opinion.

It will be shown that there was and still is a political agenda to the question.

That evolution offers an escape from the Judeo-Christian ethic and that it’s

staunchest advocates, from Huxley through to Dawkins have embraced the

idea seeking to validate their own agnostic/atheist conviction. The theory has

gained acceptance in proportion to the perception of scientific infallibility

twinned with the accompanying decline in the belief of a deity. EVOLUTION: AN EVOLVING MYTH

Chapter one

The title of this book is self-explanatory. We will seek to prove that the theory

of evolution has no basis in fact. When asking you to evaluate the argument

and evidence presented, we recognise the difficulty in overcoming the

ingrained educational rationalism that for over a hundred years succeeding

generations have been subject.

The result of this indoctrination is that the theory has gained almost universal

acceptance. For most it is now almost impossible to believe, yet alone

comprehend in anything other than accepted evolutionary doctrine. This

notion that the whole thing has been settled would have fewer adherents in

other disciplines. The gaping discrepancies that have to be accommodated

and the assumptions that have to be made for the theory to have validity

would surely not be tolerated in other fields of learning. The core belief has

been accepted despite wide differences of opinion by its adherents as to the

means. If after due considerations you find that despite perhaps initial scepticism this book’s message has some merit, then your life will change,

how could it be otherwise? A central plank of western scientific thinking will

have been shown to be in error. So to ease you gently in that direction we

will now present a reasoned argument the conclusion of which we think

demands support for creation.

What is your motive for downloading this book? If you are a committed

evolutionist, then presumably confirmation that creationist really are a bunch

of well meaning, but essentially misguided cranks, how incredible that in this

day and age there are still some who seriously believe doctrine that was

surely disproved over a century ago.

You may have a mild interest in the subject and feel that maybe there are

some aspects of the theory that don’t quite add up, you would of course be

correct in that assumption, but there will be others who are creationist by

tradition, it is part and parcel of their life, to sway to the other side would be

a betrayal of all that they hold dear. The constant assertion that they are

wrong in this belief and that moreover it has been scientifically proved to be

so must be unnerving to say the least. Naturally a gleam of light in support of

their basic belief would not be unwelcome. Or if you are a rarity and have an

open mind with a genuine desire to form an opinion to what after all is the biggest question that can ever be asked. Namely, was it a stroke of luck that

we somehow evolved out of the primeval soup? Or as creationists would have

us believe, a unique event meticulously planned and fulfilled by a vastly

superior being.

This is the ultimate question; nothing comes close in importance, it

incorporates the core quest that lies at the heart of every discipline, be it

political, scientific or philosophic. All that man puts his mind too, all that he

attempts to achieve, all that he succeeds in achieving, in the end he will

always return to that one ultimate question. Our view on every aspect of

human behaviour, endeavour and accomplishment is influenced by the

answer we give to that question.

In this secular age, the moment you mention a deity, you immediately stray

from the rational world of science, into an optimistic and possible naive

explanation as to our origins and destiny. Frankly, to the faint hearted it can

be a little unnerving, advocating a view that was thought by most to be long

dead calls for a little courage. You’re in sophisticated company, it’s been a pleasant social occasion but as so

often happens the conversation is steered by some earnest soul onto more

steely subjects, the meaning of life, of death, etc. At this stage there are

always one or two sets of eyes rolling in a heavenly direction for given the

chance this individual always delights in banging on about things

philosophical, nevertheless from this the confrontation of our big question is

never far behind. If you were then cajoled into sharing your beliefs in whose

opinion would you be most comfortably associated with, the pulpit thumping

Southern fundamentalist who insists that God buried fossils in order to test

our faith or the conviction of the vast majority of scientific opinion. After one

hundred years of acceptance by this majority that Darwin was broadly correct

in his basic assumptions who now dares face ridicule in suggesting that this

theory is so flawed, so full of obvious contradictions, that subscribing to it

requires an act of faith greater that those who go for the seven day thing.

And here indeed is the mystery. How can it be, that the whole world has been

seduced, that men and women endowed with vast intellect have accepted

and perpetuated an idea that can be so easily disproved, that is illogical, that

cannot possibly be. The reasons are complex, the seed rooted in Greek

philosophy, nurtured by nineteenth century German rationalism, and

harvested by modern intellectual atheism. The social ramification of this idea has been incalculable. We are no longer obliged to behave in a civilised

manner, other than for the protection and convenience of society. For are we

nothing more than a highly evolved animal species? Fascism and Communism

the two totalitarian regimes of the last century could justify their excesses no

doubt in the firm belief that by annihilating supposed inferior’s be it Gypsies,

Jews, aristocrats or counter-revolutionaries’ they were merely confirming their

own eminence over the old orders.

You may argue that there has never been a time when true Christian ethic

has influenced the affairs of men, and that men have always pursued power

through war and subterfuge, often allying their cause to dubious

interpretation of Christian principles. You would have a point, but the

difference from the past is that instead of ignoring these established

principles there is less reason to believe that these principles exist let alone

given by divine authorship. Has it not been established that his instruction

manual is nothing more than ancient folk lore? Or, if he does exist, has he

lied to us, on the one hand informing mankind that The Bible is his spiritual

word with not “one jot or one tittle” to be altered and then, expecting us to

believe this rib and forbidden fruit stuff. Do not look to the establishment churches for guidance on this question, they

long ago gave up on the very teaching that should be the very basis of their

existence. If intellectually they cannot believe what is stated in the book they

profess to live by then it is not surprising that the rest of the world should

seek the truth elsewhere, or as in most cases not bother at all. Religious

leaders contrary to the source of their original inspiration, have surrendered

former beliefs and now declare allegiance with their former adversaries. Ask

any number of clergy the straight question “How did we get here, did we

evolve over millions of years, or should we believe what it clearly states in the

Bible?” You will not receive a straight answer, and immediately their lack of

conviction is apparent. Reference will be made to veiled symbolism, which of

course cannot be taken literally, written for simple people in a different time

etc. Is it any wonder that of late the established Christian church has lost so

much ground? Chapter two

On March 21 2006 Stephan Bates at that time the religious affairs

correspondent for “The Guardian”, interviewed Rowan Williams the then

Archbishop of Canterbury. Bates asked the Archbishop a straight forward

question, “Should creation be taught in schools”. Did his Grace provide an

illuminating beacon of cast iron conviction? perhaps support for those whose

faith is so often being tested on this very subject. Alas no, the Archbishop

replied (and I am assuming Bates account is accurate) “I think creationism is

a kind of category mistake…. If creationism is presented as a stark alternative

theory alongside other theories I think there’s just been a jarring of

categories. My worry is creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of

creation rather than enhancing it.”

Let’s be charitable to the Archbishop, of course his statement made no sense

and in the immediacy of the interview he was struggling to articulate exactly

what his beliefs were. Williams is a Christian intellectual and he found it

impossible to give the straight answer – yes creationism should be taught in

schools, not even with the proviso of, along with other theories’. I can also discern a degree of malicious enthusiasm for his discomfort, that particular

newspaper not as yet recognised as being a true champion of Christian belief.

The Archbishop, in that one paragraph typifies the woolly view of mainstream

denominations. He dose not accept that the teaching of creation is positive,

because it may create confrontation with other theories. His worry is that

teaching creation will do more harm than good. This is from a man who was

the head of the Anglican Church. I suspect that on this occasion the reason

for his waffling is very simple, he dose not believe the relevant Biblical text.

Little comfort here for the bemused Anglican hoping for authoritative

confirmation of his Biblical based faith from the head of his church. If you

cannot believe in creation, and the only account of creation is in the Bible.

Then by adapting a watered down poetic interpretation you are saying that

Jesus was wrong in his insistence of the seven day creation. This is it, this is

the crux. It has profound implications on Christian faith and the validity of the

Bible.

Williams is affectively telling his flock that the creation account in Genesis is

wrong, that it should not be taken seriously. that it is in effect a lie. This

means that the book itself cannot be relied on, which means that it is not the inspired word of God which means we are probably alone. All sobering stuff,

but grist to the mill of your committed evolutionist.

Unless you subscribe to the idea that aliens were somehow responsible for

our being here, then there is only one alternative to the evolutionists.

Admittedly this can be a trifle unnerving but it is nevertheless the only logical

conclusion. We are either the product of a chance meeting of a dozen

different elements who, by a stroke of luck, were somehow joined together,

encouraged perhaps by solar energy or cooked in warm volcanic slime that

somehow after umpteen million years! ……Or, we were created by a higher

being. It’s as simple as that.

At a Bristol comprehensive school in the early sixties, a geography teacher stood up in front of her class of twelve year old pupils and stated:

“The Chinese coolie has to carry across his shoulders a wooden
pole, from which on each end there are attached wicker baskets
thusenabling himtocarry hisheavy load. During theworking life
of this unfortunate man a hard lump develops at the top of his
spine. This enables him to balance his burden and eases the
pressureon hisbackbone.”

She then made the following statement;.

“If there are innumerable generations of coolies from the same stock, then over a period of time the children of these labourers will be born with this helpful addition attached to their anatomies….”

As I recall, this information was absorbed without question by the class, partly

I suspect due to the ferocious temper of Mrs Nicholas, for she would suffer no

dissent, and partly because to our young minds having just had illustrated to

us the progression of a horse from a terrier sized creature to its modern form,

(We shall return to this outrageous example in another chapter) we vaguely

assumed that this was the way things were (Bye the way my daughter

informs me that we don't say coolie any more, in Mrs Nicholas's defence this

was the sixties.)

Please read the previous two paragraphs again, and I would ask you to think

for a moment, was Mrs Nicholas's interpretation of evolutionary theory

reasonable? Is this more or less the way you think various forms of life have

developed? I do not assume for one moment that academic evolutionists

would not have one or two problems with our Chinese story, rather to illustrate the indoctrination of suspect science on young pliable minds. Mrs

Nicholas, a sincere and presumably well-educated lady had done no less than

impart utter nonsense upon her young charges. She was advocating a long

impart utter nonsense upon her young charges. She was advocating a long

1829) proposed that animals could affect a change in their anatomy by their

behaviour and that this change could be passed on to their offspring. The old

chestnut of a giraffe stretching up for leaves encouraging its neck to grow.

Come to think of it and I have only just realised this after all these years, she

was always waxing lyrical about the joys of socialism, and the wickedness of

what was then left of the British Empire. Low and behold Larmarkism was the

official party line in Stalin’s Russia and even carried on through to the

Khrushchev era, only being abolished as the party line in the late sixties. But

perhaps I wrong you Miss.

I know from reading modern textbooks that similar ideas are still being

perpetrated by our current crop of teachers, probably with an equal amount

of misguided conviction. Strange how we remember these little incidents from

childhood and later wished we had then possessed the wit and knowledge

gleaned from adulthood. I wonder what her reaction would have been if some

bright spark had hesitantly raised their hand and innocently enquired whether

she honestly believed that the circumstance e.g. environment, habitat and in this case habit, would actually be instrumental in affecting a change in the

DNA of her Chinese labourer and this change actually being passed on to his

offspring, if so Mrs Nicholas, pray by what means? She might just as well

have said that chopping the third finger off the left hand of innumerable

generations of our long suffering labourer would in the end result in a nine

fingered race of men. It’s the same criteria, a constant outside influence

resulting in radical transferable physical change. Somehow Miss I don’t think

so.

All our lives a stream of similar attitudes and half-truths have subtly

influenced our thinking. View your average natural history television program

sooner or later reference will be made to ‘nature’s wonders’ as the camera

zooms in on some amazing phenomena. Watch out for the scene that shows

microscopic pond life, usually accompanied with the old faithful ‘way back in

the mist’s of time all life started thus’ always it seems uttered in hushed

reverent tones. Perhaps then we are shown amphibians symbolically crawling

out of the water, maybe a shot of an iguana and then the lofty flight of an

eagle, the majestic diving of a school whales. Then the whole glorious

panorama of life, cue African plains teeming with Zebra, Wildebeest, Giraffe

etc.…and then, last of all, man himself, a majestic looking Masai warrior

standing bolt upright on one leg overlooking this idyllic scene with sun sinking slowly etc. this is supposed to show us in simple terms how life evolved. The

photography is stunning. The ingenuity of the production team quite

remarkable, yet on closer analysis of the script most of the time pure

nonsense, at least where there is an assumption of an evolutionary hand

behind the wonders portrayed.

David Attenborough has for the past forty odd years fronted dozens of

universally acclaimed natural history programmes. Without exception these

programmes have been in the forefront of photographic innovation. The

natural history unit of the BBC who have produced a great deal of his work

can be justly proud of the many international awards it has gained over the

years. There is always though an underlying evolutionary assumption

reflected in the script as there inevitably is whenever the media deals with

anything vaguely biological. Is it any wonder that even mild criticism of the

evolutionary principle is at best met with patronising amusement, or more

often of late a ferocious attack in which the sanity of the expound-ant is

doubted? Unbelievable that in this day and age we have people who still

question what should now be accepted as scientific fact.

And yet, what are the beliefs of the current crop of evolutionary theorists? As

academics of the various schools of evolutionary thought know the subject is far from settled. The theory’s brightest minds cannot agree on even the most

fundamental principles of their subject. The layman would be astonished at

the difference of opinion that exists among these learned men. It really is

quite amusing to compare the insinuated accusations of naivety and ill

founded logic that they hurl at each other. Of course it has always been so,

the ferocity of a cornered polecat is nothing compared to the academic who

senses barely concealed ridicule.

In dealing with the evolution theory we must therefore take into account

these various schools of thought, from the great man himself through to his

modern disciples who, having branched out and formed there own little

evolution clubs now vie with one another for academic recognition. Each has

their following, each their dissenters, the arguments endlessly redefined by

the printing presses on both sides of the Atlantic. Of course the one

consolation for these gentlemen and their publishers, is that it does sell an

innumerable amount of books!

We must also prove that creation actually happened. This is a separate task

and not helped by some of the illogical nonsense put forward by some of its

more wide-eyed advocates. I’m sorry gentlemen, it’s true, there have been

innumerable ages before man and there was life on this planet millions of years ago. To deny this is ridiculous and moreover taints the creationist cause

with unrelenting ridicule. Later we will show there is no conflict between

biblical text and geological/ biological time lines Chapter three

Let’s me introduce the first and currently the largest school of evolutionary

thought. The ‘Ultra Darwinians’ (henceforth we will refer to them as ultras)

tend to be made up of, although not exclusively, theoretical geneticists.

Amongst these may be counted Richard Dawkins author of such works as

‘The Blind Watchmaker’ 1986, ‘The Extended Phenotype’ 1982 and his first

success ‘The Selfish Gene’ 1976. Dawkins is probably the most outspoken

advocate of ‘ultra Darwinism and although no longer quite it’s infant-terrible’,

still commands awe from the media and fear from his detractors. Michael

Ruse described as a philosopher of science when reviewing ‘The Blind

Watchmaker’ compared him to Galileo. Well, that’s as may be and I’m sure Mr

Ruse was sincere in his comparison….. Sadly of late Michael seems to have

fallen out with Richard far be it for me to stir things up between committed

Darwinians you will have to enter their names together to get the gist of their

tiff. It’s a shame but Dawkins is now becoming almost hysterical in his anti

God stance. The publication of his best selling “The God Delusion” a while

back had some familiar names of the left gravely nodding their approval for

this atheist sentiment. Joan Bakewell, Ian McEwan being particularly gushing

in their praise, although I'm not sure where Rod Liddle fits in among these

worthies! The book is well written and has a seductive quality that compels even committed Christians to wonder if they have, after all got everything

completely right.

This work is important in that it has become a rallying call for increasingly

militant atheist. It therefore deserves serious criticism, for if there is merit in

Dawkins observations, then the basic implications for core religious belief are

seriously compromised. We will therefore use a great deal of Richard Dawkins

work to represent the ‘ultra’ argument. His writings are well known and his

ideas can with a little application be grasped by a wide section of the public.

This and a refreshingly fluid writing style make him a true champion of the

‘ultra’ school. We also have the added bonus that he tends to get terribly

‘wound up’ if anyone has the temerity to disagree with his theories.

I believe that Dawkins best selling “The God Delusion” (T.G.D) and his later

“The Greatest Show on Earth are so powerful that they deserve a detailed

analytical criticism. When I first started writing this book I had intended to

prove my point with logic rather than drawing from a faith based religious

dimension. Now with the publication of T.G.D perhaps the most powerful anti

God book published so far this century it has become apparent that it is not

enough just to show the inconsistencies of the theory, we must nail our colours to the mast and prove that God exists and that he created life.

Shouldn’t be too difficult should it...

One of Dawkins less attractive characteristics is the disdain he shows for

anyone who dose not agree with his atheistic slant of the theory. I came

across a disquieting example of this in an article he wrote for the “Free

Inquiry magazine Vol. 21, no 4 In this piece he berates the beliefs of one Kurt

Wise. Mr Wise is an academic who happens to believe in creation. It just so

happens that Wise has an impressive list of academic achievements. He has a

Ph.D. in geology from Harvard where he studied under Stephen Jay Gould. I

would imagine there would have been many a lively discussion between

Gould and Wise for it was Gould along with Niles Eldridge who put forward

their theory of “Punctuated Equilibrium” (more of this later) a work that

advocates evolution as occurring in almost the opposite way to Dawkins Ultra

view.... In addition Wise also obtained a degree in geophysics from the

University of Chicago, so clearly the man is no fool. Wise was a contributor to

“In six days: why 50 scientists choose to believe in creation”, a compendium

edited by John F Ashton and lampooned by Richard. What makes Dawkins

angry is the admission by Wise that even if all the evidence turned against creation, Wise would still find it impossible not to believe in creation because

of his faith in a creator. He quotes Wise.

“I am a young age creationist because that is my
understandingoftheScripture.AsIsharedwithmyprofessoryears
agowhenIwasincollegeifalltheevidenceIntheuniverseturned
againstcreationism,Iwouldbethefirsttoadmitit,butIwouldstill
be a creationist because that is what the word of God seems to
indicate. Here I must stand.”

Richard then concludes by calling Wise pathetic for holding this view while still

regarding himself as a scientist.

Now I do have a slight problem here. I cannot subscribe to Wise’s

interpretation of Scripture, (we will be dealing with this in a later chapter), but

at the same time have sympathy with Dawkins amazement at how anyone

could, even if all the evidence refuted creation and proved beyond doubt that

evolution was a fact, not go with that conclusion. The fact that the evidence

dose not show this is to a certain extent irrelevant, we have been given minds

capable of discerning the truth and in this matter the argument concerns

mostly biological evidence. Therefore there is no need for this blind faith, we

can take Biblical teaching as a basis but we have also been told to “prove all

things.” So we have Wise’s biblical interpretation leading him to believe in a six

thousand year earth against other creationist who recognise a far older earth

and are convinced that their view dose not contradicts Scripture. On the

other hand Dawkins insists on a gradual progression of evolutionary change

with others advocating a completely different evolutionary timetable.

Just to even out the argument and to show that it’s not only creationist that

rely on faith. I refer you to George Wald 1906-1997 Nobel prize winner in

physiology and medicine, numerous academic and honourable degrees from top European and American Universities who stated when speaking of the first

necessary spontaneous generation of a living organism“
One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task, it is
impossible, yet here we all are as a result…. I believe in
spontaneousgeneration”

Wald is admitting that the life long achievement and honours gained

throughout his distinguished academic career were nevertheless based on a

premise he knew to be impossible, namely spontaneous generation…… now

that’s blind faith. T

The Judo-Christian ethic the western world holds as its core value comes

directly from the Bible. In matters of law, morality, or just the way we go

about our business, a large part still influenced by the teachings and statutes

of that book. It has been the book that for the past two thousand years has

had a direct cultural influence on Anglo Saxon, Celtic, Germanic, Latin, Greek

and Russian society. For the last three thousand years the Old Testament has

had a profound influence on Jewish society. From Europe the British ensured

that Protestantism spread throughout North America and then the rest of her

colonies, with the Spanish and Portuguese ruthlessly imposing the Catholic

creed on the unfortunate natives of South America, which is curious. How can

the lives and faith of the whole of the western world be dictated to or at least

be influenced by, the teachings of a man who lived for only thirty three years.

Who preached for only three and a half years around two thousand years

ago. There is either something in it all the whole of the western world has

been deceived. If that is the case and Dawkins and his friends are right then

Western civilisation has been built on a myth.

In medieval times the building of a village church was a terrible drain of

resources time and labour. But practically every village in Europe possessed

one. The idea behind the enthusiastic and for the most part willing participation in the construction and maintenance of these edifices was that

people actually believed they should live their lives by Christian doctrine (that

is of course as instructed by Rome or Canterbury)

They were for the most part willing participants in a society that considered

church doctrine as central to all aspects of life. Naturally this was exploited by

the church and was a means of keeping intact the prevailing order. After all,

there was a great deal of wealth and power to be gained if you had a say in

the allocation of everlasting life!

To their shame the Catholic and Protestant faiths were responsible for

centuries of torture and death to anyone judged by them to be heretical. The

fact that this behaviour was contrary to the teaching of the book they were

supposed to be living by seems not to have troubled them. Although we don’t

burn people at the stake any more there are still fierce and violent passions

aroused by tribal dedication and loyalty, as far as the UK is concerned this is

probably now only true in the Celtic regions of Great Britain, the last fifty

years or so has seen the majority in England lapse into a secular/ humanist

mind set. Even in some sections of Scottish and Irish culture the influence of

the Catholic Church has been diminished by the institutionally depraved antics

of some of its spiritual leaders. It is against this background of confusion and cruelty that we have to put a

case for creation. Already we have one hand tied behind our back, we can’t

use main stream denominational teaching, as mentioned earlier they don’t

really believe in creation themselves. You can sense their heart is not really in

it, at least as far as Europe is concerned. America on the other hand is a

different matter, in that country the majority still believe in creation, much to

the amusement of European intellectuals. Chapter four

Because belief in creation can only come from Biblical teaching we have to

have an overall view of what that book purports to be. The Bible states that

writers of the various books were quite simply inspired by God to describe the

events exactly as they happened. So there can be no room for error this book

claims it is inspired by the creator of the universe, so at the very least, not

withstanding one or two minor human translator errors it should be about

right. If this is true, then there must be no flaws, everything must have

happened exactly as is stated, otherwise the Bible is in error and therefore

cannot be the inspired word of God. If we accept this principle, then by doing

so we have to be ready to defend some of the more, to our modern eyes,

amazing occurrences that the Bible plainly states did actually happen, virgin

births, Noah’s ark, Adam and Eve etc. all happening as described. We are in

good company here for Jesus himself accepted a true Adam (Mat 19;5) Not

surprising really, seeing as he helped make him. (Gen 1: 26) Christ mentions

Noah (Mat 24; 38-39) Moses and the burning bush (Mat 22:32) Jonas

deliverance after three days (Mat12:40) So I guess if Jesus believed it, and he

states that he is the son of God then…. You can see how this really dose sort

out the wheat from the chaff. The Bible itself instructs us to “prove all things” (Thes 5:7) so the first thing

to address is its historical accuracy. It sets itself a pretty high standard listing

every generation from Adam to Christ. I remember Mr Gibson my old RE

teacher puzzling over this very point, why all those tedious be-gets and

begottens. In the beginning of Mathews gospel there is a complete list from

Abraham to Christ, forty one generations, further broken down into three

fourteen generation periods. King David (David is fourteenth so adjoins the

first and second lists.) was the fourteenth after Abraham thus fulfilling the

prophesy that Christ would come from Abraham’s line through David. Luke

gives us Christ’s line all the way back to Adam. I think that’s part of the

answer Mr Gibson, to show that prophesy was fulfilled and to give us a

reasonably accurate time-scale as to how long men have been on this earth.

In the book of Chronicles there is the genealogy from Adam through various

peoples and nations. Very tedious to read and yet these lists give us a four

thousand years genealogy. Being a concept rather than a detail man I would

prefer to leave the significance of all these names and generations to more

studious interpreters. By the way, Richard Dawkins claims that supposed discrepancies between

Matthews genealogical list and Luke’s confirm his contention that the Bible is

not inspired by God. We will deal with this point shortly.

If you have a bible handy please get it out and see if we can get an overall

view as to what it actually is, or at least what it says it is. The first five books

from Genesis to Deuteronomy were written by Moses, nearly a fifth of the

Bible written by one man. It is the history of the world from creation through

to Abraham, his son Isaac, his son Jacob, (later called Israel) and his son

Joseph who with his two sons and his ten brothers gave there name and were

founders of the twelve tribes of Israel. By the time we get to Moses the

descendants of these brothers and sons have become nations. On through

the ages, ten of the tribes (Israel) have separated from Judah (The Jews)

Israel is enslaved by the Assyrian’s, Judah by the Babylonians, later allowed

to return to Jerusalem when the Babylonians themselves are conquered. Now

the Bible concentrates on Judah, on to the New Testament, the birth of

Christ, the teachings of Christ, the death of Christ and the resurrection of

Christ. As told by the apostles. Various letters to the fledgling church by Paul

and finally the book of Revelation written by John at the end of his long life

(and the only Apostle not to suffer a martyrs death) which tells of the near

total destruction of the entire world, to be saved by the second coming of Christ. What! the complete history and future of the world from creation to

the second coming. In addition to the historical perspective it gives

instructions as to how best we should conduct our lives, not only the Ten

Commandments, but detailed instructions as to how we should deal and

interact with one another on a day to day basis. It advises us on the

prevention of disease and the food that is safe to eat. Over a quarter of it is

prophesy, with the fate of nations both ancient and modern prophesied.

Incidentally apart from the very end time prophesies every one of them has

come to pass.

This is as broad a canvas as you can get, an historical document and a

personal instruction book claimed to be given to us by the creator of

existence. You atheist out there are you quite sure you don’t want to have

another quick look, I’m only saying it may be prudent just to make doubly

sure in so much as it may save you a little embarrassment when you do

eventually meet your maker! For the rest of us let’s not be too smug for we

have to ask ourselves is it completely bona-fide. Should we in fact be basing

our whole lives on a set of books the last of which was written two thousand

years ago? We have to completely satisfy ourselves as to its truth, and for each of us

this has to be a personal journey. Moreover a journey, according to scripture

that we do not have complete control over, for the Bible states that any

insight is a gift, not given to everybody at this time and that we should prey

to be given greater understanding.

So, is the Bible an accurate historical document? Let’s start with Jesus, was

he an actual historical figure. We can put aside for one moment the question

of Christ’s status, was there a man called Jesus of Nazareth who existed two

thousand years ago. Yes there was. There are several none Biblical sources

that mention Christ.

Tacitus c56 57-117AD

Roman Senator, Consul, governor, and historian. He vehemently opposed the

new religion and considered Christianity to be a danger to the stability of Rome. He writes;

“Hencetosuppresstheruin or,hefalselycharged withthe
guiltandpunishedChristians,who werehatedfortheirenormities,
Christus, the founder of the name was put to death by Pontius
Pilot, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius but the
pernicioussuperstitionforatimebrokeout Again,notonlythroughJudea,wherethemischieforiginated, but
through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and
shameful from every part of the world find their centre and
become popular. Accordingly, and arrests was first made of all
who pleaded guilty, then upon their information an immense
multitudewasconvicted.Notsomuchforthecrimeoffireringthe
city,butofhatredagainstmankind”

He is not too fond of Christians is he? But he acknowledges Christ as the

founder of Christianity.

Flavius Josephus c37-100AD

A Jewish historian and commander of the Jewish forces in Galilee. He writes in his Antiquities

“Now there was about this man Jesus, if it be lawfulto call hima
man, for he was the doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such
menasreceivethetruthwith pleasure.Hedrewoverto himmany
of the Jews and many of the Gentiles and when Pilot, at the
suggestionoftheprinciplemenamongus,hadcondemnedhimto thecross.Thosewholovedhimatthefirstdidnotforsakehimfor
heappearedto thosealiveagainthethirddayasthedivine
prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful
things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christian are not
extinctatthisday”

Josephus also refers to James the brother of Jesus “the so called Christ” and

How he was stoned to death in 62AD being accused by Annas the high priest. Lucian of Samosato (c120-180AD)

The Christians you know, worship a man to this day, the
distinguishedpersonagewho introducedtheirnovel rite’s,andwas
crucified on that account You see these misguided creatures start
with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time,
which explains the contempt for death and voluntary devotion.
Which are so common among them? And then it was impressed
on them by there original lawgiver that they are brothers. From
themomentthattheyareconverted,anddenytheGodsofGreece
andworshipthecrucifiedsageandliveafterhislaws”.

Tertullian (155-200AD)

“Tiberius accordingly in whose days the Christian name made its
entry in the world having received intelligence from the truth of
Christ’sdivinity,boughtthematterbeforethesenate,with hisown
decision in favour of Christ. The senate, because it had not given
its approval rejected his proposal. Caesar held to his opinion
threateningwrathagainstallaccusersoftheChristians.”

There is more documentary support for the New Testament than any other

piece of ancient literature. Many thousands of Latin and Greek documents

attest to the validity of that work. There can be no question, no doubt, the

New Testament was written by men who new and fraternised with a man

called Jesus. A more valid question would be…. was he and is he the son of

God?

What a question that is for within it lays the very soul and validity of our

culture; it seems to me that if he did rise from the dead after three days as

he said he would, then it would be reasonable to assume his divine status.

Moreover, we are talking about events that were prophesied thousands of

years before his birth. There are several references to Christ in the Old Testament. The circumstances of his birth, life and death all clearly foretold.

Here are a few examples Isaiah (7: 14)

Therefore the Lord himself shall give him a sign; behold a virgin
shallconceive,andbearason,andshallcall hisnameImmanuel.

Isaiah (9: 6)

For unto us a child is born; unto us a son is given; and the
government will be on his shoulder; and his name will be called
wonderful,counsellor,themightyGod,theeverlastingFather,the
Princeofpeace

Micah (5; 2)

But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the
thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall he come forth unto me
that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from
old,fromeverlasting.

Zechariah (9; 9)

Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout O daughter of
Jerusalem; behold, thy King cometh unto thee; he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an Ass, and upon a colt
thefoal ofanAss.

Psalm (22; 16-18)

“For dogs have compassed me; the assembly of the wicked have
enclosed
Me;theypiercedmyhandsandfeet.Imaytellallmybones;they
look and stare at me. They part my garments among them and
castlotsuponmyvesture”

This last one written by King David even describes the terrible scourging of

Christ, so severe, that even his bones were revealed.

What would indicate to us that Christ did actually rise from the dead thereby

proving his divinity? Consider the state of the Apostles directly after his death.

They were a broken bunch. They had played a central part in the whole

phenomenon, had witnessed hundreds of miracles, and yet here they were

hiding from the authorities terrified that they themselves would be denounced

and suffer the same fate as Christ. They were totally broken. Meanwhile Pilot had allowed Joseph of Arimathea a Jewish Sanhedrin and

follower of Jesus to place the body of Christ in a tomb owned by Joseph. You

have to admire Joseph’s courage, asking for the body in that charged

situation he risked being accused of guilt by association. The apostles

themselves recognised this danger and were keeping a very low profile.

The High priests had requested from the authorities that a guard be set over

the tomb so that they could reveal that it was indeed only a man crucified and

not the son of God. They had a vested interest in ensuring that Christ’s body

stayed put, they knew of the three day prophesy and wanted to nip this new

heresy in the bud, thereby justifying their persecution of this impostor. Very

early on the third day Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and discovered that

the large boulder that had sealed the tomb had been rolled back. The Roman

soldiers who were supposed to be guarding the tomb lay in a stupor. Later

she returned bringing Simon Peter and John to the entrance. The disciples

see the tomb is empty and eventually return to there homes. Mary remains

and Jesus appears behind her. She dose not recognise him at first, for the last

time she saw him he was a scourged and broken man, but when he calls her

name, she recognises him and calls him Master. He tells her not to touch him

for he has not yet ascended to his Father. Jesus tells her to go to the disciples

and tell them of what she has seen. That same day, in the evening when the disciples had again barricaded

themselves in Jesus appeared to them. They were then given power by Jesus

to heal the sick and authority to preach the Gospel. They were changed. No

hiding, no fear, cowards no more, a miraculous transformation. Jesus

appeared to over five hundred people in the next few days. Can you wonder

that Christianity just exploded, spreading like wildfire throughout the region.

These witnesses knew what they had seen. They had heard Christ preach,

they had witnessed his crucifixion, and now they saw him revived, how could

they not believe. The Apostles, a varied bunch among them a physician,

fishermen and a tax collector still achieving recognition and glory fully two

thousand years after the event. Pilot, emperors and high priests all

subservient characters to that story.

Let me give you then two examples of men who having looked at the gospels

from different perspectives have concluded that they are fact, one a sceptic

who set out to prove that the Gospels were in error, the other a central

participant in a modern political scandal.

Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853) was born in Massachusetts. He served as

Professor of law at Harvard University, and was instrumental in setting up that universities law program. His treatise on the Law of Evidence is

considered a classic on American jurisprudence. He can be considered to be

the father of the American justice system. He set out using his own exacting

rules of evidence to determine the validity of The Gospels. Starting out as a

non believer, or at best a sceptic he nevertheless came to the conclusion that

the account must be true. His work “Testimony of the Evangelists” is a classic

in evidential logic and reasoning. You can read the whole account on line (just

type in his name) but here’s a taster; here he is discussing the apostle’s dramatic change and determination.

“Propagating thisnewfaith,eveninthemostinoffensivemanner,
early Christians received contempt, opposition and cruel deaths.
Yet this faith they zealously did propagate, and all there miseries
theyenduredundismayed,nayrejoicing.Asoneafteranotherwas
put to a miserable death, the survivors only continued their work
with increased vigour and resolution. The annals of military
warfare afford scarcely examples of like heroic consistency and
patience, and unclenching courage. If it were morally possible for
them to have been deceived in the matter, every human motive operated to lead them to discover and avow their error. From
these considerations there is no escape but in the perfect
conviction and admission that they were good men, testimony to
thatwhich theyhadcarefullyobserved,andwell knew to betrue”

He is right. Men do not hold fast to what they know to be a lie especially

when they are all too aware there very lives depend on them disavowing it.

What could possibly be their motive in insisting that what they were attesting

was truth in the face of such tortures and death? Having said that they had

witnessed miracles by the score but were at first reluctant to expose

themselves to danger. It wasn’t until Christ after his resurrection had given

them his Fathers holy spirit that they were then able to withstand the trials

and martyrdom that would be the fate of all but one.

Someone from our own era and from a totally different personal perspective

is Charles “Chuck” Colson. He was one of the conspirators in the Watergate

scandal. He died in 2012, in Hugh Hewitt’s book “Searching for God in America” Chuck reasons

“Here we were, the twelve most powerful men in the world. We
were surrounding the president of the United States, and we couldn’t keep a lie for three weeks. The truth of the Gospel
dependsuponthefactthatJesusChristwasbodilyraisedfromthe
dead. How do we know that? We have the eyewitness testimony
of five hundred people, according to Paul. We have eleven
apostles who were with him and who saw him raised from the
dead. There was Thomas who put his finger in the wounds
because he doubted Jesus. And all the Apostles, after he was
bodilyresurrectedfromthetomb.
Now if he was bodily resurrected that is the most convincing
evidence of the divinity of Jesus Christ. And there’s the testimony
oftheApostlesforfortyyears,andtheyhadnopowerlikewedid
at Watergate. They were persecuted. They were crucified upside
down. All but one died a martyr’s death. They were stoned,
beaten, and not once did they deny that they had seen Christ
raisedfromthedead.”

Again Chuck correctly identifies the unlikely behaviour of men facing tortuous

death if they knew that all they were defending was a lie. He goes on to draw a parallel with one of his own co-conspirators who turned States evidence in

exchange for a lesser sentence after only two weeks of pressure. It must be

remembered that in the beginning all these men were fiercely loyal to Nixon.

They were not facing torture and death, yet under judicial and media

pressure they quickly fell apart. Are lives then are still influenced by the

teachings of a man who lived two thousand years ago, and of course we are

still arguing about the relevance of his message.

Consider the comparison with even post war western leaders. I can remember

Harold Wilson as a political colossus in the 60s and yet who remembers him

or his polices now. Older readers will recall Churchill or Eisenhower but ask a

twenty year old, or for that matter a thirty year old what he thinks the value

of Churchill’s speeches to war time Britain were, or ask an American of the

same age how he views the legacy of Eisenhower’s post war highway

construction and you will more than likely be met with blank stares.

Presidents and Prime Ministers who held central stage in my lifetime are now

relegated to a footnotes of history. Yet a book that has been the inspiration of

Western civilisation still holds sway two thousand years after the last entry. Chapter five

Richard Dawkins in his “The God Delusion” (TGD) claims to have found

several inaccuracies in the biblical narrative. This in his opinion proves that

there is no divine revelation or inspiration to the text. If he is correct in his

analysis then yes I would agree, for we have set the highest standards. As we

have already stated if anything written in that book can be proved to be in

error then it is not supernaturally inspired.

In chapter three of his “The God Delusion” (TGD) under the heading “The

argument from scripture” Dawkins scolds Christians who take the Bible literally, he states almost incredulously

“Do these people never open the book that they believe is the
literaltruth?
Why don’t they notice these glaring contradictions? Shouldn’t a
literalistworryaboutthefactthatMatthewtracesJoseph’s(Mary’s
husband) decent from King David via twenty-eight generations,
whileLukehasforty-one?Worsethereisalmostnooverlapofthe
nameson the two lists! In any case, if Jesus was really born of a virgin, Joseph’sancestry is irrelevant and cannotbe used to fulfil,
on Jesus’ behalf, the Old Testament prophesy that the Messiah
shouldbedescendedfromDavid”

Richard dose seem to be getting in lather here so we will attempt to throw

some light on these so called contradictions. He is referring to the two

genealogies of Jesus as written by Matthew and Luke. They are indeed

different. Matthew starts from Abraham and concludes with Joseph, (Mary's

husband) while Luke’s account begins with Joseph and ends with Adam.

Where the two lists should be identical that is from King David to Joseph they

are in fact almost completely different.

Is this then the proof of biblical fallibility? At first glance Dawkins position is

impregnable, and it would seem to be worse for us than even he realizes, for

according to Matthew the farther of Joseph is Jacob, while Luke insists that

Joseph is the son of Heli. It will help if you follow this with a Bible it is easy

to get bogged down especially with unfamiliar names.

The relevant passages are to be found in Mat 1:2 and Luke 3:23 both lists are

in broad agreement from Abraham to David. The significant change is when

we get to David. In Matthews account Solomon is named as the next generation while Luke gives us Nathan. Both are sons of David but by

different woman. The lists are now completely separate, through the

generations until we finally arrive at Joseph, Mary’s husband. Again Luke

gives Joseph’s father as Heli, while Matthew insists that his father is Jacob.

Seemingly then an impossible contradiction.

Mary was the daughter of Heli so from King David, Matthew gives the

generations culminating with Joseph, while Luke’s account culminates in

Mary. It was the custom in those days for a father in law to refer to his son in

law as Son. There was no word in Greek for son in law. The Jews did not limit

themselves to our narrow interpretation of the word Son. Mat (1:1) states

Jesus was the Son of David, the son of Abraham. Jews would have no

difficulty in understanding that there was more than one generation between

them.

There are more to these two genealogies than even Richard realises. Matthew

was writing principally for the Jews so to illustrate the fulfilment of Old

Testament prophesy he starts with Abraham. Luke was writing to the Greeks

so to emphasize Christ’s love for all mankind he starts with Adam. But there is

a problem. Although God promised David that the Messiah would come

through his line. He also cursed King Jehoiakim of Israel saying that none of his descendants would be King (Jeremiah 38:29-31) and it just so happens

that Jehoiakim was an ancestor of Joseph. So Joseph cannot be the biological

father of Jesus or the curse is broken.

Notice in Matt 1:16 “And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom

was born Jesus. It dose not say that Joseph begat Jesus only that he was

Mary’s husband. Mary was the physical mother of Jesus Mary’s father was

Heli, through Luke’s list back to David. Thus two prophesies (David’s kingly

line and Jehoiakim’s curse) are fulfilled.

In any event first century Jews who had access to the original records and

were murderously antagonistic to Christianity would have been unmerciful in

their ridicule if the genealogical records were anything but bona-fide. The

New Testament stands virtually unopposed for its historical accuracy, even

from its historical doctrinal opponents.

The only other point that Dawkins gives us in TGD that is biblically based and

that he has difficulty in coming to terms with is his assertion that it would be

unlikely that Joseph (Mary’s husband) would be required to register in

Bethlehem just because a remote ancestor (King David) happened to have

lived there nearly a thousand years before. He invites us to judge the likely validity of this claim by giving us an amusing comparison.

“WhyonearthwouldtheRomanshaverequiredJosephtogotoa
city where a remote ancestor had lived a millennium earlier? It is
as though I were required to specify, say, Ashby-de-la-Zouch as
myhometownonacensusform,ifithappenedthatIcouldtrace
my ancestry back to the Seigneur de Dakeyne, who came over
with Williamtheconquerorandsettledthere.”

Here Dawkins chooses to ignore the fact that the Jews of that era were

fanatical record keepers, and for good reason. When the Jews settled in

Palestine families were given portions of land. These could be worked or sold

but every fifty years the land could be reclaimed by the original family. (The

so called Jubilee laws) If you could not trace your family, you were affectively

dispossessed, hence the need for accurate genealogy. Every Man, every

family would have been acutely aware of the history appertaining to their

particular line. So no, I’m sorry Richard the points you put forward as proofs

against the authenticity of the Bible when looked at from the standards and

customs of the time are not as you say proofs of inconsistency and error but

rather confirmation of the original text. I think we have been more than

generous here. We are saying that all you have to do to prove that this

collection of books is not the result of divine inspiration is to point out an historical error, one single mistake in the text, a city that never fell, a

kingdom that never existed, a dynasty that did not prosper. But no, all we get

are old chestnuts concerning the genealogy of Joseph, this from one of the

foremost atheist writers of the day. The rest of TGD amounts to little more

than well observed and articulate observations on some of the more ludicrous

interpretation of Christianity, Islam and Judaism, most of which I tend to

agree with.

Frankly I was a little relieved I feared a cast iron set of arguments forged by

one of our leading atheist academics, in the end I was happy to find that it

amounted to no more than a well deserved lambasting of man's dubious

interpretation of scripture. Although he dose have a crushingly valid point

when he draws our attention to the havoc, slaughter and suffering that has

always plagued this world a great deal of it in the name of religion. Catholics,

Protestants, Shea and Sunni have for the last five hundred years or so been

at each others throats. Not a shining example of how to relate to your fellow

man. Dawkins justifiably holds up examples of butchery perpetuated in the

name of God and understandably draws the conclusion that we would be far

better off casting this straight jacket of admittedly declining religious influence

(at least in the west) and embracing his version of a slightly effete form of

liberal free thinking. Who knows he may be right, the millions of lives cruelly taken in the name of religion are an affront to every right minded person and

perhaps it would be tempting if it could be shown, as Dawkins advocates that

the world would be a far better place if it embraced his philosophic position.

Sadly this is almost certainly not the case. For every war fought in the name

of religion there are forty fought for gain and power. While Dawkins bemoans

the influence that religion has had on the history of mankind he is reluctant to

address the real reason for conflict, namely human nature. He ascribes many

of man's ills to man's notion of an omniscient being and because he cannot

believe in that being blames the idea itself. Therefore do away with God,

human ignorance and superstition and enter a golden age of enlightenment

and of course no God no creation. In the end Dawkins makes the

fundamental mistake of judging God by man’s interpretation of God. Chapter six

In a later book, “The Greatest Show on Earth” he will, according to the

preface prove to all but the most bigoted that the theory of evolution is the way it actually occurred. Rather worryingly for his followers though he states

that in his previous seven books “the evidence for evolution itself was
nowhere explicitly set out, and that this was a serious gap that I
needed to close.”What! I had to read that twice. Is he saying that only

now with this later work he will actually get round to proving evolution…… So,

the most famous popular science writer of the day (certainly in the UK) will,

at long last reveal the final proof as to the validity of evolutionary theory. This

means by his own admission, all his earlier works going way back to the

seventies did not achieve that goal, a staggering disclosure. Obviously I had

to get my hands on this new book. Luckily enough I was flying out to

somewhere nice when I spotted it in the airport book store. It was on special

offer that is if I purchased a copy of theTimesnewspaper I handed over my

£2.99 and hurried to my plane. (The Timeshas always been and continues to

be a great fan of Richard) In the first chapter entitled “Only a theory?” He uses strange logic, speculating on the claim (presumably he means by creationist) that evolution

has never been proved, he then states that “proof is a notion that
scientist have been intimidated into mistrusting” and then gives a
bizarre example stating that “Even the undisputed theory that the
moon is smaller than the Sun cannot, to the satisfaction of a
certainkindofphilosopherbeprovedinthewaythatforexample
Pythagorean Theorem can be proved.”What he really means is that

evolution cannot be proved to be a fact. Shrugging off this uncomfortable

truth he then makes an astounding leap of faith, stating. “Evolution is a
factinthesamesensethatParisisintheNorthernHemisphereis
a fact.” Richard, I hope this is not all we can expect when ploughing

through all 445 pages it is a fact because you say it’s a fact!

Chapter two entitled Dogs, Cows and Cabbages, gives us beautiful

photographs of animal and plant life, incidentally images of life that

creationist often point to as evidence of a Creator. Again Dawkins is never

afraid to include species whose complexity if logic were to be used, demand a

creator. The Hummingbird, Hawk Moth, camouflaged Mantises, a Caterpillar, whose marking resemble the head and shape of a snakes head, all listed and

described.... You know, on reflection I can’t let this last example go without

comment. The naivety of his reasoning when observing this caterpillars shape

and markings is staggering.

This is the example given. The Gaudy Sphinx moth caterpillar Fig 1 p 228 has

markings and shape that give it the appearance of a snakes head. Think

logically about Dawkins claim that the survival of this caterpillar’s ancestors

were enhanced by the development of these snake-like markings. For they

had to develop did they not? Random markings, which by chance begin to

resemble (don’t forget the millions of years bit) the head of a serpent. The

better the resemblance the greater the protection from would be predators. A

seductive argument, but total nonsense, presumably there was a time when

this caterpillar did not have this useful colouring. This colouring “evolved”

over time. If all the skin pigmentation colours are there to begin with, how

long do you think it would take for the beginnings of a head to emerge

thereby admittedly presenting some deterrent? Remember in the early stages

it would be completely random. It can’t be there from the beginning because

that would have to imply a creator. Imagine the pixels powering the image on

your camera are loaded with all the colours needed to make this snake head

image. At the moment though there is no discernible shape. Every year you can randomly move the colours to a different position. This is of course

representing the breeding season of our Moth. The eight million pixels roughly

representing caterpillar skin cells. OK I know this is not the exact function of a

pixel but you should get my drift Do you know how many possible

combinations can be derived from eight million? Don’t even go there, it would

take you less time counting every individual atom in the Universe. Okay lets

suppose there is a freak caterpillar that has, in a good light the beginnings of

a discernible image of a serpent face. Not quite enough to frighten a peckish

bird but definitely worthy of encouragement. What happens then? Let’s say

this caterpillar survives, changes into a moth and succeeds in breeding. The

next generation will of course revert back to what is in effect a random set of

markings within the pre-determined range of that species. Plus we haven’t yet

mentioned the imitation snake head. How dose Dawkins reckon that came

about? So we have random markings that become fixed, mimicking the

colouring of a snakes body and random shapes that becomes fixed into the

shape of a snakes head. That's handy, oh and there’s one more trick up its

sleeve, whenever the caterpillar senses danger it jerks its rear end around

giving a tolerably good impression of an upset snake thus giving it an extra

degree of deterrence. This is all the more remarkable as I’m pretty sure that

caterpillars don’t have a clue what a snake is let alone be acquainted with the

aggressive behavioural movement that signifies snake warning. It gets better, the resemblance is not just of any old snake it’s a dead ringer

for the Western Diamond Rattler. I haven’t given full justice in my illustration,

so I want you to google Berry's butterfly photos and then gaudy sphinx, on

the very last line there is a link to two photographs showing this uncanny

resemblance. It’s not just the head, the whole body is a copy of that snakes

body markings. So once again how did all this evolve? Look at the detailed

mimicking of serpent scales, it’s all smoke and mirrors the actual feel of the

caterpillars skin is apparently like very soft leather. Note the imitation nostril

markings, even shaded in exactly the right fashion so as to give the

impression of holes. How can anybody possibly maintain that all this was a

haphazard random coincidence that by chance happened in the habitat of the

serpant so accurately imitated?

Somehow logical thought is suspended when trying to explain these wonders

in evolutionary terms. You will always get the millions of years bit, Dawkins

shrugs his literary shoulders and merely states that “its ancestors survived

because a significant number of would-be predators were frightened by the

resemblance” Resemblance? It’s an exact copy for goodness sake Here we are only talking about the markings of an obscure caterpillar. Let’s

expand this idea to take in every feature, every trait, every spot, every stripe,

and every minute detail externally and internally of every living plant and

creature on this earth. Every cell of all living things has a purpose. That

purpose must have been pre-ordained. If not, then every living cell on earth

is there because of a mutation from what was a previous norm, and that

mutation proving to be advantageous, and not, as is normally the case with

mutations, a catastrophic hindrance to the viability of that individual. There

has not been enough time folks, it just could not have happened that way,

Can you not see that?

So far then, just pictures of amazing creatures. Reference is made of Dogs

originating from Wolves and there is a charming photograph of a Great Dane

looking down at a Chihuahua again inferring that given enough time etc.….

In Chapter three flamboyantly entitled “The Primrose Path to Macro

Evolution” Dawkins has categorized, and invites us to view four different

modes of progression utilized by he claims, natural selection. He gives us a

wonderful description of the variety, beauty, and mutual interaction of various

life forms. Always of course always putting a slightly different slant on the

whole procedure than perhaps I would! Here then are the four instances and classifications that Richard Dawkins

believes to be the fundamental engine and dynamic of natural selection. Now

this has to be helpful, for we should now at last be able to counter their

whole argument from the summarised position Dawkins has articulately set

down. Category one, Artificial Selection.

He states “Humans deliberately choose attractive roses, sunflowers
etc. for breeding, thereby preserving the genes that produce the
attractive features. This is called artificial selection, it’s something
humans have known about long before Darwin, and everybody
knows that it is powerful enough to turn Wolves into Chihuahuas
andto turnmaizecobsfrominchesto feet”.

Category two Sexual Selection.

“Peahens (we don’t know whether consciously or deliberately)
choose attractivepeacocksforbreeding, again therebypreserving
attractive genes. This is called sexual selection, and Darwin
discovereditoratleastrecogniseditandnamedit.”.

Category three Natural Selection

“Small prey fish (definitely not deliberately) choose attractive
angler fish for survival, by feeding the most attractive ones with
their bodies, thereby inadvertently choosing them for breeding
and passing on the genes that produce the attractive features.
Thisiscalled–yes,we’vefinallygotthere–naturalselection,andit
wasDarwin’sgreatestdiscovery.”

Category four

“Without any kind of choosing agent, those individuals that are
“chosen” by the fact that they happen to possess superior
equipment to survive are the most likely to reproduce, and
thereforetopassonthegenesforpossessingsuperiorequipment.
Therefore every gene pool, in every species, tends to become
filled with genes for making superior equipment for survival and
reproduction.”

Now, when we offer a criticism of Dawkins four categories, I would ask you to

reread and take in his four arguments. We can then at least know by specific

category what we are arguing against. This is approaching the crux of the

matter so we must be sure that we understand the stated position of

evolutionist, or rather Dawkins’s take on evolution. We are then better able to

make judgements on the merits or shortcomings of his position.

ARTFICIAL SELECTION

I cannot in all honesty spend too much time or effort on his first category

“Humans deliberately choose attractive roses”

I don’t think even Richard is putting artificial selection as the overriding proof

of evolution the fact that man can breed a Great Dane or whippet is neither

here nor there, to my understanding it will always be a variety of canine. That

potential for the variety of shape, size or even temperament has always

been there, locked in the genes of the wolf that man first domesticated. In

ten thousand years if man still has a mind to breed dogs, then who knows

what shapes or sizes he may unlock, but I promise you, it will still be a dog.

Dawkins insists that artificial selection provides an “experimental hypothesis

that selection causes evolutionary change” I agree artificial selection can be a vehicle for change but it is only a change in variety and most definitely not

evolutionary change.

It is difficult to see why this particular category (artificial selection) has been

included in his list of evolutionary proofs. Granted the wild cabbage bears no

resemblance to the cultivated kind (this example is mentioned in his book)

but it's still a cabbage and will always be recognisable as such not

withstanding the selective skills of crop and seed annalists devising even

better commercial varieties better able to withstand drought, cold or what

ever the desired attribute happens to be. Incidentally a field full of

cauliflowers will if left for a few years begin to revert back to its wild cabbage

form!

Evolutionists often infer that variation within a phylum, in this instance the

cabbage, somehow has something to with evolution. It dose not; it just

means that it is possible to grow different varieties of cabbage; it’s as simple

as that. In the end it’s just a smokescreen, spaniels, boxers and Brussels

sprouts have absolutely nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Now if it

could be shown that a Scots Pine could be cultivated and changed into the

beginnings of a Water Lilly, then I would have to sit up and take notice, but

we all know that is impossible. The most you would be able to achieve is a new coniferous variety. And yet evolutionist insists there has to be a

progressive link between those two examples. So in the end I think it kinder

to draw a quiet veil over Prof Dawkins first category. Nothing at all to do with

anything we are discussing here, in fact nothing more than a page filling red

herring.

SEXUAL ATTRACTION

His second category if you remember, peahens choosing attractive peacocks,

categorised as sexual selection. The peahen, supposedly finding the

exaggerated splendour of the peacock irresistible allows mating to take place,

thereby preserving the gene pool of the more lavish of the species.

Evolutionists are assuming an awful lot here. We see the display of feathers

as a thing of beauty. Is it assumed that the peahen has the same

appreciation of colour and form as we do? That is a very big assumption and

hardly scientific. There’s also the rather awkward point that carrying this

bundle of tail feathers would make the Peacock vulnerable to predators.

Although obviously not possessing the flamboyance of the Peacock, male

Pigeons can be seen, that is wherever pigeons congregate, puffing out their

chests, cooing seductive pigeon coos to and it must be said a usually

indifferent female. The Pigeon though is a percentage fellow if his luck is not

in with that hen he soon gives up and tries his luck elsewhere. Hey, coo to enough of them and one is bound to acquiesce, although more than likely it

will be the scruffy one with half a foot and a trailing wing that has difficulty in

resisting any advances. Perhaps not quite what Richard had in mind when

defining his sexual selection category.

I’m not sure what is being claimed here, what dose a peacocks tail feathers

have to do with evolution. The reason I say this and this is important, is that

all life on this planet, every fish, every bird, every insect, every plant, every

animal has been programmed to react to a breeding stimulus be it tail

feathers, scent or sound. They don’t have a choice in the matter when

conditions are right and the stimulus kicks in they mate. In some species the

female will choose her mate by the quality of display, in others she doesn’t

have much say in the matter and the spoils will go to the most aggressive

male. Surely all this dose is maintain a reasonable standard of offspring. So

this second category, sexual selection again doesn’t have a lot to do with

evolution just confirms a tendency for animals to mate with reasonably

healthy opposites, and who can blame them, not that they have a lot of

choice in the matter their instinctual reactions and behaviour to stimuli are

hard wired into their make-up. They are creatures of instinct. They cannot

help acting and reacting in a particular way. Later we will bring to the discussion the difference between mankind and the animal kingdom, which

has tremendous relevance to our subject.

NATURAL SELECTION

Richard gets really exited here bless him, because he believes we are now

getting to the crux of what Darwin is all about, now at last the evidence that

will enable men to turn their backs on six thousand years of superstition, no

creation so therefore no God. In this category Dawkins selects the angler fish

to illustrate his point.

To our eyes the angler fish is a pretty repulsive looking creature. When in

Spain I see them on the local supermarket fish counters. (Always a great

display and generally putting British supermarkets to shame) They have a

very small body but a huge open gaping mouth. They have an elongated fin

that tapers down almost to a line. On the end of this line, dangling in front of

the Angler is a lure. Sometimes fish shaped sometimes luminous but there for

the sole purpose of enticing unsuspecting prey to the vicinity of that huge

mouth. Natural selection, according to evolutionist is the success creatures have

found in passing on their genes my means of certain prowess, a brightly

coloured lure a good turn of speed what ever the advantage happens to be.

Of course it’s true, the runt of the litter will always have a hard time surviving,

the strongest usually coming up trumps. Up to a point I can find no difficulty

in accepting evolutionist’s description of what after all is the natural order of

things. But then to go on and make the gigantic leap ascribing this natural

prowess as an explanation for the myriad forms we have in this world doesn’t

make any sense at all. For is it not the case that every creature on this earth

survives by utilising the prowess inherent to that particular creature. The

natural balance between prey and predator is a constant. A shoal of a million

sardines can be completely consumed by mammal, fish and fowl in what

seems to us an orgy of destruction. But while this is going on, another fifty

million in other shoals slip quietly by. This is the natural balance. (Not quite

sure on those sardines numbers by the way but you get my point.) In all

animal life there are checks and counter-checks built in to maintain this

balance. If this were not so then of course there would never be sustainable

life the strongest most efficient would devour the rest.....Until none remained!

Evolutionist recognise this perfect balance, it is only because they cannot

accept a God, that they are forced to theorise on impossible progression. They reason that each progression is roughly in balance and that the

tweaking of ten trillion haphazard mutations is responsible for the perfect

interactive symmetry of all life on earth. I can only shake my head in

disbelief.

Category four

Re-emphasising the fact that species tend to pass on their genes if they

possess “superior equipment.” But as we have seen sardines are consumed

by creatures with superior hunting skills, but surprise, surprise, sardines out

breed their predators thereby keeping that balance, and the gene pool of

hunters and hunted survive. It is the God given naturally balanced order of

how things are.

Can we say this category gives us the proof we are looking for. I honestly

don’t think so. Sardines have been successfully hunted in vast numbers by

efficient predators, so what? There are just more of them. It’s no good

Dawkins waxing lyrical and claiming for the Angler fish a gradual evolutionary

honing of its predatory prowess, is he blinded to the obvious fact that the

same can be said of every creature on every step of the food chain going all

the way down to the simplest one celled organism. They all have there strengths and limitations but left to there own devises all life is in complete

harmony.

The rest of this chapter describes the wonders of inter species dependency,

or as Richard puts it Co-evolution. He gives us an example of Orchids and

bees that are dependant on each other. The orchid for pollination, the bee

gathering a special aroma from the flower that is vital if it is to attract the

female bee. I just wonder how he imagines this interdependency first began

to manifest itself.

Briefly this is how both species interrelate. The South American Bucket Orchid

uses the Euglossine bee to pollinate. Not by mimicking a female as some

orchids do, but by producing a perfume that is vital to the bee if it is to attract

a mate. This bee has two sacks on its legs, receptacles for gathering various

aromas from different plants. These aromas are then mixed together in just

the right quantities, the effect of this concoction being to attract a female.

Being attracted by one of the aromas required, our bee lands on the orchid

and begins to extract the perfume. He then falls into the liquid bucket of the

plant. He can’t climb back up (to slippery) but wait, steps lead him to a

convenient escape hole in the side of the bucket and yes he can just about

squeeze through except the plant now grips him firmly and glues two pollinia on to his back. As soon as the glue is set the orchid releases the bee. Still

searching for his precious perfume he flies onto the next orchid. This time

though as the bee struggles through the bolt hole the pollinia are scraped off

and fertilises the stigma of the second orchid.

You know my view regarding the impossibility of these several distinct stages

haphazardly occurring, and that’s what it comes down to. I say it cannot

happen because not only is there not enough time but more importantly

inclination for these two species, one plant, one insect to become so

interdependent. Evolutionists presumable recognise their theory would have

to indicate a time when these two, or their ancestral equivalent were not so

mutually dependant on each other, and that this dependency has become

more refined as time goes by. If we can agree that during this transforming

period they are still Insect kind and Plant kind, then let's try and figure out

the physical characteristics these two species would have haphazardly had to

evolve for them to have arrived at their present state of perfect

interdependency. Is it not a little disingenuous describing these wonders

without trying to figure out the origins of this mutually beneficial trait? Of

course I don’t for one moment believe that there was any such progression

but we are trying to take an evolutionary view point here so from that

perspective there had to have been gradual progression. It would seem to me that in this particular arrangement the orchid is

definitely the dominant partner. It after all dictates all proceedings, producing

the exact chemical composition of aroma that just happens to meet the

exacting requirements of our bee’s prospective mate. Notice how I am forced

to attach hierarchical emphasis when describing these wonders which doesn’t

make a lot of sense seeing as “nature” is supposed to be blind.

It would then have had to evolve the means of trapping and gluing the

Pollimia on to the body of our hapless bee in order to pollinate with another

plant. Try as I may I cannot conceive how a gradual progressive alteration

would work surely it all has to be in place at the same time. For one of the

stages not to have been fully developed would scupper the whole process. If

there was a time when a simpler solution for pollination between plant and

bee held sway then there would be no incentive to further complicate the

process with the consequent added risk of failure. That is one of the

questions evolutionist can never answer, if something works in a simple form

why would “nature” complicate things developing a whole series of unlikely

procedures, with unlikely bedfellows and having them jump through several

sets of complicated hoops in order to attain the same result that was

according to evolutionist achievable in simpler more primitive times. Let’s not

forget were talking about a plant here. I can just about imagine an insect altering its behaviour perhaps by trial and error in order to secure some

breeding advantage. But this is an Orchid. It has no brain. It cannot know

what preference of aroma the Bee requires, it cannot know what a Bee is. Not

having awareness it doesn’t even know that it’s an orchid! It is the product of

its forbearer’s and can only thrive if climate and soil are within fairly narrow

parameters; it is an organic chemical machine …. I don’t know why I am

writing this. Forget which view you hold too; imagine you have no concept of

creation or evolution. You are asked whether you think the arrangement

between the Orchid and Bee just progressed from absolute none life, from

nothing, or they were planned, fashioned and made…… I think I’ll stick with

the latter.

He finishes the chapter by asking us again to compare the changes that have been affected by breeding various types of dogs in only a few centuries with

the supposed time span of millions of years. He then states “It becomes
rather easy to accept that evolution could accomplish the amount
of change that it took to transform a fish into ahuman”.....Dose it?

and this from an intelligent man. I just wonder when writing that last

sentence and then perhaps rather late at night sleepily reviewing his work,

whether there was an inkling of just how ridiculous it reads. What a shame that on that occasion there was no one close at hand to gently tug his sleeve

and delicately suggest that perhaps it would be better to leave out the fish

bit! This, sadly is what they believe. Atheist writers love to pour scorn on

virgin births and burning bushes but have no embarrassment in stating that

man came from fish! Both views require tremendous acts of faith.

Also, notice the terminology evolutionists are forced to use when attempting

to describe the process. “Easy to accept that evolution could accomplish the

amount of change”….. Surely to accomplish anything there first has to be a

goal. Evolutionary writers are fond of describing their theory in the language

of accomplishment but of course their theory disallows any pre-determined

course because a pre-determined course demands consciousness.

Mind you Prof Dawkins is far from being the only one to publicise belief in our

supposed aquatic origins. In 2011 the BBC broadcast a remarkable film

detailing the wonders and workings of the human body. Being the BBC there

was the inevitable reference made to our supposed evolutionary past.

Michael Mosely presented the program and in the main did an excellent job.

However when discussing the origin and development of life could not refrain

from promoting long discredited hackneyed conclusions. When commenting

on the development of the human foetus he stated, “The top lip along with jaw and palate started life as a gill-like structure on your neck. Nostrils are

located on the top of your head” he then describes the fusing of these

separate parts and then makes a giant leap of faith. “This development only

makes sense when you realise strange as it may sound that we are

descended from fish. Well you can imagine how quickly I clicked on to the

comment page, only to see I had been beaten to the keys by Andrew P B and

Sarah B.

Andrew commented “The top lip along with the jaw and palate started life as

gill-like structures on your neck” “perhaps Mr Mosely would be kind enough to

cite some scientific evidence for using the term “gill-like structures” As far as I

am aware the slits or what ever you might call them do not have any gill like

function. Indeed they do not have any function to do with gaseous exchange.

The structures are gill-like because Mosely chooses to call them gill like, but

with all due respect this is hardly the basis for accepting the description as

scientifically correct. I honestly thought that this tired old line had been

discredited but I guess that old habits die hard.”

Could not have put it better myself Andrew!

Anyway back to Prof Dawkins In chapter four Richard gives us a basic

grounding in chemistry and physics, the conclusion being to show that the earth is considerable older than the commonly accepted Biblical reckoning of

around six thousand years. He explains in some detail the basics of

radioactive decay, various elements with their unique atomic make-up

producing known varying rates of instability or radioactive decay.

All this is meant to re-emphasize the impossibility of the Biblical time scale,

and so it dose, that is you believe the Bible states that the Earth only came

into existence 6000 years ago, folk’s this is so important. The collective

evolutionary opinion now held by the majority has in no small part been

influenced by this misinterpretation of Biblical text. It is responsible for doubt

among believers and ridicule from non believers. If the six thousand year

thing is wrong then surely we must have evolved? End of story. No it most

certainly is not. Later we will show that there is no conflict between true

science and inspired biblical text. There is a way the two can be in harmony. Chapter seven

Let’s proceed to chapter five. In this section he brings to our attention an

ingenious experiment that Richard E Lenski a bacteriologist at Michigan State

University along with his colleagues and students have been conducting since

1988. This particular experiment has achieved great status among

evolutionists who gleefully site it as living proof that mutation can allow an

advantageous effect over the base population, and moreover that advantage

will gain ascendency within that population and will itself become the norm.

In effect proving evolution is the driving force for the development and

adaptation of beneficial traits…..Ah if only it were that simple.

In 1988 Richard Lenski conceived of, and set up an experiment which he

reasoned may indicate that beneficial traits would tend to emerge from

generations of controlled bacteria. The experiment was ingenious in its

simplicity and has been conducted for the last twenty six years with, as far as

I know faultless procedure. Lenski has deservedly been given numerous

awards in recognition for this outstanding work. He isolated an individual bacterium of the genus Escherichia Coli ( ecoli) and

then allowed it to divide putting twelve of the offspring into twelve numbered

flasks. For the next twenty six years his students and colleagues methodically

took a sample from each flask and every day new cultures were propagated

from these samples into twelve new flasks. It is important to remember that

because the flasks were coded the generations were all direct descendants

from the original batch. Each new flask contained a sample offspring from the

previous day. Samples were kept from each batch and deep frozen and

therefore retrievable. The bacteria have been fed throughout this experiment

by a precise measurement of glucose contained in a culture medium. This

medium also contained citrate, a substance not normally recognisable as part

of your average ecolidiet. Now this experiment has been going on for a long

time and at the time of writing around 60,000 generations of ecolihave been

studied. At around 35000 generations they discovered that one particular

flask had become over-active producing more offspring than would be

possible from the amount of glucose provided. It was then discovered that

the bacteria had developed the ability to utilize citrate which if you remember

was also present in the culture medium, hence the over activity that could be

clearly seen. The fluid in the flask had increased turbidity (cloudiness)

indicating unusually high cell division. Because Lenski had preserved samples

going back to the beginning of the experiment (every 75 days samples were stored at -80 c) he was able to pinpoint when this capacity to absorb citrate

first became apparent. It turns out that the change appeared around the

20,000thgeneration. Remember it’s only the generations appertaining to the

one flask that have so far been affected.

This was the cause of some discomfort among creationist and it has to be

said, a certain amount of crowing from some evolutionist. Jerry Coyne of the

University of Chicago called it “a poke in the eye for creationist” the reason

for this evolutionary euphoria was this particular family of ecolii had acquired,

had “evolved” the ability to absorb and utilise a substance its ancestor had no

interest in at least as a food source. To be thus enabled the ecolii would have

had through mutation to come up with new absorption pathways and a

means of utilising citrate as a food.

So is this it, is this the long awaited proof that evolution has actually occurred

under our very noses. For the ability to switch from one source of nutrient to

another certainly requires fundamental changes in the absorption pathways of

the bacteria. Lenski has been viciously attacked by some creationist who

almost accuses him of falsifying these remarkable findings; others have given

a more considered response. First let’s consider the subject matter; ecoliare bacteria that are found in the

lower intestine of practically all warm blooded animals. It is a single celled

organism that propagates by division. It absorbs nutrient through its outer

membrane and amounts to about 1% of the bacteria found in the human

digestive system. By the way I am grateful to Dr Kenneth Odars of the

University of Wisconsin whose excellent site (kgtodar@wisc.edu) has

furnished me with vital information on ecoli Contrary to the impression given

my many authors a good proportion of their work is gleaned from various

scientific sites….. we can’t all be experts at everything now can we? Quite

simply we would be unable to digest our food properly without e coli.Apart

from preventing the establishment of harmful bacteria it is an important

source of manufacturing vitamin K. It is a necessity for a healthy existence.

Problems occur when it is ingested via a contaminated food source or through

unhygienic food preparation.

In those circumstances this in the main friendly and beneficial bacteria turns

into a source of unpleasant and sometimes fatal illness. There are over 700

serotypes of the bacteria, and again as a rule safe while in their natural

intestinal environment, not so safe ingested. So what of the claim that Lenski with his experiment has finally proved

evolution to be a fact, was actually a witness at the very moment e coli

changed from a glucose consuming organism to a citrate consuming organism

thereby demonstrating an actual evolutionary advancement? The ability to

utilize citrate perhaps came from a mutation within ecoli’sDNA code but did

it become anything other than e coli? Well of course not it was and will

always remain a single celled bacterium with structure and characteristics that

enable it to be classified as ecoli.There is the possibility that no mutation has

occurred merely that an inherent faculty has kicked in, a back up dictated by

circumstance. Because the experiment by necessity has been restrictive, with

the environment of the subject unnaturally controlled then is it really

surprising this change in feeding habits has emerged.

So is all this jubilation of evolutionary biologist justified? Is this the final proof

we have all been waiting for? Well hardly, after 60,000 generations it still is

and presumably always will be e coli. Who knows what little surprises his e

coli will throw up if he carries on the experiment for another 23 years….. But

they will still be e coli. During the period of the experiment every possible

mutation must have occurred several times over, the result an ability to

absorb citrate. I’m tempted but will re frame from saying big deal! As we pass the first third of Richards book lets pause for breath and ask if

he has yet given us anything approaching the evolutionary proof claimed.

One should always be generous with ones adversaries, after all it's the

Christian thing to do, but in all honesty I really don’t think so. But let’s

persevere and hopefully we will come to some sort of conclusion one way or

the other

Chapter six is entitled “Missing link what do you mean missing link” Richard

states at the beginning of the chapter that:

“Evidence for evolution in many major animal groups is wonderfully strong,

nevertheless there are many gaps and creationist love them obsessively”

This chapter deals with these “wonderfully strong” examples. There is

evolutionary speculation on the journey from the aquatic to dry land. He also

tantalizingly states that “I shall emphasize in Chapter 9 and 10 that we don’t

need fossils in order to demonstrate that evolution is a fact. The evidence for

evolution would be entirely secure, even if not a single corpse had ever

fossilized.” Well we shall have to wait and see, in the mean time let’s skim

through Chapter 6

The first part of this chapter deals effortlessly with some creationist plea that

if evolution is true why then are there no crockoducks, doggypotamus or elephantzee’s in other words mixtures of two entirely differing species. He

argues that the duck did not come from the crocodile but that they both had

a common ancestor. Creationists know this is nonsense but that’s not the

point. If you are going to argue with intelligent evolutionist it might be a good

idea to get to know what they actually believe in.

They believe that no modern species is descended from any other modern

species but that every one of the millions of species on this earth shares a

common ancestor. Consequently monkey’s, frogs and tape worms all have

ancient shared kin….a curious example is given to back up this aspect of the

theory. He sites a fossil of the early Cretaceous period (about 120 million

years ago) one EomaiaI will sketch an impression from the fossil of how it

would have looked. Fig 5 P 232

As you can see it is a shrew like creature. Richard then makes a bizarre

statement in an attempt to link Eomaia with modern day elephants and

chimpanzees. I will let him explain.

“As you can see, Eomaiawas nothing like a chimpanzee and nothing like an

elephant. Vaguely like a shrew, it probably was pretty similar to their common

ancestor, with whom it was roughly contemporary, and you can see a lot of

evolutionary change has taken place along both pathways from an Eomaia – like ancestor to an elephant descendant, and from the same Eomaialike

ancestor to a chimpanzee descendant. But it is not in any sense an

elephanzee”.... Richard, how can you possibly take the fossil of a shrew like

creature and state that already you can detect progress along the elephant

pathway and the chimpanzee pathway?...... staggering.

The next section deals principally with the classification and status of

vertebrates, their relationship and the evolutionary proximity to each other.

To validate their theory evolutionist have had to construct intricate and at

times illogical similarities between totally different species. The most obvious

example is their insistence that bird’s closest relatives are reptiles. Now I think

it was this assertion, now almost universally agreed, that first awoke in me a

still small voice suggesting that maybe there were a couple of things in this

evolution malarkey that maybe were just a little bit wide of the mark.

For this supposed relationship between bird and reptile to be accepted then

we have to be willing to negotiate and jump through a number of unlikely

biological hoops. For example, crocodiles are closer cousins to birds than

they are to lizards….. You think I’m making it up? Read it in his book. A Nile

crocodile has closer links to a jenny wren that it dose to a gecko. Tuna and

trout (according to evolutionist) are closer to humans than they are to sharks; Hippos are closer to whales than to pigs …..apparently they are you know!

Again as creationist we know that the forced ancestral amalgamation of

diverse species, in this case birds and crocks to a mutual ancestor is

nonsense. But it dose have a number of zoologists scratching their heads

trying to figure out the best way to classify these pesky reptiles. If he will allow let be quote you Richards observations’.

“Clandisticallyinclinedzoologistavoidthewordreptilesaltogether,
splittingthemupinto Archosaurs(crocodiles,dinosaursandbirds),
Lepidosaurs (snakes, lizards and the rare Spenodun of New
Zealand) and Testudines (turtles and tortoises). Non-Clandistically
inclinedzoologistsarehappytousethewordreptilebecausethey
find it descriptively useful, even if it dose artificially exclude the
birds.”

So there you have it some zoologist are not happy using the word reptile, and

the only reason they are not happy is because they are forced by their

evolutionary straight jacket to further subdivide the phylum in order to

accommodate the theory.

A thought has just occurred, when did this insistence, that birds have

reptilian-dinosaurian ancestry first surface. And what proofs have been offered and apparently accepted to back up this claim. As usual it goes way

back to, yes some of you will have guessed it “Darwin’s Bulldog” Thomas

Henry Huxley, those Huxley’s certainly have a lot to answer for. He was

probably influenced by another early advocate of this supposed link Gerhard

Heilmann (1859-1946) a Danish illustrator whose books on the subject were

even up to the middle of the last century taken as authoritative standard text.

Later some of his ideas were quietly dropped by the evolutionary

establishment and now sadly he has faded into obscurity.

Anyway let’s investigate the basis for this universally held idea of an avian

reptilian link.

What similarities are there between such seemingly diverse specimens and

what reason is there for this close biological classification? Before we go any

further I have to say that if I stop and think about all this, it all becomes a

little daunting, mainly because I, and others like me are advocating a view

that most in the field of biology deem to be utter nonsense, believe me that

can be a little daunting, we are actually questioning something as basic and

as widely accepted as the origin of birds. Learned men have wholeheartedly

embraced this link, and biologists have based their understanding on what is

surely a proven fact. Is there any profit putting forward an opposing view.

The answer is very simple and is not exclusively to do with creationist’s concern for the validity of biblical text. It is because it dose not make sense.

Let’s examine reasons for the world’s acceptance of this link.

We can all agree that reptiles lay eggs as did dinosaurs as indeed do

birds…….but then so do ants and for that matter most insects, also the

majority of fish, and a couple of mammals, platypus and echidna (ant eaters)

So the ability to lay an egg really cannot be considered to be grounds for a

direct link to reptiles.

What else links them? Precious little really, oh some have pointed out that

bird’s legs are scaly…... Well as I get older I notice my neck beginning to

resemble that of a turkey but ……sorry, that just appeared on the page! So

what separates them? The obvious one of birds being warm bloodied as

opposed to cold bloodied reptiles. They operate at a staggering 42-45 C

higher than a fever ridden human. Reptiles have a three chambered heart as

opposed to birds four. Birds bones are essentially hollow with cross ties built

in that give it both lightness and strength. The oceanic frigate bird which has

a seven foot wing span and unbelievable flying prowess has a skeleton

weighing just four ounces. Reptiles have teeth modern birds do not. And

there is the small point that a bird has feathers. Some evolutionist grasping at

straws site discoveries of dinosaurs apparently sporting the beginnings of

primitive feathers turns out to be more of a down like covering. It’s not a primitive feather just because someone thinks it may be. And there is always

Archaeopteryxthe so say link between bird and reptile except that it is an

ancient extinct bird. I’ve always wondered how they think feathers first

appeared. Maybe reptiles’ scales began to get a little frayed crawling over

those rocks? Trouble is you cannot have a primitive feather. All feathers are

specialised and divided into basic types each type having a set purpose.

The flight feathers are located mainly on the tail and wings. Down and

semiphume are used for insulation. Bristle attached near the beak and

fhilophine thought to be used to convey information on flight, preening and

insulation. The term “light as a feather” is no idle boast it is the lightest thing

in the world for its size and toughness and fabulously complex. Each quill

gives off around 600 barbs on each side to form the basic shape of the

feather. Each of these 1200 barbs bears about 800 smaller barbules which in

turn produce 30 to 40 tiny hooks linking all together an interwoven mesh of

over 30,000,000 barbicels this mesh is so fine that air can barely pass through

it. When the bird loses a feather..... it simply grows another one. Have you

noticed that in the last ten years the designers of commercial aircraft wings

have copied the shape of the upward pointed end wing feathers. There is no other direct link between reptile and bird. Everyone has gone

along with this myth because very few have ever questioned the basic

premise of the alleged link. A twist on the “Emperors new clothes” in that it is

science that insists he is actually wearing them!

It is true that reptile’s scales contain the protein keratin as do feathers, but

then so dose human hair skin and nails, so nothing conclusive there.

Someone I did find who has questioned this long standing baloney is John

Ruben of Oregon State University. Now John is an out and out evolutionist

and his interesting findings are in no way meant to cast doubt on the theory

itself, merely to correct or at least introduce an argument against the

prevailing bird/rep linage. He starts by reminding us that most birds are “knee runners” That is, there is only movement below the knee. Which means the

femur is more or less rigid. He writes “Thisisvitalforthebirdbecause
it enables their abdominal air sac to hold the twenty times the
normalamountofoxygenneededtosustainflight.Thepositionof
their thigh bone is crucial to their lung function, giving them
enough lungcapacityforflight
Dinosaurs unfortunately were not similarly endowed, they had a
movingfemurthereforecouldnothavehadlungsthatworkedlike a bird. Their abdominal air sac if they had one would have
collapsed”.

I stress again this is from a committed evolutionist. It’s easy for the likes of

me to put forward these views, but for someone in the trade? You do have to

admire his courage advocating a complete reappraisal for something that was

universally thought to be long done and dusted. Just imagine all the editing

and confusion that would result if his ideas were accepted by main stream

evolutionist. Somehow I think that this will be another example of preferring

not to dig too deep for fear of upsetting the core belief. It will be quietly

ignored. Chapter eight

Towards the end of chapter six Dawkins gives us his understanding of how

animals emerged from the sea and in some cases despite their new hard won

dry land freedom decide that after all it is not quite what they were expecting

and after some deliberation and a complete change of body form, return to

the sea! He sites whales and manatee and gives us an account of how he

thinks their journey from water to land and then from land back to the water

progressed. Apparently a good deal of this sentiment was influenced by lectures given to the then young and obviously impressionable Dawkins by

one Harold Pusey. According to Dawkins Pusey speculated that “Annual
droughtsduringwhichlakesandpondsandstreamsdriedup,only
to flood again the following year. Fishes that made their living in
water could benefit from a temporary ability to survive on land,
while they dragged themselves from a shallow lake or pond that
was threatened with imminent desiccation to a deeper one in
which theycouldsurviveuntil thenextwetseason”

I’m almost speechless, but not quite. How can a fish have a temporary ability

to survive on dry land? It’s a fish for Pete’s sake, and what else? drag itself to

the nearest deep water pond, lake or whatever, I have a better idea why

didn’t it just stay in the deep water then that would have saved itself the

trouble of developing all the stuff us land folks have, legs, arms, hair, skin

and a fondness for Marmite, in fact everything needed to survive on Terra

firma?.

This reverence by the young Dawkins for his tutor and the subsequent

direction those teachings have led him remind me of the old saying

concerning the catholic Jesuits namely “give me the boy until he is seven and

I will give you the man” Or the Biblical “train up a child in the way he should

go and when he is old he will not depart from it (Proverbs 22:6)

I love these little stories evolutionist weave to try and illustrate their theory.

One can just imagine this fishy like creature being stranded in a diminishing

pond scratching a gill with a quizzical fin and having to make up its mind

whether to make a dash and flip across open country and hopefully locate a

deeper pond, or take a chance and brave it out until the rains come. All total

balderdash of course, and yet sadly believed and taught. A fish if it is

stranded in a dried up pond dies. It’s Mrs Nicholas again, an outside influence

this time a dried up pond effecting physical change. Also, where to crawl to, and in which direction? This mythical creature, if it did wriggle and scurry

across open ground, and perchance stumble upon a wider expanse of water,

then would he not simply stay there? And how is this one incident of this one

enterprising fish supposed to bring on a whole generation of like-minded

individuals and then spread throughout the whole world? Or are there several

little fishes all with the same idea every summer having to take their chance

against a lowering water level..... and, after a long time on dry land their

descendants become human!... And they have the nerve to mock and pour

scorn on the Biblical account.

Skimming through the rest of the chapter he gives us several examples of so

called “missing links” supposable linking one species with another. Trouble is

they do no such thing. We are presented with individuals, depicted in the

same manner as the linage of the horse, (this example to be fully discussed

later) formed individuals who have a passing likeness to their supposed

ancestors or descendants. I dare say if I wanted to construct a mythical

linage say from an ancient hamster like creature to a modern wolverine I

could do it. As in the horse example add in a few complimentary artistic

impressions with bones indicating larger and larger animals and there you

have it. I am not exaggerating just look what he has put forward as a

possible ancestor to our modern manatee. Fig 6 P232 Ask a five year old to spot the similarities and chances are he will look around

for something else to do after announcing they both have front legs.... and a

head! Even then they don’t have the same number of toes! Oh I have just noticed, at the end of the description of Pezosiren h e has added a rider

admitting that “Pezosiren however probably lived like a hippo,
spending much of its time in water and using its legs to walk on
the bottom as well as swim. The skull is unmistakably sirenian.
(Not 100%with you on that one Richard) PezosirenMayormaynotbe
theactualancestorofthemodernmanateesanddugongs,butitis
certainlyexcellentcastingfortherole”

Can I put you out of your misery Richard; it was not an ancestor of the

manatee!

Ancient mariners likened Manatees to mermaids, (they did tend to endure

long voyages) and we are all familiar with the story of sirens luring sailors to

their doom, and lo and behold the discoverer of Pezosirenhas made the siren

link with the manatee. Although I must check that my line of reasoning is

correct here. Yes, Pezosirenwas discovered and named by Daryl Domning of

Howard University Washington with co-investigator Roger Portell. Apparently tradition dictates that you do not name a new species after yourself (unlike

diseases) but can dedicate it to a colleague, institution or whatever takes your

fancy, hence the full name Pezosiren portelli My point is that the name

Pezosiren has been given to this fossil only because Mr Domning assumed

there to be a link with the modern manatee.

We are shown a drawing by Carl Buell which illustrates the supposed

evolution of whales from land creatures. Each drawing depicts a complete

fully viable form that is supposed to be the predecessor of the next version.

Although to be fair Dawkins refines this argument by suggesting that there

were a lot more cousins each going there separate ways and branching out

into ever more diverse creatures, doesn’t stop him including this chart in his

book though. I don’t know how long they can get away with this. What

started with some dodgy progressions presented by Othiel Marsh to Thomas

Henry Huxley at Yale university in 1876 (more of this later) has happily

carried on to this day. Whenever an evolutionary link has to be established

just draw a progression. There are eleven distinct animals that purport to

show this progression, these eleven covering some 65million years. Just think

logically. How many millions of progressive changes would have to exist to

evolve from a hippo like creature to a whale? So how come we only have

eleven? It would be interesting to know how many other examples of these eleven have been found. If there has been more than one of any of those

illustrated then that rather confirms their non-transitional status for it would

indeed be a quirk of statistical averaging if out of the millions or if you like

hundreds of thousands of necessary transitional instances the same few keep

cropping up. The answer is simple; all these examples were separate and

distinct animals that have absolutely nothing to do with their supposed next in

line cousins.

I have reproduced another progression Fig 2-3 that again purports to show

the change from a land based mammal to an entirely water dwelling mammal.

A seductive argument until you compare their size in the silhouetted

illustration. Chapter nine

Chapter seven entitled “missing person? Missing no longer” deals with the

supposed ancestors of modern man. Several examples are sited ranging in

age from roughly three million to one million years ago. There is wide

disagreement by palaeontologists as to how these various fossils should be

classified and Dawkins rather bemoans current divided opinion by this branch

of science. It dose rather reflect the wider division between “ultra Darwinians”

and the “naturalist” schools of evolution. I will not dwell in this section with

this division and of Dawkins impatience with his fellow academics albeit those

of another discipline for I am still looking for his supposed proof.

It is in chapter eight that for the first time I feel a little empathy toward

Richard, no perhaps not empathy, and certainly not sympathy but an

appreciation of the difficulty he finds marrying complex developmental norm

to the resolution of the evolution issue. Specifically in this instance the

development of an embryo It is the first time (and I have read all his books)

that there is just a hint of reluctance to commit wholeheartedly to a stated position, for the simple reason that it is still not completely understood by

him. How refreshing.

This section of his book has it all. Theoretical and practical biology, with a

smattering of philosophical musing and as such is really quite complicated. I

know what he means I had to read it several times before I got the gist. It is

harder for me and others who hold similar views to recognise and appreciate

a theory that is alien to our belief, as it is for Richard and his fellow

evolutionist to begin to grasp the subtleties of an essentially faith based but

never the less provable creationist position.

The theme of this section is embryology, with discussion on the development

and the process involved in that development. He is trying to ascertain the

engine that enables the embryo to accomplish this rather complicated feat.

After a detailed description of some of the procedures involved he then tries

to reason how the mechanics of this developmental procedure can be

explained within an evolutionary context. I have to say for me he has not yet come to terms with the impossibility of that task, but he summarises thus;

“Letusheartheconclusionofthematter.Thereisnooverallplan
ofdevelopment,noblueprint,noarchitectsplan,andnoarchitect. The development of the embryo, and ultimately of the adult is
achieved by local rules implemented by cells, interacting with
othercellsonalocalbasis. What goesoninside cells, similarly, is
governedbylocal rulesthatapply tomolecules, especiallyprotein
molecules, within the cells and the cell membranes, interacting
with othersuch molecules.Againtherulesarealllocal,local,local.
Nobody reading the DNA of a fertilised egg, could predict the
shapeoftheanimalitisgoingto growinto”

What elephant sitting patiently on this particular kitchen table is not being

acknowledged? He knows it as well as me. These numbingly complex

chemical procedures kicking in on schedule, in turn but only after all

proceeding metamorphoses have been accomplished have a pre-set and

unalterable sequence. By necessity the chemical rules that allow for this

development may well be local but it is a pre-set sequence. To be pre-set

requires a designer for without a designer there cannot be sequence certainly

not a pre-set sequence. Now to me that is a blindingly obvious and foolproof

statement. I am therefore confident to state that it is fact. But is there an

alternative argument that can be put forward to explain the need for proteins

and molecules to always act in this orderly fashion. There has to be due procedure written in to the developing cells of the embryo and because the

eventual finished being will itself be capable of producing offspring that dose

rather suggest that the whole thing has first been worked out and then set in

motion. I cannot think of any other way all stages of life would care to

proceed in this manner other than being pre-set in predetermined sequence.

Meanwhile Dawkins insists that it is still all the work of genes mutating and

any advantage gained from that mutation more than likely to pass them on to

the next generation. All standard stuff rather let down by an unhelpful example of how he thinks an advantage would be pressed home.

“Now the natural selection pressures that favour or disfavour the
genecanbeascomplicatedasyoulike.Theymightinvolvesexual
selection …..Or the change in jaw shape might have a subtle
effectontheanimal’sabilitytocracknuts”!!!!!!!.......

Yes that’s right, crack nuts……… I’m not saying a word.

At this point having reread all that I have written about him and the criticism

of his ideas and the way that I have couched that criticism I feel I must offer

an apology. It has dawned on me that to deride a proponent because he

holds views I cannot agree with dose not get us anywhere. The gentle chiding and intended witticism of the put-down interferes with the core argument. (I

had to put that in otherwise I would have had to rewrite the first section of

the book and it’s taken long enough already!) Hence forth it will be straight

forward oppositional argument, with no Smart Alec sarcasm. Chapter ten

On to chapter nine, be patient we are past the half way mark. I have to

confess chapter nine was a little unnerving, for the first time a core Biblical

story, namely Noah and the flood were seemingly compromised. As

Christians we always have to work on the principle that Biblical text is the

very word of God (notwithstanding minor errors in translation) handed down

for our instruction and benefit by the creator of the universe, so as such it

really dose have to be accurate. Otherwise my friends, I’m sorry it ain’t the

word of God! Having said that, on this subject we are in good company.

Christ himself referred to Noah (Math 24:38) The Apostle Peter (1 Peter 3:2)

(11 Peter 2:5) and Paul the writer of Hebrews (11:7) in a sense I’m grateful

to Dawkins for introducing this topic to the argument. It is a question that has

always been nagging in the back of my head, a question that I initially had no

answer for. Dawkins pounces on something seemingly unanswerable. How

come, if Noah had amassed every type of animal in the world, had followed

Gods instruction and put them in his ark, by the way ark means box in

Hebrew, how come when the flood had subsided and they were all released

on Mount Ararat, how is it we only find marsupials (kangaroos and the like) in

Australia, Lemurs in Madagascar, Penguins in Antarctica and why Platyrrhine monkeys are exclusive to South America. Okay, there is the Opossum which is

a Marsupial and is common in North and South America, but he still has a

valid point.

Make no mistake this event that supposedly happened around four and a half

thousand years ago has the power to cast doubt on the validity of the very

thing that our western civilisation has been based on. Should we even explore

the possibility that our lives, indeed our civilisation have been based on an

untruth? Of course we should. Years ago I have to admit I was a little

sceptical about the whole ark story, and even up to the time I read Dawkins

lampooning of the whole event I was still not sure in my mind just exactly

how the whole event transpired. There were questions that demanded an

answer for there to be belief in a literal interpretation of the Biblical account.

How did Noah manage to gather every living creature on this earth and stuff

them in a large boat? How could the flood have covered even the mountains

and how could they have existed for over a year in that ark? Let alone the

previously mentioned question of animal distribution that Dawkins throws up.

So let’s deal with each of these points and see if we can come up with an

explanation that would at the very least allow the possibility of the Biblical

account. It is not stated how long Noah was given to built the boat from the initial

instruction of materials, shape and dimensions to the start of the deluge.

After some thought and a little research I concluded that the task was

certainly difficult but not impossible and he did have God’s help for Genesis

states that Noah and his family went in first and that the animals followed

“unto Noah into the ark” Gen 7: 15 That verse leads me to believe there was

a supernatural aspect to the organisation of the animals.

We always picture the ark as a fairly large boat but in actual fact it was a

huge oblong structure. Roughly 450 ft long (137.16 Mt ) 75 ft wide

(22.86Mts) and 45ft high (13.7Mts). These measurements assume the Biblical

cubit to be 18 inches (the length from a man’s elbow to the tips of his fingers)

Internally it was built on three levels with compartments for the animals,

space for provisions and food, and living quarters for Noah, his wife, his three

sons and their wives. Incidentally those width and height dimensions follow

modern maritime build standards for a vessel that length. These dimensions

would have ensured relative stability, even more so if large stone sea anchors

had been employed.

The first thing we have to address is was there enough room. The Biblical

account is dismissed by most because it is assumed to be impossible that

every kind of animal could have been housed in one floating structure. We have been given the dimensions of the ark so can work out the cubic capacity

of the internal structure. Astonishingly it works out as over 1.500.000 cubic ft

that is a similar amount of space that you would find in 1,578 20ft sea

containers. But was that enough? Let’s just look at the number and kinds of

animals Noah was instructed to take.

All animals are divided into clean and unclean depending on their suitability

for use as a food source for man. You can see the full list in Leviticus (11:3)

and Deuteronomy (14:6) Noah was instructed to take seven clean animals,

three pairs plus one and a pair of unclean, plus seven birds of each kind.

Noah was only concerned with land based animals and birds. Marine life

although certainly disrupted would in the main survive. Given that the

average size of an animal would be about the size of a goat and the larger

species like Giraffe need not be fully grown. Was there enough room?

There are reckoned to be 50.0000 vertebrates in this world in Noah’s day

there was certainly more, remember we are only talking about types of

animal not species. A species derives over time from a type. So for example

all the various breeds shapes and sizes of cattle we now have derived from

those original seven. Darwin’s finches although varying in detail all came from

the same stock. This is not evolution although as mentioned earlier it has

been given that status. This is merely a capacity for change inherent within the type itself. Explaining the existence of the St Bernard and Poodle that are

man made change and the Arctic fox and our own red fox which is a natural

divergence from the kind but still always dogs and foxes. Again the big

question, was there enough room? That depends on how many animals and

their average size.

Several studies have been made among the best would be “Noah’s ark a

feasibility study by John Woodmorappe” this is a great book and covers the

event from all aspects. Nowadays instant answers can be gleaned from the

internet with a touch of a key. Suffice it to say, opinion varies on the number

of types of animal there are and of course there were animals around then

that are now extinct. Some have argued that 15,000 animals would be

enough to include all “kinds” in the world. Others say 25,000 would be more

realistic. So if we are really generous and say 50,000 how much space would

they take up? Surprisingly only about 37%. So the first question, was there

enough space… yes there was. They were in the ark for over a year so there

had to be a huge amount of space devoted to provisions.

My initial scepticism of the flood story was not so much the space available to

Noah but the fact that the waters were supposed to have covered the highest

mountains. I could not imagine a deluge of rain raising the water level to that height even allowing for the possibility that present-day heights maybe higher

than they were four and half thousand years ago. The text says that it rained

forty days and forty night I could not see even in the worst monsoon

conditions there being enough water to cover the mountains during that

period. The answer came when the relevant text was re-examined. When we

imagine the flood we think of exceptionally heavy rain. But look at the first

thing mentioned at the commencement of this event. “ On the same day all
the fountains of the great deep were broken up”Genesis:7:11 then it began

to rain! If you read on the fountains are the first that are stopped. So what

are the fountains of the deep? There are vast reservoirs of water under the

earth, huge subterranean bodies of water that lie under the land and under

the oceans. Queens-landers have been exploiting this resource for over two

hundred years. It initially made it possible to settle in the harsh Australian

outback conditions. They have recently discovered a similar body of water

that stretches from Lands End in south west England through the Bay of

Biscay along the Spanish coast and out into the Atlantic. How much of the

Earth's surface dose the Pacific Ocean cover, what is it forty percent? Think

of the huge underground reservoirs that could lie undiscovered there. Science

knows that these bodies of water exist but there has been very little work as

to the volume of water that may be present. T

As far as Dawkins original point about the distribution of animals, because the

Bible indicates a divine influence in the gathering of the animals then there

must have been similar authority in their redistribution. I know this will not be

acceptable to evolutionist but in this instance it’s the best I can come up with!

We are however not yet finished with this event. Because in the final part of

this chapter he explores the significance of plate tectonics and the relevance

continental drift plays on animal and plant life. There are several points that

should be addressed if the flood story is to be given credence, with anomalies

for evolutionist and creationist alike, unanswerable questions for both sides.

It was Alfred Wegener (1880-1930) who first championed the idea of

continental drift. Noticing as I think most have when studying a world atlas

that the various continents seem to fit together almost like a giant jigsaw,

with the East coastline of South America neatly dovetailing into the West

coast of Africa. Following the logic of his theory he speculated that all the

drifting land masses had once been joined forming one huge continent. He

even gave it a name Pangaea. He never lived to see the acceptance of his

ideas by the majority of his profession it wasn’t until the 50s and 60s that it

was generally agreed that he was broadly correct save for the fact that the

continents were not naturally drifting apart as he had assumed but forced by continuing volcanic activity as witnessed by the active sea floor ridges that

run down the middle of the worlds oceans. Continents are virtually floating on

thermal molten seas of magma. At least that’s the theory! It has been

confirmed that some rock formation, fossils and even fauna were found to be

similar on the opposing coasts of the “jigsaw”. Lately I have become a little

sceptical when told that everything matches exactly as one would expect

especially when this is presented as evidence supporting a particular aspect of

evolutionary theory. For every learned scholar that puts forward irrefutable

proof there is always another equally learned scholar to cast doubt and not

always from within the creationist camp. On this occasion though, we have to

accept that various land masses have broken away from one huge Continent.

How dose all this fit into our argument and what are the consequences for

the position of each side in this debate. Remember one of the doubts aired

for the flood account was the exclusivity of lemurs to Madagascar, Penguins

to Antarctica and Kangaroos to Australia. Some creationists have no problem

in agreeing to continental drift. The young earthers (those who believe in a

6000 year old earth) say it happened after the flood and after the animal

redistribution. Scientific opinion demands millions of years. But the

Lemur/Madagascar thing presents problems for both sides. The Island of Madagascar is the forth largest in the world. Located 416km off

the East African coast it is about one and a half times the size of California.

What is unique is that 80% of the wild life and fauna are endemic (exclusive)

to Madagascar. This has enormous problems for creationist and evolutionist

alike. Current scientific opinion believes The Island detached itself from India

which had previously detached itself from Africa and is consequently now

stuck in the middle of the Indian Ocean. It is speculated that this event

happened about 70,000,000 years ago and that the life that was present

when the land separated has evolved into the unique forms we see today.

Hence its unique life forms. Trouble is 65,000,000 years ago we had the K/T

event, (google it) the fifth mass extinction of life on this planet. An event so

catastrophic, that it caused the extinction of Dinosaurs and according to some

sources 95% of plant and animal life. Apparently at that time there were only

mouse sized creatures representing the mammalian kingdom? Fig 5 p 232

This again, brings us back to the Madagascar question. It is unreasonable to

insist that the Island’s isolation is responsible for the development of its 80%

endemic species status if 90% of plant and animal life worldwide were

destroyed by K/T. Furthermore the species that inhabit Madagascar and the

mainland of both Africa and India could not have evolved independently into their present similar family type. That is the insoluble problem evolutionist

face

Creationist however still cannot answer the 80% endemic species rate

appertaining to that pesky Island. Unless that is the young earthers are right

and the islands were formed after migration from the ark. Which logic tells

me is impossible. One final point, the fact that lemurs are only found in

Madagascar, Penguins in Antarctica etc dose perhaps suggest a divine

influence in their migration and location? I cannot give a satisfactory answer

to explain from a creationist point of view the 80% endemic rate as

evolutionist cannot give a credible explanation of land based animals found on

the Island and the mainland of both Africa and India. Anyway, for the time

being I think we’ve just about done Noah’s Ark.! Chapter eleven

Chapter ten finds us back in familiar territory; with the startling revelation

that the skeletons of all vertebrates save for their proportions are virtually the

same (homology). So we all share femurs, skulls and of course backbones the

difference being only in their proportion. So for example, we all have ribs but

in the case of the flying lizards (this example is given) the ribs have extended

so much as to give this animal an ability to glide from branch to branch. Years

ago I watched these creatures’ antics on a David Attenborough natural history

programme and of course the same evolutionary emphasis was placed on this

lizard’s prowess. Spider monkeys are also mentioned (remember, the ones

with the long tales found in South American jungles) these creatures use their

tails almost like an extra limb, useful when carousing through the roof canopy

of the new world.

The point that is trying to be made here is that this similarity again proves that all vertebrates originated from the same stock and that, well let Richard

put it in his own words: “Canyouseehowbeautifulitis,thisideaof near-indefinite modification over immensities of time, each
modifiedformretainingunmistakabletracesoftheoriginal?“

Incidentally that flying Lizard while perfecting and developing this ability to

glide through the jungle, and developing those ribs until they were as long as

the length of the creature’s torso. Would he not be at a disadvantage when

say half way through this transformation, not yet with the ability to glide but

having to haul around those cumbersome burgeoning ribs?.... only a thought.

Let’s return to the premise. Is it reasonable to assume common ancestry on

the basis of shared skeletal attributes? I really don’t see why, while it is true

that a case can made regarding the similarity of bone sequencing between

Chechens and Chinchillas. I cannot then make the leap seeing it as

confirmation of evolution, for the simple reason that everything has been

given the means to exist and prosper in their given environment. This would

mean that a shrew’s priority would be the same as a bison’s, feeding;

reproduction, comfort etc. and their bone symmetry matching save for size,

but the means of fulfilling that priority so obviously different, this difference in

part reflecting on the proportion and proximity of their shared skeletal assets.

But it’s true; they both have four legs, rib cage, and a tail! They are both

mammals. All animal life breathes so all have to have apparatus for transferring oxygen

to the blood stream. There will be a difference between the respiratory

system of a mongoose from that of a Rhino but the principle will be similar.

On the same theme Dawkins next uses the illustrations of one Ernst Haeckel a

nineteenth century German evolutionary zoologist who did some wonderful

illustrations of crustaceans. The message here is that although there is a vast

variety of shapes and sizes, crabs and crayfish all have the same “skeleton”

(external of course rather than internal) nevertheless these exoskeletons are

identically joined just the proportion and size differ. The assumption is then

made that this proves as in mammals, a common ancestor. My answer would

be the same. Dose this not show the wonderful variety of life God has put on

this earth, even to the creatures that delight in consuming rotting oceanic

filth. That is the purpose of their existence and the fact that they come in all

shapes and sizes is in part a reflection of their specialised role and also I

suspect a celebration of the very act of creation. As an aside there is a

correlation between the biblical “clean and unclean” meats and the creature’s

resend’êtreBut I will let my readers explore that consequence if they choose. Richard may not be wise in drawing our attention to Ernst Haeckel for it was

he who perpetrated one of the biggest scientific frauds in biology, right up

there with Piltdown man. In his desire to further the cause of evolution he

fabricated a whole series of illustrations falsely showing that the embryos of

man, pig, salamander and other animals were almost the same at the early

stages of their development. The embryos of higher animals mimicked their

“earlier evolutionary form” by displaying almost identical features. So say

proving his catchy sounding theory of “Otogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny”

again meaning embryos of different animals and humans look similar at the

early stage of development (they don’t, but will if you fake the drawings)

All this to perpetuate the notion of shared ancestry and simple evolving into

complex. There was no excuse for the scientific community to perpetuate this

deception, for he was exposed as a fraud by a fellow zoologist even before

the start of the twentieth century. But apparently there was a book published

in the early nineteen hundreds that rehashed Haeckel’s discredited drawings,

and folks, they have been with us ever since. Hands up those who have seen

and maybe even been taught from these fakes. Michael Richardson working

at St Georges Hospital Medical School London expressed astonishment when

he looked into this scandal and found that no comparative study had ever been made to refute Ernie Haeckel’s claims. Stephan Jay Gould stated

“It has fascinated me ever since my New York City public schools
taught me Haeckel’s doctrine Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny
fiftyyearsafterithadbeenabandonedbyscience,andwouldyou
believetherestill beingusedin textbookstoday”

Two evolutionists who broke away from the pack and were not prepared to

rest their case on fiction. But Haeckel was an excellent draughtsman and he

did coin the words Phylum, Phylogeny and Ecology, so the various ecological

movements of the western world owe him.

But this is an irrelevant diversion for we are now approaching the section in his book that deals with molecular genetics and as Dawkins writes:

“WhatDarwindidn’tknow-couldn’t-knowisthatthecomparative
evidence becomes even more convincing when we include
moleculargenetics”

So can I assume that it is now we’ll at last have our promised final proof? Chapter twelve

Before we venture into the heady realms of molecular genetics, let’s first

review Dawkins argument, examining his premise that because all mammals

(and of course he includes us in that category) have the same sequence of

skeleton, they are in fact invariant, (Naturally the scale and proportions are

different) then that means we all originated from a common mammalian

stock. Similarly all crustaceans and there are thousands of species (crabs,

shrimps and the like) all have the same general exoskeleton but again

proportions and shape vary, therefore all also have descended from the same

crustacean stock.

I’m struggling to get my head round this and I apologise for briefly returning

to Haeckel but is this not an offshoot of Haeckel’s discredited comparative

embryology, not quite perhaps, but it has the same flavour. Our old German

friend faked his drawings to show an exaggerated similarity in embryonic

development between widely different animals, all in support of the notion of

shared ancestry. Substituting the embryo for the adult, this comparison

deems that all share common heritage because of similar groupings of

appendages. e.g. all crabs have four pairs of walking legs with two forward having claws both for feeding and defence making ten in total. However there

is a vast difference between say a green crab and a barnacle and it is difficult

to see how they all could have emerged from the same stock although both

are classed as crustaceans. Perhaps it could be down to errors in classification

but compare the two lifestyles.

After the crabs eggs hatch there are three stages of development. The first

Zoea bears no resemblance to the adult after three or four weeks Zoea molts

into Megalops this resembles a tiny lobster and after one week Megalops

molts into a tiny crab. Over time further molts transform the juvenile into an

adult. That in a nutshell is the life of your average crab.

Barnacles on the other hand have two stages of larval development, emerging

from the adult the “Naupilius” stage has a voracious appetite for krill it then

moults into the second stage “Cypris” which is non- feeding. It soon finds a

rock and head first glues itself on. Six calcareous plates are secreted leaving

room for a four plated “door” again secreted. When covered with water these

doors open and the barnacle ushers in food with it’s legs. The legs also house

gills for gaseous exchange. Barnacles are hermaphrodites and extend a sperm

filled tube a couple of inches around them in the hope of finding true

barnicilian happiness. Two completely different lifestyles yet according to Dawkins all derived from

common ancestry. Can you imagine the developmental changes these two

examples would have to go through to reach their current form from a shared

ancestor? They are so different they may as well be from different planets.

That’s only two out of the estimated 40,000 different species of crustaceans,

each species employing unique physical and behavioural patterns. Looking

back at the barnacle life style I have to ask: How in the world did it evolve the

capacity to glue itself head-first onto a rock- under water, with glue so strong

that there are moves afoot to synthesis it for use in the dental profession.

Also that astonishing capacity to exude calcareous substance with it’s pre

disposition to solidify into six protective plates, and then those four “hinged”

doors? I guess it was those millions of years! Chapter thirteen

Anyway, on to the next section that of molecular genetics. Before I even turn

the page I know that the same invariant argument will be applied, and yes here it is. Please spend time on this, it’s important. He writes:

“Just as the vertebrate skeleton is invariant across all vertebrates
while the individual bones differ, and just as the crustacean
exoskeleton isinvariant across all crustaceans while the individual
“tubes” vary. So the DNA code is invariant across all living
creatures, while the individual genes themselves vary. This is a
trulyastoundingfact,whichshowsmoreclearlythananythingelse
thatalllivingcreaturesaredescendedfromasingleancestor.Not
justthegeneticcodeitself,butthewholegene/proteinsystemfor
running life, which is the same in all animals, plants, fungi,
bacteria, and viruses. What varies is what is written in the code,
notinthecodeitself.”

There you have it. It could not be clearer. In that one paragraph Dawkins has

succinctly set out the evolutionary case. Incidentally touching on the reason

why I embarked on this work in the first place. I naively assumed that with

the completion of the gnome project there was bound to be proof of a

creationist beginning, or at the very least cast serious doubt on the

evolutionary perspective. So we must now concentrate all our energy on this

one proposal. Perhaps it would help if we refresh our understanding of

genetic codes, genes, proteins and the like.

Everyone has heard of DNA, and quite a number have a vague understanding

of its role is and how they think it works. But very few have a complete

working knowledge of all aspects of DNA. Part of the reason is most of us can

never get our heads round the scale of the thing. If we can’t imagine it then it

becomes unreal, then we tend to allow for its existence but leave it to those

who seem to know what they are talking about. Most of the following has

been gleaned from Robert Pollack’s “Signs of life” He seems to have an ability

to convey the wonder of DNA but also to give us a perspective on the

seemingly impossibility of it all. Although because of the complex nature of

the subject it can become hard going at times First the scale of the thing, and this should blow your mind. We are

completely cellular. Everything in our body skin, pancreas, liver every thing is

made up of individual cells. There are around 100 million million in the

average adult. Now this is the crazy bit. The average sized cell consists of

around 100 million million atoms. The complexity of a person in cellular terms

is about as great as the complexity of a cell in molecular terms. The DNA

folded in the nucleus of one cell if unwound would be about a yard long

In the illustration (see fig 6) you can see the double helix (made of sugar and

phosphate molecules, the sides of a ladder if you will) and the rungs made up

of just four letters.

G Guanine

A Adenine

T Thymine

C Cytosine

These are always paired C with G and A with T.

Using the metaphor of this DNA as text, these letters (base pairings) form

words and these words form sentences. We can call these sentences genes,

which tell the cell to make certain proteins which allow the cell to function as

say a liver cell. There are around 20,000 to 25,000 genes in the human body

(surprising to me that nearly ten years after the completion of the Genome

project nobody really knows for sure) these genes are packed into 46 chromosomes. All life from seaweed to fruit fly it’s form and function

dictated by the combination of those same four letters of DNA in every life

form on earth. Every cell of every life form contains the complete DNA of that

life form even though that particular cell has use for only an infinitesimal

fraction of it’s DNA text.

That briefly is the roll of DNA, Genes, Proteins, Chromosomes and the like.

Dawkins sites this as proof that all life originated from the same primitive

stock. I would answer that a creator having quietly reasoned the perfect

biological formula for all life would have no interest in formulating another

method, seeing as that formula would be good for all living creatures in every

environment on earth.

Even when we think we have a sufficient working knowledge of these

wonders I still maintain that it is virtually impossible to fully appreciate their

form, scale and magnitude. For most of us acid was something we played

around with in the school lab and we have been told that protein is one of the

benefits obtained from eating a good steak. Because in our practical day to

day existence there is nothing remotely appertaining to the procedure that by

the second, throughout our entire lives, is microscopically governing our

bodies, it will forever remain an alien world. Science has grasped the general way of how things work but we have very little idea why certain chemical

formulas require an exact response. We observe this response and can work

with it but the how, and why of it……..I even find it difficult to describe this

deep inner certainty of form and procedure that must have been commanded

by God himself.

I will state now even before I have the rest of his book, I know there will be

no absolute proof, no smoking gun that grabs me by the scruff of the neck

forcing me to concede the validity of the theory. But I will concede that

creation also is largely to be taken as an act of faith, save for the

uncontroversial fact that life cannot form from non-life. The rest is merely

argumentative to-and-fro.

So with that in mind let’s attempt an answer to his conclusions regarding

molecular genetics. You will remember that he insisted that even if no fossils

had ever been discovered this genetic evidence would act as conclusive proof

of evolution. Dawkins insists that because all life, be it camel or yeast has to

operate within the confines of the same genetic code with the variation only

coming from what’s written in that code, therefore life must have come from

one original source. Here’s another explanation. A supreme spirit being creates the physical

universe (we know it had a beginning) because it is physical this universe has

to operate within finite physical laws, laws that dictate the properties,

characteristics and therefore behaviour of all contained matter. This Supreme

Being then creates the Earth. So far all has been inorganic. He then decides

to create a carbon – hydrogen based organic. Conditions on earth are

adjusted to be receptive to this organic. Because this organic is confined to

earth and the earth has been made to have seasons, hot and cold, land and

sea this organic has to possess and pass on inbuilt qualities that allow for

these local variants. A method of replication has to be employed that is good

for the most humble form and for the most complex form, ensuring the

continuance of the forms pre determined assignment. Because this Supreme

Being has created these conditions and the life forms, all are thus enabled to

thrive in these diverse conditions. From the beginning all these forms

consist only of individual cells but within each cell chemical instruction

enabling these individual cells to combine shape and form all bodily

constituents necessary for the well being and continuance of the whole.

Although being part of a canopy of other interrelating forms it would not

know itself as such but would be chemically reactive to outside and

surrounding stimuli. Then in an act of supreme generosity and love and after an indeterminate

age this creator fashioned a being in his own image. Unlike all that has gone

before this form was given self awareness and although this form was made

and operates within the existing biological template uniquely he was given

access to the thoughts of the very being that created him with the chance of

joining that creator in that Godhead family eventually maybe to be granted

the status of the very sons and daughters of God….. Perhaps that last bit is

going beyond the scope of this book; but anyway that’s what I reckon

happened.

There is no serious attempt in this chapter to try and quantify the rate of

genetic change needed to account for the variety of life both past and

present. Instead we are given various genetic examples showing the similarity

of base pairs within different groups of animals and then deducing from that

similarity a common ancestor. Doesn’t quite work like that though dose it? As

he will be aware there is the well known Haldane’s Dilemma which shows the

mathematical impossibility of humans evolving from an ape- like ancestor.

In 1957 geneticist J B S Haldane published a paper, which at the very least

cast serious doubt on the credibility of the ultra-Darwinian case, please bare

in mind Haldane himself was a dedicated evolutionist. He reasoned that it would take three hundred generations for a beneficial mutation to become

totally established in a population. If you take a generation as being twenty

years for a human or earlier human-like creature and if you take the time

span 10,000,000 years then you only have enough time for 1,667 beneficial

substitutions. This is hardly enough to account for the difference between a

supposed ape-like ancestor and modern man. We are not talking gene

mutation but single point mutation (a single nucleotide). Incidentally there

has never been any serious attempt by evolutionist to discredit Haldane’s

Dilemma instead despite the continuing ribbing from creationist the whole

thing has been quietly ignored.

Fred Hoyle who was one of the most accomplished Astronomer/

Mathematicians of the twentieth century. It was he who on a BBC intellectual

radio show in the late forties coined the term “big Bang theory” although at

the time apparently not totally convinced of the theory’s validity. He wrote a

book called “Mathematics of Evolution” that again proved the improbability of

the Ultra-Darwinian claim. He rather spoilt the whole effect though by

insisting that all life originated from outer space. But again the mathematics

have never been questioned (although to be fair to evolutionist, partly I

suspect because they are fiendishly difficult to comprehend I couldn’t make

head nor tail of it, but then sums were never my forte. Chapter fourteen

Chapter eleven finds us back in familiar territory and we are again referred to the Dolphin this time informing us that the air breathing “blow-hole” is

natures way of “Correctingaproblemthatwouldneverhaveexisted
ifonlyitbreathedthroughgills,likeafish.Andmanyofthedetails
oftheblow-holecan beseen ascorrectionsto secondaryproblems
that arose when the air intake migrated from the nostrils to the
top of the head. A real designer would have planned it in the top
oftheheadin thefirstplace”

Well Richard, in the end I think you’ll find that he did…. He then concludes by saying

“Inanycasetheelaborateandcomplexgatewaytotheblow-hole
is eloquent testimony to the dolphin’s remote ancestry on dry
land”.

You see here’s my point, how can you take this seriously. That one little

paragraph really sums up the whole thing. Explain if you will how a nostril

travels up to the top of the head and on the way change into a blow-hole? Just to make breathing in water less hazardous. By what means was this

instruction written into the DNA thus enabling this admittedly desirable

change. (Especially when you’re contemplating spending a lot more time in

the water!). What about the generations that had to suffer the inadequacies

of nostrils in water prior to their migration and metamorphosis. And just what

exactly is the eloquent testimony that leads us to believe this blow-hole

indicates an original land creature, all too silly for words. Oh and by the way

they have wrinkly brains like us proving we all are descended from mammal

stock. I can only surmise that this section was another written late one Friday

afternoon! Our attention is now directed to flies,

“Unlike most insects that have four wings, the flies as their Latin
name Diptera suggests, have only two. The second pair of wings
hasbecomereducedtoapairof“halteres”Theseswingaboutlike
veryhighspeedIndianclubs,whichtheyresemble,functioningas
tinygyroscopes.”

Wait, just hold on a minute. I am old enough to remember when these

“halteres” were paraded as proof of evolution but from a different

perspective. The story went something like this. Gradually there was no need for this extra wing and so nature reduced it to what we see today two wings

and the vestibule wings. (The same argument was used regarding the

appendix, vestibule organ with no modern use) This stunted wing now not

having any meaningful function. Then guess what, extra slow motion

photography arrived and it was seen that far from having no function at all

these halteres provided gyroscopic movement vital for the balance and

intricacies of flight itself. In fact without these “vestibule” halteres controlled

directional flight would be impossible. It really is amazing how these old

chestnut arguments keep coming up but always ever so slightly altered so as

to meet and satisfy the demand of the latest discovery. I am frankly

disappointed that Dawkins has used this as a so say proof when he knows as

well as I do that the old consensus paraded redundant, do nothing vestibule

halteres as proof of evolution.

Ever onwards, we now have a section that deals with the supposed

inadequacies of the human eye. As previously mentioned I have read all of

Dawkins books I will have to check which one but this is a rehash of previous writing. He writes…..

“ButnowsupposeItell you thattheeyes“photocells”arepointing
backwards, away from the scene being looked at. The wires connectingthephotocellsrunalloverthesurfaceoftheretina,so
thelightrayshaveto passthroughacarpetofmassedwirebefore
they hit the photo cells. That doesn’t make sense – and it gets
worse. One consequence of the photocells pointing backwards is
thatthewiresthatcarrytheirdatasomehowhavetopassthrough
the retina and back to the brain…….The hole filled with nerves is
calledthe“blindspot”……Onceagainsenditback,it’snotjustbad
design,it’sthedesignofacompleteidiot.”

Complete idiot!!! I’m reminded of a hard drinking, fast living American friend

(thankfully he’s now calmed down a little) who when asked why he was never

heard to blaspheme stated in a broad Texan drawl “that’s one bear you don’t

wanna’ poke in the eye” ….I tend to agree Scottie. But everything is now fine because as Richard states

“ThepointIammakingisthatamajordesignflaw–catastrophic
blunder, even – can be corrected by subsequent (evolutionary)
(my emphasis) tinkering …….In evolution generally, major
mutations,eveniftheycauseimprovementsingenerallytheright
direction, always require a lot of subsequent tinkering – a sweepingupoperationbylotsofsmallmutationsthatcomealong
later……. This is why humans and hawks see so well despite the
blunderinginitialdesign.”

Oh dear, so all vertebrates have this design flaw we all have this blind spot.

The octopus which has an outwardly similar looking eye has an arrangement

more to Richards liking except that it has to see underwater, and we have to

see on land. How can evolution correct a so called initial mistake, in this case

the arrangement of the rods and cones in vertebrate’s eyes. How dose he

think the creature landed with this initial mistake, presumably over aeons of

time. How did it survive in the period before all these infinitesimal seventh

cavalry mutations came riding in to save the day. By the way this eye

business was first aired by Richard in the “ The Blind Watchmaker”as I’ve

mentioned I knew I’d read it before.

I received invaluable help when researching an answer to this question from a

piece by Dr Jonathan D Sarfat on the Creation Ministries international web

site. He quotes Dr George Marshall at the St Jules Thorn lecture in ophthalmic science who stated

“The idea that the eye is wired backwards comes from a lack of
knowledgeoffunction andanatomy”
Dr Sarfat then wrote: “So why dose it work so well Dawkins claims
these nerves obstruct the light, but new research at Leipzig
University overcomes this view. Light is collected and funnelled
through the nerve net by the Muller cells which act as optical
fibres. Each cone cell has one Muller cell guiding the light to it,
whileseveralrodscansharethesameMullercell. TheMullercells
work almost exactly like a fibre optic plate that optical engineers
usetoproduce an imagewith low distortion withoutusing alens.
The cells even have the right variation in refractive index for
imagetransfertothevertebrateretinawithminimaldistortionand
low loss.cells

IndeedMullerareeven betterthan opticalfibresbecausetheyarefunnel
shapedwhich collectmorelightforthereceptors.Thewideentrancesto
Mullercellscovertheentiresurfaceoftheretina,so collectthemaximum
amountoflight. OneresearchteammemberAndreasReichenbach commented

“Nature is so clever, this means there is enough room in the eye
foralltheneuronsandsynapsesandsoonbutstilltheMullercells
can captureandtransmitasmuch lightaspossible”

The arrangement and make up of the eye has always been the same. It dose

exactly what it is supposed to do the difference in design between various

creatures reflecting the intended life style of those creatures. There has been

no “tweaking”, no improvement by mutation it has always been as it is. End

of.

Further on in this chapter Dawkins gives us examples of what he believes to

be vestige indicators that he sees as lingering physical evidence of a previous simpler form.

“And the major blood vessels of our chest are the messed about
relics and remnant of the once clearly segmental blood vessels
servingthegills”

He might just as well say, no I will refrain from making any more comic

remarks. Unsurprisingly there is a picture of a human foetus with the achingly

fatuous comparison between the pharyngeal arches and ancestral gills. I

really think at this stage he is in danger of losing some of his own converts.

Why dose this particular example keep coming up. It’s the second time in this book alone. Once and for all and how many more times, they are not vestige

gills because you say they are.

Finishing this chapter reference is again made to seemingly odd bits of design

found in various animals’, designs that Richard doesn’t quite see eye to eye

with. For example the laryngeal nerve of vertebrae, he sites the giraffe which

has this nerve extending from the brain five feet down it’s neck branching off

and then around the heart before returning up the length of the neck to it’s

final destination the larynx, only a few inches from where it started. Richard

states this proves there is no intelligent designer for why would he insist on

such a cumbersome route for this nerve. Now I have to admit I am no

anatomist so am not really qualified to begin to answer this question however

knowledge is available to all at the touch of a key and here’s what “ Greys Anatomy”has to say on the subject

“As the recurrent nerve hooks around the subclavian artery or
aorta,itgivesoffseveralcardiacfilamentstothedeeppartofthe
cardiac plexus. As it ascends the neck it gives off branches more
numerous on the left than on the right side, to the mucous
membrane muscular fibre of the trachea and some pharyngeal
filamentsto theconstrictorpharyngisinferior”

Which basically means that it is not as Richard implies a nerve that only has a

function between the brain and the larynx with five feet of dead weight nerve

tissue in between. This nerve serves and is attached to the heart, windpipe,

mucous membrane, oesophagus and who knows what before returning to the

larynx. It has a lot to do. You had me worried there for a moment Richard,

you may have had a point if it were just brain to larynx but as I hope you

now can see there’s a bit more to it than you realised. The uneconomic route

taken by Vas Deferens from testis to penis is also mentioned, but I'm not sure

we need to bother you with those details!

One last point, he quotes the Australian science broadcaster Robyn Williams when complaining about his almost permanently bad back.

“Nearly all backs could make an instant claim on the warranty, if
there was one. If (God) were responsible for back design, you’ll
have to concede that it was not one of his best moments and
musthavebeen adeadlinerushattheendofthesixdays”

Dawkins then comments

“The problem of course, is our ancestors walked for hundreds of
millions of years with the backbone held more- or- less horizontally,anditdoesn’ttakekindlytothesuddenreadjustment
imposedbythelastfew million”

I can sympathise with our Australian friend, for who has never suffered from

debilitating back pain. I venture there are more quack treatments for the back

than any other region of the body. In my thirties I also was prone to severe

back pain. I was also told on more than one occasion that it was all down to

the fact we used to all walk on all fours. At the time I did not feel like

entering in to an evolutionary argument my torso being bent in what I can

only describe as a sideways s shape. Clearly the human backbone is uniquely

designed for upright use watch Bolt run the hundred meters. No evidence

there of adjusting to walking upright. Problems occur from a variety of

reasons disease, injury, bad posture and then mainly from the body

compensating for that initial bad posture. My cure was strengthening the

stomach muscles which then put less strain on the back which then

straightened out the s shape. I was at one time offered surgery and am

convinced that if I had gone for that option that would have led to a

permanent disability. My point is there is always a reason for these maladies

so perhaps it’s not really helpful to blame it all on the changing gate of a

fictional 5,000,000 year old ancestor. Chapter fifteen

We are now shown the relationship between prey and predators the example

of cheetah and gazelle being used to illustrate the continuing “arms race” of

attributes giving a speed advantage to the predator while giving

manoeuvrability and stamina to the prey. There is of course an evolutionary

slant put on this arrangement as though it were a continuing process, each

party unknowingly continuing to refine and hone their respective prowess. In

reality the cheetah culls the weakest and slowest of the herd up to a point

when it is itself too slow to sustain itself. We have talked about this earlier it

is not a continuing development or an “arms race” if you will, it is a set,

perfectly balanced formula that allows for the continuance of the cheetah,

gazelle, sardine and cormorant, day in day out, century after century and only

disjointed by the interference of man.

Here is an interesting little section, “Theistic Evolution” (Theodicy, in

defence of God’s goodness despite the existence of evil) A slightly different

slant put on it here in that there is a question on the cruel nature of nature.

This is a point worthy of discussion. For Ultra Darwinian evolutionist there really is no problem, for as Dawkins states

“Natural selection is all about the survival of self-replicating
instructionforself replicationifavariant ofDNA survivesthrough
an anaconda swallowing me whole, or a variant of RNA survives
my making me sneeze (cold virus) then that is all we need for
explanation. Viruses and tigersare both builtby coded instruction
whoseultimatemessageis,likeacomputervirus, “Duplicateme”
In the case of the cold virus, the instruction is executed rather
directly. …..
…….ThetigersDNAsay“Duplicatemebytheroundaboutrouteof
building a tiger first” So the behaviour of various types of parasites

laying eggs in a given host and then proceeding to consume the unfortunates

body from the inside while still alive is only down to DNA survival.

In the past one or two theologians have had considerable trouble reconciling

the apparent cruelty that abounds in “God's wondrous creation” and

evolutionist have not been slow in pointing out this apparent contradiction

similarly there is an issue with the presence of pain for evolutionist. Where is

the advantage for “nature” to dish out incomprehensible amounts of pain in

order to replicate DNA? And how could a loving God allow such universal misery. Richard freely

admits to not having an answer from an evolutionary perspective, for which I

admire his candour, I could never class myself as a theologian qualified in

offering deep spiritual incite, but for what little it’s worth my two pence worth

would go something like his.

In man the presence of pain is clearly necessary in order for the body to

recognise danger and consequence. We are taught by pain the limits of safe

proximity to hazard. The body will use pain as a symptom of malady. Man has

used pain as a tool for domination and obedience. Some of the worst

excesses were perpetrated by the church both Catholic and Protestant, with a

desire to exact as much pain by means of ever more cruel procedure. A

feature of pain is that once it is over there is only a lingering impression of

the severity. So I suppose that’s a good thing! And we can only bear so

much, after a certain threshold has been breeched we pass out. Cold comfort

for those afflicted perhaps but never the less a merciful aspect to intense

pain. As for the nature of nature red in tooth and claw who knows for those of us

who believe in a creator then we would assume that he knows the feelings

and pain thresholds of hunter and prey and would have set them accordingly.

From a purely theological point of view, and this is pretty strong meat, the

Bible tells us of a time after the return of Christ when he rules this world

there will be no more war, and there will also be a fundamental change in

animal behaviour in that the lion will eat straw and lie down with the goat

indicating a non-carnivore world. Like I say pretty strong meat and certainly

not to the taste of most!

One last thought, getting back to our cruelty of nature bit I seem to recall an

interview with a man who had been attacked and dragged off by a lion only

to then be rescued by his companions. He said it was uncanny, obviously

initially abject fear but as soon as the lion had him it immediately shook him

violently he then said I felt no pain or fear just numbness. Now clearly I can’t

offer this as much comfort to those who have lost loved ones to lions or

tigers, but there you are…..

That more or less is my criticism of Richard Dawkins’s ThegreatestShowOn
Earthand The God DelusionI doubt whether after all that I have made the

even the slightest impression against Richards position certainly amongst his many admirers, for creationist however I sincerely hope you have found

something of value. I do sense that there is a growing academic reappraisal

of some of the points discussed and a growing recognition that evolution dose

not, cannot be responsible for all that we see around us.

Incidentally I just wonder what the driving force is behind Richard’s

professional atheism. Is it me or do I detect just a tiny hint of methinking’ he

doth protest too much in his well presented work. I suppose when early in

your writing career you earn a reputation as the Young Turk of staunch

atheism, then to hold attention any subsequent work will need to be

increasingly more dogmatic and unyielding.

Richard along with his friends at the British Humanist Association have

recently scored a victory over creationist by getting the British Government to

agree to withhold funds to any Free school (State funded schools that can be

run by an organisation or community, they normally do not have to adhere to

the national curriculum) that teaches creationism as a scientific subject. This

in effect is education by Government diktat. More confirmation that the

classes of 1968 to around 1980 while embracing freedom from convention

and advocating a less structured society when young have, when matured

and having attained positions of political power have turned out to be the most corrupt authoritarian legislators for the curtailment of freedom and

choice in the last two hundred years. Never happier than when passing ever

more legislation that attempts to govern absolutely the way we live and are

supposed to think. But please don’t get me started on that one!

Since this section has been written Professor Dawkins has brought out

another book this one entitled “ Themagicofreality“ this apparently written

with the laudable aim of encouraging children to take an interest in science,

although worryingly according to the views of R.D. I was tempted to write a

criticism of this latest work, forgive me but I feel that I’ve just about done

Richard Dawkins. Chapter sixteen

For our part I think we are being more than fair. We have said that if it could

be proved that the Bible is inaccurate in any way, then it cannot be an

inspired holy book. The Bible states that the earth was created or more

accurately recreated six thousand years ago (this is an important point that

throws light on the actual age of the earth, and we will be dealing with this in

a later chapter.) So surely all that has to be done is to find some object, some

record, anything in fact that pre-dates Genesis, anything, marking man’s

endeavour that can be proved to be older than six thousand years. You know

what, there’s nothing. You could search every museum in the world, nothing

appertaining to Man is that old? The BBC news on line proclaimed “earliest

writing found” (May 4th1999) turns out that this piece of pottery found in

Pakistan with an unknown script inscribed can be carbon dated to around

3300-3200BC. I repeat, nothing appertaining to man pre-dates Genesis.

There is another factor that should be considered in any quest to verify the

authority of the Bible. It has been reckoned that over a quarter of the Bible is

Prophesy, around 2500 in all, of these about 2000 have been fulfilled leaving

about 500 for “the end day’s” Now, here surely is something concrete. If we can show that a specific prophesy was pronounced, and that historically those

events happened exactly as foretold then perhaps there may be something in

it after all. It would go some way in proving that The Bible was truly inspired.

So out of the hundreds that have been fulfilled which one should we examine.

Our prophesy, has to be historically verifiable, it has to be specific with

absolutely no ambiguity, an event that unfolds and concludes exactly as

foretold. Well here’s one. This tells of a warning given to a people, who had

no reason to believe they were in any danger, that unless they changed their

behaviour they would be conquered, and that their city and temple would be

completely destroyed. Moreover the period of this captivity would be foretold

with a description of the circumstances pertaining to their eventual release.

Let’s be clear about this

(a) Eighty years before the event a nation is warned that it will be exiled and

that its city and temple will be destroyed

(b)The length of time of this exile is foretold

© The specific name of the King that will conquer the conquerors is given

even though he will not be born for another150 years

(d) The manner of this victory is given

e) These people will be allowed to return to their city and rebuild the temple with the blessing of the conquering King.

(f) These events to be verified by non biblical scholars.

Well it did happen and exactly as prophesied. The relevant Biblical references

can be found Isaiah 44:25-28 45:1 45:13

Around 700 BC the prophet Isaiah (These are not fictional characters, they

actually existed) warned the Jews that they would be conquered and led into

exile unless they changed their ways. They would be held for seventy years.

He also named the king that would in turn conquer their conquerors and be

instrumental in allowing the Jews to return and rebuild Jerusalem and the

temple. Sure enough around 586 BC King Nebuchadnezzar ruler of the

Babylonian kingdom invaded and conquered Jerusalem destroying the temple.

Those Jews that were not slaughtered were led away captive to Babylon.

Remember this is over a hundred years after Isaiah’s prophesy.

The city of Babylon was thought to be impregnable. It was built on each side

of the Euphrates with massive double walls surrounded by a huge moat. Two

Greek historians Herodotus and Ctesias give the height of the walls as over

300ft and being 25ft thick although in some circles this is thought to be a

slight exaggeration. Twenty five towers were built along these walls. Two gigantic gates were installed where the Euphrates entered and exited the city.

Babylon with its gardens and grandeur must have been awe inspiring to the

captured Jews as they were led through the gates of the city. True to Isaiah’s,

prophesy seventy years on Babylon itself fell to King Cyrus of Persia He

diverted the Euphrates and simply marched his army under the huge gates

that straddled the now dried up river exactly as foretold in (Isaiah 44:27) I

should imagine that when he was shown old Jewish records naming him and

describing the very feat now accomplished that would go some way in

persuading Cyrus to let the Jews return to their homeland and rebuild

Jerusalem and the temple.

So let’s be clear, this prophesy was made roughly 150 years before Cyrus was

born, therefore 180 years before he performed these feats and 70 or 80 years

before the Jews were taken into exile in the first place. By the way these

events are secularly corroborated by an ancient stone cylinder found that

details the many accomplishments of Cyrus including the liberation of the

Jews.

Perhaps the predicted accomplishments of Cyrus is too far back in time to be

appreciated by most, what about an historical figure that should be familiar to all after all they’ve even made Hollywood movies about the guy. How about

Alexander the Great? Surely he’s not mentioned in the Bible.

He was the son of King Philip the second of Macedon and in 336BC was given

command of the Greek army. Rebellion in Greece was quickly and ruthlessly

dealt with after which he turned his attention to the East. His campaigns were

successful and before long he found himself ruler of the earth from Greece to

India. He died suddenly at the age of 33 from an unknown illness. His

Kingdom was then divided between four of his generals. What has this to do

with the Bible you ask? Only that Alexander’s Conquests, early death and

division of his empire to his generals were written in the book of Daniel 250

years before Alexander was born.

You must now turn to the book of Daniel and read 8;1-8 RSV. This will

probably not make a lot of sense. Don’t worry at first even Daniel didn’t have

a clue about all the symbolism, the ram standing on the bank of the river, the

enraged ram with the two horns, pretty vague stuff, but the Bible interprets

the Bible Now read Daniel 11;2-4 RSV

“And now I will show you a truth. Behold, three more kings shall arise in
Persia; and when he has become strong through his riches, he shall stir up
againstthekingdomofGreece.ThenamightyKingshallarise,whoshallrule withgreatdominionanddoaccordingtohiswill.Andwhenhehasarisen,his
kingdom shall be broken and divided toward the four winds of heaven, but
not to his posterity, nor according to the dominion with which he ruled; for
hiskingdomshallbepluckedupandgotoothersbeforethese”,

The whole explanation is then wrapped up in Daniel 8;15-22

“ As for the ram which you sawwith the two horns, thesewere the kings of
Media and Persia. And the he-goat is the king of Greece; and the great
horn between his eyes is the first king. As for the horn that was broken, in
place of which four others arose, four kingdoms shall arise from his nation
butnotwithhispower.”

If you can’t see or refuse to accept from this and hundreds more examples

like it are irrefutable proofs that the Bible is a divinely inspired work then I

don’t know what else to suggest. It makes Richards quibbling about the

likelihood of Joseph and Mary travelling to Bethlehem to register totally

irrelevant.

Are there any dissenting voices regarding the Daniel/Alexander link? Sceptical

dissent would say that the prophesies were written after the event that they

are so specific they could never have been predicted. There was even doubt

as to the whether King Belshazzar ever existed (Daniel’s vision so say

occurring in the third year of his reign) This was settled when according to

the Nabonidus Chronicle (that clay cylinder again) that stated “Belshazzar was entrusted the army and the kingship” in about 556BC. Sceptics really have

nowhere to go on this one or have no excuse. The events regarding

Alexander prophesied by Daniel did occur around 250 years after they were

written.

The Bible is taken up with the history of a people that have been chosen to

be the means by which the word of God would be delivered to the world.

These people were to be special, having access through their leaders,

prophets and Kings to the very word of God. This was not because these

people were particularly pious or well deserving in fact their entire history is

one of rebellion and backsliding. No it was because of a promise made by God

to a distant ancestor. Because of Abraham obedience he was promised that

out of his seed would come many powerful nations.

Follow the linage in the beginning of Matthew, Abraham had a son named

Isaac. Isaac had a son called Jacob. Jacob had eleven sons the youngest of

which was Joseph. Joseph was sold into slavery by his brothers but while in

Egypt rose to a position of authority. He was reunited with his father and

brothers during famines that struck that land. The children of Israel are

descended from Joseph’s sons Ephraim and Manasseh and his ten brothers,

among which is Judah. Judah (the Jews) are only one of ten tribes making up the children of Israel. In fact the first time Jews are mentioned in the Bible

they are at war with the rest of the tribes of Israel this is important for

without that knowledge very little of Biblical prophesy makes sense.

On with our story, several centuries pass by which time the children of Israel

have become hated in Egypt. We all know the circumstances of how Moses

led them out of Egypt plagues, death of first born, parting of the waters etc.

Or at least we should know. You can read the whole account in Exodus.

Because of their disobedience that liberated generation had to spend forty

years in the wilderness. After forty years the Israelites finally enter the

Promised Land under the leadership of Joshua, this was around 1400BC.

The next date that concerns us is 605BC the eight hundred year period

between these two dates have seen the separation of the tribes of Israel into

two kingdoms. The Southern Kingdom named Judea consists of the house of

Judah (the Jews) allied to the house of Benjamin with Jerusalem as their

capital. The Northern Kingdom, consisting of the remaining ten tribes (now

nations of course) collectively still retaining the original name of Israel. There

has been complete separation of the two Kingdoms each having their own

separate kings and laws. They were often at war with each other as

mentioned previously the first time the word Jew is mentioned in the Bible

they are at war with the Northern Kingdom of Israel. This can be confusing because when the modern Jewish state was founded in 1948 they took on the

name of Israel! Chapter seventeen

Here’s an interesting little exercise. How long is it that evolutionist reckon

man (in his modern form) has been around? And can we begin to corroborate

the present world population with the time they think he first emerged?

taking into account the trials and tribulation (plagues, wars etc.) that he has

always been subject. Of course there are wide differences of opinion not only

with what the definition of modern man is but also the time he first made his

mark on this earth. I have seen widely differing time periods ranging from ten

thousand, one hundred thousand or even half a million years when they think

this may have occurred. As is our Christian duty we must always be generous

and not slant a particular time frame to our advantage. (Incidentally I have

no idea how this will pan out!) What I am trying to do is work out if it is

possible that the present world population (around seven billion) could have

arisen using the Biblical time scale. Or whether the much longer evolutionary

view of man's existence is the more likely. That is using average population

projections within these various time scales. We can get an idea of the Biblical

time scale thanks to all those boring generational lists found throughout the

Old Testament and also in Matthew and Luke some of them helpfully giving

the age attained when there first child was born. With this information we can work out, probably to within a hundred years how long Biblical man has been

around. Four thousand years from Adam to Christ and of course around two

thousand years since Christ. We must not forget the flood about 1500 years

after Man's creation that wiped out all but 8 souls.

So is it possible that the present world population of seven billion could have

been reached in approximately four and a half thousand years? In 1800 it

was estimated that the world population was a mere one billion. It took

another 130 years (1930) before the second billion had been reached. The

third billion in 1959 took 30years the forth in 1974 taking 15 years the fifth

billion in 1987 taking only 13 years. Of course these figures can never be one

hundred percent accurate they only give us a very rough guideline but you

can see that the population growth needed for the Biblical account to be

correct is possible. At the time of Christ there were maybe two hundred

million individuals around, eighteen hundred years later that two hundred

million had turned into a billion. So from Noah to Christ, a period of approx

two and a half thousand years the population increased from eight to two

million. There has to be a formula that will show if this increase is credible

within this time period or if the longer evolutionary scale is more appropriate. For Humanity to survive there has to be a minimum birth rate that ensures at

the very least a modest increase in the population this increase counteracting

not only the natural mortality rate but with enough in hand to account for

wars, famines and plagues. This rate tends to be dependant on the conditions

prevailing with that population. In the western world just to maintain the

population the birth rate has to be around 2:3. In some underdeveloped

countries this figure can be as high as 5:2. The whole thing is complicated by

the recent mass immigration to the western world by people from the third

world. So the 2:3 rates appertain only to the indigenous population. In

Germany for example the indigenous population is actually decreasing. The

Germans have now dipped below that 2:3 children per family.

So what is the average annual increase percentage needed for the

population to reach the current seven billion from the eight people who

survived the flood around 4500 years ago? It’s around 0.48%. This is a very

modest increase; the CIA World Fact Book of 2009 gives the rate in that

period as 1.092% If we take evolutionary man as being around 200,000 years

old and we give him the same modest 0.48% rate then instead of the seven

billion we would have 4 followed by 398 zeros! Clearly not the case. All these numbers are highly speculative and there is no way anyone can

work out with complete accuracy anything like the true figure. All I’m saying

is The Biblical account is possible the evolution account is not, certainly when

taking a 200,000 year evolutionary time period for man.

What if we say man has been around (in his modern form) for a modest

10,000 years. Taking the same minimum ½% annual increase from just two

people we come to … well you work it out (I told you maths was not my

thing) but you will find it comes to considerable more than seven billion. Chapter eighteen

Let’s just wrap up our argument against the Ultra Darwinians. We know they

believe that what we see today has evolved from the simple to the complex.

That minute random changes can, over a long enough period account for the

infinite variety and complexity of modern life forms.

Essentially theirs is an atheist tradition. None of your wondrous works of God

nonsense, everything can and must be explained by means of time and

natural selection. ‘Ultras’ do not shy away from the too complicated by far to

have evolved’ argument. Indeed there are few writers that can adequately

convey the awe felt at ‘natures’ complexity than Dawkins. Read his

enthusiastic description on everybody’s favourite example, the human eye

[The Blind Watchmaker]. But the essence of their argument is that ‘nature’ is

blind. There is never any intention to progress, to become more complex,

rather that complexity is an inevitable result of the process of natural

selection. To view the slug, shrew or sloth as creatures at the peak of their

various evolutionary journeys is wrong for that would infer a pre-determined

path. Because theirs is an atheist’s tradition, indeed for ‘ultras’; atheism is the

driving force behind their reasoning. It is also their ‘Achilles heel’. By refusing

to subscribe to even the remote possibility of creation, they are forced to

concoct even more implausible explanations needing ever more aeons of time

to make their theory work. This becomes increasingly difficult as knowledge

expands and more skins are peeled off the biological onion. Each new

discovery must be made to fit Darwin’s idea no matter how unlikely. Nothing

must be allowed to infringe on the basic principle, to do so would be a

blasphemy to their creed.

When we are debunking the notions of this particular ‘school’ we must be

scrupulous, not falling into the trap of what Dawkins calls the “Argument of

Personal Incredulity”. That we (creationist) personally cannot conceive how a

particular biological phenomena or entity could possibly have evolved e.g.

bats radar, spiders webs, chameleon skin etc. Paradoxically they are also

guilty of this disbelieving scepticism; they cannot conceive that a creator may

actually exist. At first it would seem that the ultras’ argument is stated from a

seemingly impregnable bastion. For however much we argue as to the

statistical improbability of a specialised complex organ developing, they will

divide the stages of development into ever-smaller units. You have to wonder

though; just at what stage even their credulity will be tested. I think we should examine in a little more detail this notion that the only thing

required is vast tracts of time and a bit of good fortune for the world to have

developed into its present biological state. At first glance it dose present a

seductive line of reasoning, especially if you are actively seeking a non

supernatural explanation. However the idea that given enough time anything

can happen is fundamentally flawed. A stadium full of monkeys randomly

typing away for eternity will never complete the works of William

Shakespeare, lets be honest they would be hard pressed to complete the first

line of Janet and John. It cannot happen.

The reason why it cannot happen is that the odds are too great. Anything

over 10 /23 will not happen there has not been enough time in the life of this

universe for it to happen. Two plus two equalled four at the beginning of the

big bang and will still do so at the end of existence. Don’t be fooled by the

alluring suggestion that given enough time anything can etc.….. The laws of

physics the reaction of elements, biological chemical characteristics are the

same now as they have always been, adding vast tracts of time dose not

change a natural law, for if it could, they would not be laws.

It has been stated that life first formed on this earth around 3.5 billion years

ago, and that all life has developed from a single source. This has been deduced by the fact that all life share a proportion of DNA to single celled

plant life. So it is reasoned we all originated from plants! Our origins, the

human form, the cockroach form, the whale form all originating from a single

celled entity. That's a big claim, it just staggers the imagination as to how a

theory can be so accepted that it seriously purports that the likes of Ella

Wheeler Wilcox and a stick of rhubarb are kin. There was, the theory insists

those 3.5 billion years, but even so…. From a mollusc to Mozart I could never

buy it but we must persevere. From the simple to the complex the central

theme running through evolutionary teaching, minute changes etc.

Problem is, and it is a huge problem for ultra’s, it dose not follow that the size

of the life form has any correlation to the complexity or the number of base

pairs in its DNA. In fact in some cases quite the opposite. Then with the

Gnome sequence of Man completed several years ago (to my shame after I

started this book) we could begin to match inherited disease characteristics’

with a given abnormality in the genes of that individual. Over the subsequent

period we have had indications suggesting that a particular rogue gene can

now be associated with the predetermined likelihood in the inheritance of

some malady, trait or even behaviour pattern from any who carry that

particular gene. So far so good, the human body has around 3 billion chemical units of DNA or

base pairs arranged in 30,000 genes. Fair enough I hear you reason roughly

one base pair per year of development. Except that the lowly Amoeba proteus

has 290 billion base pairs, nearly 100 times that of Man. Now these base pairs

had to develop (according to evolutionary theory) so how is it that man, the

peak of so called evolutionary consequence (although there can be no pre

determined development in evolution) has 100 times less DNA than a speck of

no account jelly that's not even visible to the naked eye.

There’s more. A distant cousin of Amoeba proteus, one Amoeba dubia has a

staggering 670 billion units of DNA There is insufficient time past, present or

future for these two Amoeba who according to the theory would have had a

close mutual ancestor, to have amassed the 380 billion differences that exist

between the two, and that’s just two lowly types of amoeba. This is vitally

important and surely flies in the face of all evolutionary reasoning namely that

life forms progress from the simple to the complex, with these examples

exhibiting form that is the exact opposite to that supposed progression.

What then are we to make of all this. Well, if we are clinging to the

evolutionary premise that all life tends to progress from the simple to the

complex then there is no answer. You cannot accept that a single celled entity has 670 billion more DNA base units than man and still argue for that

progression. However you could reason that a creator has set a structure for

every life form but that structure not necessarily reflecting the complexity of

that life form.

There have been some 1.7 million plant and animal species identified and

named. There could possibly be 40 million more out there that have not been

classified, each possessing a unique DNA sequence. I would not know how to

even start working out the time required for this to have occurred. If anyone

feels that this is within their mathematical prowess then good luck, but take

into consideration a few pointers as to what needs to occur before minute

recognisable change is manifest. The only way an organism can progress or

regress is through mutation of its DNA. Ultras would have us believe that

evolution is merely mutation that happens to give that life form a slight

advantage, with that advantage being passed on to its offspring. This is

clearly nonsense. It’s nonsensical because all life is in harmony with itself.

Everything is in balance; accept of course where man has altered or changed

the normal parameters.

Evolutionists are seriously expecting us to believe that all living things, all 40

million species everything we see around us and everything that has ever been is the result of the odd rogue gene putting half a millimetre of flesh on a

toad’s lip, or an extra eyelash above a stoats left eye. As a Spanish friend

pleased with her progress in English was fond of saying when expressing

incredulity alas adding an Anglo Saxon expletive in the middle “I don’t

extremely ………. think so”.

Successful mutation is really quite rare. For there are a whole army of enzymes

whose sole purpose is to take care of any damaged delinquent DNA pairing. If

these enzymes can’t take care of the problem then the result can be catastrophic

for the cell and ultimately for the life form. There is literally a mobile enzyme

repair crew on hand to deal with any deviation from the norm. Any mutation

would have to have escaped these defence mechanisms and just happen to

prove advantageous to its life form. In reality most observed mutations have a

negative influence on the viability of the form, cycle cell, dwarfism, downs

syndrome etc. There is an ongoing long term experiment that rather proves my

point.

Thomas Hunt Morgan of Columbia University has been credited with

observing the first fruit fly mutant, a white eyed specimen way back in 1910. Since then in laboratories around the world the humble fruit fly drosophila
melanosgasterhas been minutely studied by generations of researchers, they

have even given themselves a name ‘prosophilists’ or fly people. The flies ten

day life span makes them ideal subject matter for studying the consequences

of mutation. The creatures have been subject to doses of x-rays so as to

speed up these mutations. They have been selectively bred to attain

predetermined physical characteristics. Over the years these researchers

have observed millions of generations of fruit flies.

Since the genome of the fly has now been written any mutation can be

ascribed to a particular gene. Not quite as simple as that but the defect can

be narrowed down to a number of possibilities. Thousands of such mutations

have been catalogued; these include various deformities, missing legs, extra

legs small wings, no wings etc., some of these mutations have been induced

by deliberately high doses of radiation. In all that time not one mutation has

been recorded that gives that particular fly an advantage over its fellows,

indeed any mutation is inevitably disadvantageous, and if fertile any offspring

always reverts back to the norm. Which I would have thought may concern

your ultra evolutionist. For if after a million generations of tinkering, a fruit fly

is still the same species of fruit fly then what happens to the theory of gradual

advantageous change? I’ll tell you what happens, the theory is blown out of the water. So exact are the allowed parameters that even breeding for a

reduction of body bristles from the average 36 down to 25 (apparently this

can be done in 30 generations) renders the line infertile. Similarly breeding up

from 36 bristles to 56 has the same effect. There is a term given to this

phenomenon, “fixity of species” a generic limit to the amount of variation

possible within a given species. You can’t mess too much with a fruit fly or for

that matter any other form of life they have unalterable God given attributes

and parameters.

Anyway forget about the observed million generations of fruit Fly that never

actually changes. What about the trillions of generations of bacteria that

have been quietly replicating themselves, each with a specific role to play.

They replicate by separating, producing two identical daughters. They can’t

change or progress they have to stay the same because they come from

themselves. At this juncture your evolutionist after stating that this or

something similar must have been the first life form will skirt over the inability

of bacteria to be anything more than a single celled bacteria and we will be

presented with the next ascending life form, Metazoan or simple Jelly fish or

some such creature. No explanation as to how a single celled organism has

changed into a multi celled form and with all the added attributes and appendages conveniently in place, enabling it to carry out its new role which

is always in balance with its new surroundings. It's all too ridiculous.

Chapter nineteen

It has been estimated that the number of bacteria exceeds five million trillion

trillion that’s a five with 30 zeros, a fair old number, and guess what, every

man jack of them is there for a reason, they all have their role to play their

task to fulfil. There are no bacteria aimlessly looking around for something to

do. They all exist for a purpose. A perfect biological fit.

Bacteria are divided into seven groups with four of these groups making up

the vast majority namely

1) Gram Positive Cocci

2) Gram Negative Cocci

3) Gram Positive Bacilli

4) Gram Negative Bacilli

All Bacteria are divided into two types

a) Autotruphes b) Hetrotrophs

These classifications in the main describing how the organism takes in

sustenance. The Auto’s can exist by a form of photosynthesis deriving

nourishment from mineral sources in other words they do not need to feed on organic material. Whereas the Hetro’s, need organic material to survive,

feeding on fats, proteins and carbohydrates. Let’s try to imagine the

evolutionist view of the world at the first inkling of life. Because Auto’s do not

need organic material to survive it is logical to assume a very primitive form

of Heterotrophic Bacteria would be the first to emerge. You know as I’m

typing this it just reinforces to me the impossibility of the whole theory,

organic springing from the inorganic, emerging from what?

The reason, why there is not in existence vast mountains of dead bio mass is

because there are bacteria whose sole function is to break down the various

stages and types of dead bio material, reducing this biological material and

returning it to it’s basic molecular form, water, carbon etc. There is as much

balanced intricacy in the decaying process as there is in the building process.

The means of an orderly decomposition of dead organic material had to be in

place at the same time as the means of procreating life. We are not just

talking about the spontaneous change from inorganic to organic there had to

be in place a means of breaking down and returning that organic mass to its

various base components.. A sparrow falls to earth. Immediately a pre-set sequence of process takes

place. Bacteria in the gut turn from benign instruments of digestion to

instigators of the decomposition process. Enzymes break down muscle tissue.

Gas is given off attracting insects that lay eggs, whose young feast on the

carcase. When there is no soft flesh left Dermestid beetles feed on the hard

dried tissue, specialist bacteria consuming the feathers, everything eventually

returning to the earth (Dust thou are and dust thou will return). The resulting

nutrients, from which vegetation happily feed grow and propagate providing

the perfect pre-ordained circle of life death and life, and every life form

always fitting perfectly in an unimaginably complex bio model.

Any criticism of the basic reasoning behind evolution should set out the

physical and biological playing field on which argument will be based.

Scientific data which can be said to have been ‘proved’ inasmuch as it is

universally agreed to be fact, we can use. Creationist and evolutionist both

agree that there is a force we call gravity. I would have few dissenters when I

state categorically that the earth orbits the sun. These are facts. We can

theorise as to what gravity actually is, but we know and can measure the

effects of this physical force. Creationist’s greatest practical strength,

although most of them don’t realise it, is that they are never compelled to fit

their belief around scientific fact. (hear me out) For it already is, and always will be a perfect fit. You doubt it? Every new genetic discovery confirms a

creator. While evolutionist have to wrestle with the implications to their theory

of the latest find, we can sit back. The new data merely confirming what we

already know. We have already mentioned that it is generally perceived to be

the other way round, with evolutionists holding all the trump cards and

creationists having to justify their position. In reality it is nothing of the sort.

It is their task to ponder on the inexplicable ability of the smallest form of life

Archaea to thrive in the harshest hot spring environment, and yet to feel

perfectly at home aiding digestion in the human gut!

It is now necessary to look at what constitutes a living organism, what exactly is life? Or, what specific functions do living organisms have that are absent from non organic material? These functions have been described thus, nutrition, reproduction, sensitivity, respiration, excretion, growth and locomotion. AnimalBiology,GroveandNewell. Seven basic tenets that have to be present for us to confidently say this is life. This is so important that we really have to clarify in our minds the purpose of these seven attributes.

All life needs nutrition. From a one celled to a five trillion celled organism,

they all need to absorb nutrition. All life needs to reproduce, of course, no

argument. Sensitivity perhaps requires a little more thought. All life is

sensitive to its surroundings. If you are cold you put on a coat. If an amoeba is subject to a light source it scurries [figuratively speaking] away from the

source. The first action derived from reason the second from programmed

instinct. If a life form encounters conditions that are not sympathetic to the

prolongation of life it dies. It has sensitivity. Respiration requires little

illumination we all have to take in oxygen, plants take on carbon dioxide.

Excretion is determined by all of the above. Growth requires five of the above

as dose locomotion. Remember when we talk abut locomotion it is not just

external but also internal movement.

Every one of these functions employs numbingly complex chemical changes

to affect that given role. This process is called Metabolism. The possession

of every one of these performances separates life from non-life. Is this then

all that there is to life? clearly not. All that we have described are the

observable mechanics. We know that all life needs to reproduce and that this

function can be said to be in the exclusive domain of living organisms whether

by means of simple cell division or by the extremely complicated reproductive

process of higher animals. The method matters not one jot, what is important

is the driving force behind this activity. We have been taught that it is nothing

more than a naturally occurring process, that it is the work of “mother

nature”. Life will behave in this fashion, and we have become accustomed for

it to do so. Indeed it does, but not through haphazard mutation that at most give the recipient a temporary minuscule advantage in sustainability and

always within the bounds of the forms set parameters.

The same can be said for the other six criteria of life. All organisms, be they

puffball or puff adder have sensitivity. They all react to changes in their

internal or external environment. Again our old friend the amoeba reacting

adversely to light, scurrying, figuratively speaking away form the source, the

stimulus of light evoking a reflexive response. This clearly observed response

is again only describing the mechanical effect. We can delve further into just

how it achieves this feat, and perhaps ascertain to what purpose it has been

‘programmed’ to behave in this manner. Study of the creature’s genetic code

will yield to us even more, burrowing down to the very core of the organism.

Again we would only be determining ever deeper layers of the ‘how’s it done’

question. We would simply be observers of the mechanics. Ai this juncture

you may ask what else is there but the observed analysis of this cause and

effect. To do so would be to miss a subtle but overriding important point.

For Darwin’s theory to be correct, indeed for Dawkins, Huxley, Pollack’s and

the rest of them to be anywhere near the truth there is a natural biological

law that states that life has to proceed. If a phenomena happens there is a

reason, and clearly life does proceed generation after generation. For the life of me, I cannot see how without a designer there is any obligation for a

bunch of amino acids to behave in this extraordinary way. What we are

observing is perfect self-replicating design; in our vanity we deny even the

possibility of a designer.

Apart from the seven prerequisites for life there is another universal aspect to

living organisms. Every plant and animal on this earth is cellular….without

exception. They are all made up of individual cells each cell programmed for a

specific task. Numerically the range is astounding. The human body contains

trillions while Amoebais made up of but one.

Let’s just spend a little time on some fundamentals of cellular biology, for

their construction and thereby the whole structure of life on this planet is truly

mind numbing. We should start with the uni-celled protozoa and establish just

how complex these so-called primitive organisms really are. The invention of

the microscope in the seventeenth century gave to the naturalist of the period

access to a whole new world. The stunning realisation that previously unseen

minute forms lived out their brief life span with the same criteria as more

easily observable species in that they lived, fed, reproduced must have filled

the scholars of the period with wonder at these first seen specimens. Now with modern instrument we can now dissect individual molecules of the given

cell.

There are an enormous number of species of the Phylum Protozoa (around

50,000). Their diversity in shape, form and function make it difficult to classify

them in to various orders of the Phylum. However apart from a number of

exceptions the vast majority are uni-cellular. It is customary in books of this

nature whether pro-evolution or against, for the author to drag out an

example (after taking the wise precaution of reading up on the creature of

course) and attempt to fit his or her particular theory with the observable

characteristics of the carefully chosen organism. Who are we then to buck this

trend? Some of you will be relieved to find that our example of protozoa is not

the Amoeba, illuminating though that creature’s lifestyle may be. Instead let

us introduce you to the slipper animalcule, Paramecium.

This is a fascinating little fellow. A thousand of them living, dying and

generally going about their business wouldn’t cover a ten pence piece. It is to

be found in fresh water locations, the abundance of decaying vegetation and

bacteria forming its staple diet. Parameciumappears as a white speck and is

just about visible to a keen eye. Magnified, the creature’s fantastic structural

detail can begin to be appreciated. The outer membrane (pellicle) is made up of a relatively hard material that allows the creature to retain its

characteristic flattened cigar shape. This membrane enclosed the organism’s

outer layer (ectoplasm) made up of an equally structured lattice from which

protrude rows of hair like structures (cilium) that encompass the whole

length of the body the undulating movement of these cilia allow Paramecium

to move efficiently through the water, rather as the synchronised movement

of a millipedes’ legs allow that creature to move on land. The Parameciumcan

move at a fair old rate of knots travelling as much as 180mm per minute. Size

for size, that’s about the cruising speed of a jumbo jet! It has sensitivity, for

when it meets an immovable object, movement of the cilia is automatically

reversed so bringing Parameciumaway from the obstruction it then alters the

angle of approach and moves forward again. It may use this procedure

several times until the object is bypassed. A closer look at that regular

surface pattern reveals more intricacies. Within the framework of the lattice

(in reality two separate entities) reside minute pods [kinetosomes] lying at

right angles to the pattern of the surface. In stressful situations they can

exude a long fine thread, the purpose of which is unclear, but is presumed by

some to serve as some sort of defence mechanism. It has a rudimentary

mouth opening into which a current of water is produced washing food matter

into the opening. There is of course an anal area. It reproduces by cell

division and can do so several times a day. So let’s stop there for a moment. What we have described is a little of what

can be seen on the surface of the creature, and already we have touched

upon structures so complicated with methods of locomotion so complex that

after decades of study it is still not entirely clear how the organism co

ordinates it’s rapid movement. It surely goes in the face of all logic that the

design and prowess of this particular protozoan along with the 50,000

thousand other known types each with there role and each fulfilling that task

perfectly…. that this has nothing to do with deliberate design? ,

All single celled organisms are microcosms of higher life forms, they feed they

breed etc. Could it not be argued that they are in a sense just as highly

developed than the so say higher life forms? For they have been encapsulated

with all the requirements for existence within a single cell. They of course all

adhere to the seven prerequisites of life respiration, sensitivity etc.

Functioning within what seems to me to be pre programmed parameters,

each species perfectly designed to fulfil its’ role.

There is another point that would throw doubt on the logic of evolutionary

theory in that these creatures fulfil the given role of their Phylum and do so in

perfect balance. What’s more have done so, according to the theory, for the past several million years. Several questions immediately spring to mind. If

you state that life is continually developing through the process of natural

selection then why have these “primitives” been left behind? The vast

majority are still single celled entities, going about their business and fulfilling

the role they have been given. You would have thought that by now they

would have at least developed a few more cells, not much to ask for given the

time allowed. Their lack of progress becomes even more disappointing when

we consider the life span of your average protozoa.

How many generations of amoeba would live and die during the existence of

say an eel or an elephant? Surely at this level the opportunity for change is

multiplied thousands if not millions of times. But no, your average Protozoa is

content to while away it’s time doing exactly the same thing, in exactly the

same way as did its forbearer a billion generations ago.

To creationists the answer is obvious; in fact there isn’t even a question.

Protozoa have their niche in the overall scheme of things. They operate within

the limit of their purpose and fulfil their role perfectly. The notion of

development or progress through natural selection is irrelevant. It’s merely

doing the job it was designed for and presumably until its creator deems

otherwise, will continue to do so. Incidentally we may say that because of its perfect design there would be no need or capacity for change. What on this

occasion is the incentive for ‘mother nature’ to change anything (Oh what a

cop out that term is, suggesting a force totally devoid of intellect yet

supposedly possessing an innate ability to influence, innovate and continually

sustain every molecule that dictates every aspect of biological life.) Because

evolution demands the denial of God, creation, which is now called nature, is

held to be the actual author of creation, how bizarre. Did you get that?

Creation itself is now deemed to be the creator. Not a new idea of course and

reminiscent of another ancient belief namely paganism. The earth and

elements are themselves transformed and promoted to be objects and

conditions of veneration.

If you are arguing from the ‘Ultra’ view haphazard change the positive

aspects of these changes adding to the viability of the species, I think we may

ask from what level of competence these protozoa sprung from. They have

to be imbued with the astounding ability of cell division with all the

complications that process demands, and it is complicated. Several distinct

events – the complete separation of the new copy from the old, duplication of

the complete genetic record and the rebuilding of the new copy all occurring

spontaneously. The chemical process and chain of events that have to be

accomplished before the arrival of the completed copy is so fabulously complex that again we are in the main, relegated to mere observers of the

process, and this from the lowest form of life.

In his Origin of Species, (purist, will I know, forgive the abbreviation of the

original title) Darwin states, “If it could be demonstrated that any
complexorgan existed, which could notpossiblyhave beenformed
by numerous successive, slight modifications, my theory would
absolutely break down”. Consequently, creationists have attempted to

persuade that the complexity of say an eye of a fly or the apparatus

responsible for generating spiders silk must have been created. They go into

great detail as to the complexity of their subject, the unique design, the fact

that it has been made to accomplish a specific purpose and therefore could

not possibly have etc. of course they are right, but they invariable lose the

argument. When refuting this argument Ultras’ will seize upon, indeed expand

on the complexity issue and delight in informing us that a particular organ is

indeed complex and then proceed to astonish us all by revealing in great

detail additional complexities that the proposer of the creation argument was

unaware. They then falls back on the Ultra’s stock in trade, unimaginable

stretches of time and minute changes. Well later in this book, we will indeed throw up one or two examples that defy

evolutionary explanation, but for the time being, we will ignore Darwin’s

challenge and concentrate not on a particular organ or process, but

something a little more basic.

We will now prove our case in the next paragraph (it may save you time

ploughing through the rest of the book). As we have stated, the prerequisites

for life are the seven vital functions. This is so important to the argument that

you will forgive me repeating them, nutrition, reproduction, sensitivity,

respiration, excretion, growth and locomotion. Every form of life has to have

the means to perform every one of these seven basic functions.

Now all I ask is that you think this through logically. Is it possible that all

these performances could conceivably have come together spontaneously? So

that one moment you have non-organic base elements, and they are only

base components not one atom of one molecule of these base components is

organic. With no alchemist to miraculously conjure this monumental change,

with no being able to create what has never occurred before, these elements

are naturally fused by an as yet unknown non-reasoning force and low and

behold a living one celled entity within an outer membrane it’s various

components also encased in inner membrane like structures (remember all life is cellular) emerges from non life, that is capable of sustaining itself, with

the will to instinctively reproduce, and the means to do so conveniently in

place. Not only sensitivity to its surroundings but in order to survive is in

complete harmony with those surroundings. Astonishingly this creature could

actually grow, the metabolism for this growth set and primed for expansion.

No we cannot say primed for would that not imply a measure of planning?

This organism was indeed fortunate, for it not only possessed the wit and

mechanics to derive nourishment (from what source is another question) but

as luck would have it, actually found itself equipped with an efficient

excretory system. Lucky break that! Locomotion was another bonus, it may

not have been able to move about a lot, but presumably everything internally

had space to work and move efficiently. As if all this wasn’t enough, by an

incredible stroke of good fortune it found itself to be in possession of the

means and mechanics of respiration. Our mythical creature would indeed

have been blessed, for every atom, making up every molecule giving the

correct alignment and combination of the four DNA lettering would have to be

in place from the very first second of existence……..the first second!. I don’t

care how primitive you visualise this life form that is how it had to be. My

judgement, my intellect tells me… no screams that this is not possible. How

tragic that despite the undeniable logic and obvious truth of those proceeding

paragraphs most of you will still be unable to accept the only other alternative. Either from your received education or from your chosen atheism

you have no choice but to accept the impossible, that the origin and

generation of life occurred spontaneously from non-life.

Here is something I have inserted after completion of this book, and it’s just a

thought. Because everything in this universe exists within the framework of

physical law which is as valid at the sub atomic level as it is at the galactic

level. Is there a law that allows for the creation of life? If evolution is true and

there has been no supernatural input then surely there must be one. We live

our lives confident in the knowledge that matter will always behave in a

predetermined way. We have become apt at predicting the flight pattern of a

thrown ball because it always follows rules of trajectory, velocity and gravity.

We exist and work within these laws. So again the question, and I have no

idea where this is going. Organic matter can in the end be broken down to its

base components Carbon, hydrogen etc. so it exists within the same laws as

the rest of matter. So where is the law that allows for the spontaneous

allowance of life?.... no, where is the law that says life must take place

because A has joined with B with a smattering of C and that formula means

life has to form? You will appreciate I’m thinking on the hoof here and I don’t

even know if it’s a valid point …is there an as yet unknown formalistic law

that will trigger the creation of life. If there is then surely that would be evolutionist’s Holy Grail. That’s it boys, find that formula and I will concede.

Meanwhile I’m happy to stay as I am

What then are the theories’ evoked by evolution’s academia when attempting

to throw some speculative light on this unanswerable fundamental? Some

have argued that the first awakening of life was in some way non cellular,

perhaps something akin to virus. Not a virus as we know it of course, for as

we all know virus can only operate successfully when it is able to infiltrate a

living cell.

Spontaneous generation within an evolutionary environment was one idea

that flourished, until Pasteur [1822-95] showed conclusively that no organism

could exist except as the offspring of pre-existing forms. How strange that

evolutionist cling to a theory that Pasteur disproved. The reality is that

science admits that the birth of self replicating organic molecules from simple

chemical compounds is a tricky one, but prefer to accept life as a fact

concentrating their efforts in determining how the various life forms progress.

If you take evolutionary theory to its logical conclusion then the, “way back in

the mists of time” argument must insist that organic material did at some

stage arise from the inorganic. So supporting the creationist idea! What a

delicious paradox. Virtually all evolutionary science ignores this basic question, plenty of ideas on

how modern animal life has developed. We have all seen the illustration of

the various stages of Man emerging from a progression of humanoid like

creatures. We have touched on the various schools of thought endlessly

theorising on detail. As to the basic question of how organic developed from

inorganic, hardly a murmur, and for good reason, without a creator it could

not have happened. Here’s how Darwin deals with the problem, “I must
premise, that I have nothing to do with the origin of the primary
mental powers, any more than I have with life itself. We are
concerned only with the diversities of instinct and of the other
mental qualities of animals within the same class.” Origin of Species

In other words it’s none of my business, I don't want to know. Perhaps that’s

a little harsh, he was writing in that instance about animal instinct but draws

attention to the fact that he had absolutely no idea how intelligence let alone

life was formed.

The authors of the old faithful Animal Biology, Gove & Newell, put it this

way, “ Some simple form of life certainly must have arisen
spontaneously, although perhaps under very different conditions,
early in the Palaesoric. For the present then, biologists are content
to accept the fact of life and are more concerned with the way in which the various forms of living organisms arose.’ Or, there does

appear to be a problem here, but let’s ignore it and have a stab at something

we may get to understand. I’m trying not to be facetious here but that last

quotation contains three speculative assumptions and an admission that

scientists would be more gainfully employed if they concentrated their efforts

elsewhere. Do you know what for me the most incredible part of that

paragraph is? “For the present then, biologists are content to accept
the fact of life” Oh are they, seems to me there is little choice in the matter

if you insist on the validity of evolution. So we are expected to accept that

“simple forms of life arose spontaneously in perhaps different circumstances”.

Who are they trying to kid, it’s unbelievable. I cannot picture circumstances

be it climatic or geographic that would better serve the continuance of life

than the conditions that appertain today.

In these two books’ one a respected standard reference, the other a work

from which the whole theory has been based, nothing is written that gives

any insight on the basic question. A whole science has grown and flourished

without addressing this basic problem. Or more accurately choosing to skirt

around it, starting the book and ignoring not only the introduction, but also

chapter one. Why is this? To admit to the alternative would be unthinkable. It

would betray at a stroke the whole basis of modern scientific acceptance. Can you imagine the consequences? Towering edifices of academic principle swept

away as it is realised that all along their foundation had not as previously

thought been built on solid Darwinian granite, but of the finest sand

entrapping all who venture and condemning those unfortunates who

succumb, to a lifetime of academic impotence.

. Chapter twenty

Pick up any school biology textbook and turn to the section that deals with

evolution. There you will more than likely see the familiar set of illustrations

purporting to show the evolution of the horse. When I began researching this

book it became apparent to me that this particular example has a special

appeal to evolutionist, for it has been used time and time again, the seductive

logic of steady progression and change from “primitive” to the modern animal

seemingly irresistible to generations of popular evolutionary authors. When

did this wonderfully complete set of the developing equine form first see the

light of day? Moreover what genius had the wit and good fortune to first piece

together this remarkable unbroken line? Obviously, unless some flaw in the

reasoning behind this progression presented itself then I might as well admit

defeat, bundle up my papers and look for a proper job.

One can see the attraction of course, how on earth could anyone possible

dispute what is plain for all to see? a steady progression of form culminating

in the modern horse. Surely then undeniable proof of evolution in action.

Well as the three card mechanic when pressed would have to admit, things

are not quite as they would appear. I have reproduced the set of drawings concerned Fig 4 P231 and there are

one or two points that immediately strike one as being a little odd. We will

leave aside for one moment the configuration of the creatures fore and hind

leg. It struck me when I was copying these drawings that there had been a

conscious effort by the illustrator to portray the early additions of the horse as

perhaps a little more primitive looking than the modern animal. In fact the

further we are taken back the dumber the creature appears. Could this

possibly have been artistic licence or have we indeed unearthed complete

skeletal evidence, enabling us to clothe the bones with flesh, skin and hair? I

mean just look at poor old Merychippus, what with those blunted features and

that awkward stance, certainly a more neglected creature you would not wish

to meet. But at least he had the beginnings of a mane, which is more than

could be said for Mesohippus! There is another point which any artist among

you would immediately realise if he or she also attempted to copy Lulls

original drawings, these animals, these drawings were made up, one man’s

opinion as to how he thinks these creatures looked I cannot tell you how or

why I know this, just that what little amount of artistic appreciation of form

and movement I have been given tells me they are fiction. Invariably in this type of speculative illustration there is what can only be

described as a sub-conscious desire on the part of the artist to hypothesise

positively in favour of the assumed edicts of his cause in this instance natural

selection. It is assumed that creatures of the Miocene and Paleocene were

somehow less developed, so let’s draw them as such. It is assumed that

morphological progression will bring about a creature that is more pleasing to

the eye, hence the unflattering comparison between Merychippus and the

modern horse.

As so often when having to demolish a stubbornly ingrained hair brained

assumption, we find the root of the idea goes back to the very beginning of

evolutionary science. At a time when evolution as a theory, had not been

totally accepted there was an overriding need for concrete examples.

Examples that would offer irrefutable proof to scathing creationists,

something that would put an end once and for all to the cruel lampooning by

the period’s social cartoonists, incidentally a form of expression that in that

age held great power through its ability to satirise, criticise or praise.

The trail leading to the discovery of dobbins’s ancestry, leads all the way back

to a man who more than any other succeeded in elevating evolutionary

theory into supposed scientific fact. Thomas Henry Huxley was a colossus of his time. From humble beginnings in an East End slum, this man rose to

become a president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science.

Darwin and Wallace were the originators, but Huxley took their ideas and with

crusading fanaticism was for two generations its leading storm trooper.

To Huxley, evolution offered a credible alternative to the structured

Judeo/Christian ethic, he embraced the philosophical consequences of non

creative origin allowing him to justify and pursue a life of sexual freedom and

seeing in it an intellectual solution to his profound agnosticism (that’s if you

can be a profound agnostic) Incidentally it was Huxley who coined the word).

Embrace it he did, for well over half a century his life was dedicated to the

cause. Adrian Desmond in his excellent biography Huxley, FromDevil’s
DiscipletoEvolution’sHighPriest1998, (Adison Wesley) paints a picture of an

extraordinary lifetime crusade dedicated to overturning the old Anglican

dogma and replacing it with the new thrusting Darwinian science. These early

advocates saw themselves as soldiers battling against the established

creationist idea. Indeed Desmond often infers a military parallel between the

two sides. Crusty old defenders of creation verses Huxley’s new thrusting

evolutionary thought. It was a battle in which the creationist could never win.

Gradually, to be associated with the established order was to be seen as hopelessly reactionary. The likes of Huxley with his anti-creationist Red Guard

swept all before them.

In 1876 Huxley accompanied by his wife set sail for the new world. A lucrative

lecture tour was to bring him into contact with Othniel Charles Marsh who had

been installed as Yale’s first professor of palaeontology. A post created by

Marsh’s millionaire uncle George Peabody. Marsh had gathered the Peabody

fossils on his numerous forays into the Dakota badlands. It is this source that

Huxley first encountered the famous progression of horse creatures now so

familiar to us all. Marsh had assembled a complete set of fossils that

purported to show this uninterrupted progression. One of the problems

though, was that Marsh was selective, discarding fossils that would confuse or

indeed contradict his preferred lineage. One can almost sympathise here. The

temptation to ignore or promote a certain fossil in order to fit what was

essentially a pre-imagined scenario must have been overwhelming.

Unfortunately this was not the only time in his career that Marsh exaggerated

the validity of his findings. We have all heard of the dinosaur Brontosaurus,

along with Raptors and Tyrannosaurus Rex probably to the layman the most

familiar. It was Marsh who gave the name Brontosaurus (it means thunder

lizard) after finding a torso on one of his many fossil hunting forays. The lack

of skull legs or tail did not it seems trouble Othanial he merely found another skull attached it to his torso fossil along with an imagined tail, and there you

have it Brontosaurus. It wasn’t until the 1980s that Brontosaurus could no

longer be found in serious scientific text books, one hundred years before

science reluctantly dropped Marsh’s fake. Yet even now you can still find

drawings of this fictional beast in popular science books.

Back to Huxley; suffice to say he was ecstatic. From Buffalo to Nashville he

was acclaimed and fated by the American intelligentsia, receiving honours and

hefty fees for his numerous lectures. But most prized of all, he had sequential

fossil evidence that would seem to validate Darwin’s theory. Let’s now ask a

few pertinent questions about these fossils.

First let’s be magnanimous and assume that Marsh’s fossils are exactly what

they have been presented as, a progression of development for which the

modern horse is but the latest culmination. For our purposes, it matters not

whether the illustrator’s impression of the body’s is accurate or merely artistic

licence. What is important, and what we will base part of our argument on, is

the skeletal fore and hind foot. Now as I understand it, one of the

consequences of evolution is that over vast periods of time creatures tend to

become more complex. Minute positive changes are likely to enhance the

survival chances of the fortunate recipient. That change then being passed on to the next generation. Dawkins would have us believe that the eye started

from one or two light sensitive cells and then…. Well you all know the theory.

Take a look at Marsh’s drawings, surely there must be some mistake. Oh, and

remember that the illustrations are not drawn to scale. The original drawings

(drawn by Marsh to accompany Huxley’s lectures) were not complete, for

there was an even older five-toed specimen that had not been unpacked

awaiting classification in Yale’s basement. If you were to view the drawing

upside down with the modern horse representing the ancient Eocene period

and Orohippus (Eohippus) the modern form then surely that would be more in

keeping with evolutionary theory. Then, you would indeed have a form that

as the years roll on became more complex. I would have thought that in

evolutionary thinking four toes are just a little bit more complicated than a

hoof!

What we are asked to believe when looking at this set of drawings is that the

ancient horse (no bigger than a dog) changed over millions of years from the

five toed to the single hoof. I really don’t know where to begin when arguing

against this sort of reasoning. No mention of how he developed five toes in

the first place, presumably from a simpler form. In which case the horse is

even more remarkable than we first supposed. Here is this creature working

its way up the evolutionary ladder gradually accumulating a complete set of toes and then almost as an afterthought deciding to ditch these hard won

digits because it feels that it might after all be better off with a hoof.

The circumstances that are said to encourage these dramatic modifications

are thought by some to be changes in the creature’s environment (shades of

Mrs Nicholas!) it is reasoned that the small Eohippus lived on the vegetation

bordering streams. The ground would have been relatively soft so of course

digitigrades limbs would have been ideal. Unfortunately in the Oligocene

period the land had become much dryer the need to escape from predators

would favour a decrease in the number of digits. (This is laughable) Such a

blessing then that Mesohippus;(Miohippus)had by this time prudently lost

one of its digits and live to carry on the line. It’s reconstructed fore and hind

leg apparently suited to the now prairie like conditions. I’m not making this

up, the interpretation and motivation for change is explained only by climatic

change. Let me quote from an American encyclopaedia of the horse. “The
next significant development occurred in the lower and middle
Oligocene period withMesohippus, a recognisable enlargement of
Eohippus, which may have stoodat about 18in (45cm) high. The
rounded back was retained, but the legs were longer in proportion,
and the toes on the forefeet had been reducedto three. There were
the beginnings of premolar or incisor teeththat were capable of a stronger, choppingaction and thusable to consumeagreater
variety of foliage.
The differencein the physical structurecan be taken as
adaptations reflectingachange in thephysical environment. The
physical changes thatoccurred in Mesohippus point to an
environment in which jungleconditions were gradually giving way
to wooded scrub areas, probably supporting low brush and shrub.
Thelossof the fourth toe, which would have caused more weightto
be taken by the central of the three toes, also indicate a gradual
change in the ground conditions. As a result of the receding wet
jungle environment, the ground though still soft would have been
considerable firmer thanpreviously and thus better suitedto the
new foot structure.”

I have to keep hammering this home, the environment cannot be

instrumental in determining massive physical change certainly in the reduction

in the number of toes.

Of course I'm not alone in ridiculing this climatic assumption for change. The

writers at Carm.org are thorough in showing the impossibility of the this

progression. Helen Fryman points out that it is not only the feet that have

changed but that the number of ribs within the series has changed from fifteen to nineteen then to eighteen. And that the lumber vertebrae have

proceeded from six to eight and then back to six again.

But I suppose we have to proceed, having gone thus far the next logical step

would be to elongate and enlarge the middle toe, round it off a bit and give it

some semblance to the modern hoof; you would then be ideally placed to

gallop away from all but the swiftest of foes. We have Hipparion(Hyperion) to

thank for this innovation. Through to the modern horse who display no

vestiges of its resourceful predecessors.

What complete and utter nonsense. What happens to animal life when there

is a change in the environment? Let’s say for example that lush vegetation

gives way to prairie or desert. It can be a relatively quick change perhaps

following some catastrophic event. Or one that takes thousands, perhaps tens

of thousands of years. If the animal cannot thrive in a changing

environmental situation it either moves to a more hospitable habitat, or it

dies. End of story. It most certainly does not lose a few toes, gain a couple of

ribs and acquire a set of hooves. We can see a parallel in our own rapidly changing environment. Due to a

combination of intensive farming and urbanisation, there is a sad decline in

the skylark population. This bird nests on the ground, and can still be seen in

Lincolnshire, where its exhilarating song is a delight to those that walk the

Wolds and fens of that county. If the skylark’s decline continues surely the

bird would be better off adapting a different lifestyle. Why does it not try

nesting in trees or hedges? That way it would be relatively safe from the

areas highly mechanised farming methods. Of course it does not have that

option. It has been programmed to operate within certain parameters.

Instinct dictates the bird’s behaviour. That is not to say that there is

absolutely no provision for the animal adopting a change in behaviour or

indeed form but only, and this is crucial, only if those changes fall within the

perimeters pre-endowed to that particular creature.

Getting back to our fable, what chance did the supposed horse’s ancestor

have when things started to go wrong? None, it became extinct. It did not

change its habitat, it did not alter its diet, and it most certainly did not lose a

toe. Where then did its supposed successors come from? The answer is

obvious. They already existed. Each was a completely different creature. You

can’t assemble a bunch of bone fragments into a preconceived notion and

then claim that this is the proof we were all waiting for. How scientific is that. Then there are the dubious circumstances surrounding this marvellous

discovery. All these proofs were uncovered in the 1870s by a man whose

position at Yale was created under the patronage of good old Uncle George. I

cannot say if Marsh academically deserved his exalted position, just that he

was a very lucky man. For consider his good fortune, here’s a young fellow

who after a few forays into the badlands comes back with not one ancient

fossil but a whole bunch, and by a lucky coincidence they all match, complete

creatures! Not only that, creatures that purport to illustrate a sequence

spanning 55 million years, from the Eocene 54-34my, Oligocene 34-24my,

Miocene24-5.3my, Pliocene (5.3-2.5my) ,Pleistocene (2.5-0.01my) through to

the present, truly a remarkable piece of diligent science. Come on, and this to

the guys who spend their whole life digging for fossils. You know it did not

happen. But it’s believed and has gone virtually unchallenged all this time,

almost as though it’s been allowed to escape scrutiny for fear of opening up

doubt in the theory itself. Sure, you can hear them reason there are few

discrepancies but lets just leave it for now. They have been leaving it for over

a hundred years, a conspiracy of intellectual cowardice. No complete series

of fossils have been found in any one place in the world. Three toed examples

have been found in the same rock formation as a one toed horse (Nevins,

Stuart E Creation Research Soc. Quarterly) Vol10 March 1974. Where can we see Nathanial’s original sequences today? Sadly we cant,

reproductions and fanciful reconstructions have been made with little

indication to show if the reproductions are complete fossils or fragments. I

dare say the builders of these exhibits are as guilty of as much artistic licence

as Haeckel.

If you want to study the theory of Horse evolution in some detail from an

evolutionary viewpoint then type in Katherine Hunt talkorigins.org At least

Katherine dose not subscribe to the simplified progression normally illustrated

But in the end even she succumbs to the general theory but in her case listing

over thirty progressions rather than the usual five or six. Chapter twenty one

Let's try and understand and perhaps get a feel of what geologist and Ultra’s

mean when they talk about immense periods of time. Again there is little or

no consensus as to just how long ago we are talking about. It doesn’t really

effect our argument though as you will see we can give them the benefit of

any doubt and maybe add on a few hundred million years.

Geologists have categorised the strata of the earth into several different

aeons and give an estimated time as to when these various strata were laid

down. Palaeontologists have found fossils in that strata and concluded that

those life forms are of broadly the same age. Is that assumption correct? I

have to say yes. No one can argue with the logic of that claim. No one that is

except the young earth school of creationist whose doctrine dispute the need

for that amount of time. They claim it's possible for rock formation to be

accelerated and that despite evidence to the contrary it is still possible to fit

that formation within a six thousand year biblical time frame. This is clearly

nonsense and in my opinion a misinterpretation of biblical text. I will later

attempt to show that there is no conflict between true biblical interpretation

and the fossil record. (Thata' be interesting I hear someone murmur) That

however comes later. It has been estimated that the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old (along

with the moon),the Milky Way 9-15 billion with the figure of 10-15 billion

being given for the age of the universe. Now lets be honest no one can say if

these unimaginable figures are anywhere near the truth frankly it dose not

really matter much to our argument. The time scale of Earth is derived in the

main from radiometric dating. On searching the web for a simple explanation

of radiometric dating I came across Pamela J. W. Gores excellent site

(www.gpc.edu/pgore/geology)

I will paraphrase it as follows.

“Natural-occurring radioactive material breaks down into other
materials at known rates.This is known as radioactivedecay.
Radioactiveparents decay to stable daughter elements.
Many radioactiveelementscanbe used as geologicalclocks. Each
element decays at its ownconstant rate.Once that rate is known,
geologists can estimate the lengthof time decay has been occurring
(by measuring the amount of radioactive parentelement and the
amount of stable daughter element) The rate of decay is
proportional to the number of parent atoms present. The proportion
of parent to daughter tells us thenumber of half life’s. Which wecan use to determinetheage inyears.

Now this method of determination will never be one hundred percent correct.

It assumes that there is no variation in the rate of decay, and there has been

no leaching of the radioactive parent, in effect that conditions have been

stable from the time of the lying down of material to the time of its analyses.

No one can know. What we can say is that it dose point to an earth

considerably older than six thousand years. Having accepted the general

thrust of this geological time span, dose this compromise our argument? not a

bit as will be shown later as we now delve into the various schools of

creationist thought. Chapter twenty two

You may not be surprised to learn that creationist have strikingly different

views as to how God completed his creation and to what time period we can

ascribe his work. They fall into three main groups. The most fundamental

being those that advocate the world indeed the universe has only been in

existence for 6000 years. (Young Earthers) They argue that under certain

circumstances geology can be speeded up. The laying down of rock strata

need not be the culmination of millions of years, but of a few thousand. In

certain circumstances coal and oil can be formed in a very short space of

time. It has to be thus, because that’s what the Bible says. At first sight this

group would appear to represent creationism in its purist form, but there are

serious flaws, this is fundamentalism of the middle ages. Evolutionist find this

school the easiest to ridicule even with data that is in itself suspect. In my

view advocates of this doctrine are deceiving themselves. The world is older

than six thousand years. There can be no doubt they are wrong. So the fault

must lie in their interpretation of Biblical text. Or the Bible is wrong.

In the modern era this particular belief has probably done more harm to the

Christian cause than any other. You have to be blind or at least severely blinkered not to realise that there have been innumerable ages before the

advent of Man.

Despite disagreeing with their analysis of geological and biological data and

therefore suspect conclusion, I have a smattering of sympathy for their plight,

but not much. They defend what really is indefensible but do so with real

Christian zeal and fervour all against indisputable evidence that there view is

contrary to all evidential logic. But no one can deny there zeal, indeed some

adherents see the maintenance of this belief almost as a test of their faith

resulting in the most strident even aggressive defence of their position. As I

say this would be fine if it were not for the harm that it dose to the creationist

cause.

The second school in the creationist camp are the intelligent design fraternity.

To quote from one of there web sites,

“Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a

Community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence

for design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain

features of the universe and of living things can only be explained by an

intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of

chance, natural law, intelligent design or some combination thereof. Such

research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when

intelligent agents act. Scientist then seeks to find objects which have those

same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from

intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect

design in irreducible complex biological structures, the complex and specified

information content in DNA, the life sustaining physical architecture of the

universe, and the geological rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil

record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.”

inteligentdesign.org

They hold that there seems to be evidence of an evolutionary connection but

insist that it has all been planned and overseen by God. They are torn

between their formal education with its almost compulsory acceptance of

evolutionary reasoning and their belief in God. I.D theorists believe they have

found a way to square these opposing ideas. The price that has to be paid,

and it is a big price, is the implied doubt cast on the validity of biblical text

and as I have always believed if the text is wrong then why bother adhering

to its principles and teaching. The advantage ID offers, if indeed it is an

advantage is that it allows adherents access to aspects of mainstream evolutionary thinking. This view on the beginnings and development of life is

now perhaps held by the majority of Christians, simply because it allows for

that participation.

The first cousins of intelligent design believers are the so called “Theistic

Evolutionist” They believe God is integrated into the evolutionary process,

basically filling in the gaps that evolutionist cannot answer e.g. life originating

from non-life. As such the Genesis account is of course allegory. I have

always been a black or white man, it’s either true or it ain’t, no shades of grey

and if one part is not true then you don’t base your whole life on any of it (so

much simpler that way)

We then have the forth school of creationist thinking, those that advocate the

Gap theory. That the world has indeed been around for millions of years, that

life did perpetuate this planet during this period, but that catastrophic events

caused life to cease, only to be renewed by God 6000 years ago. In effect a

second creation.

So which is it to be? As Christians our choice would have to be drawn from

interpretation of Scripture and the only source for that is Biblical text. So what

dose the Bible tells us. This so called gap refers to a supposed time period between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 “In the beginning God created the

heaven and the earth. (Now we have our gap, it could be millions of years)

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of

the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters”.

Genesis 1:1 dose in fact state that God made the heaven and the earth,

which would seem to indicate a completed process. Heaven, which in this

case can be translated as the sky or the atmosphere surrounding the earth,

and the earth itself. It dose not say in the beginning God created the heaven

and the earth but decided not to finish the job. It indicates a completed form.

Moreover the second verse mentions water and the deep. This strengthens

the suggestion in verse one of a completed earth. You can’t have a completed

earth without water. Verse two also states that “the earth was without form

and void” again indicating an existing earth albeit now in a chaotic state. “God

is not the author of confusion” Corinthians 14:33 so it seems unlikely that he

would first have made a chaotic earth and then spend six days rectifying and

repairing his own work.

So I have to embrace the gap theory simply because it supports an age prior

to the six day creation, therefore allowing millions of years of geological and

biological history, a period that precedes the Biblical creation (recreation). Simple when you think about it, and at a stroke putting an end to the

deserved incredulity given to those who rest their whole faith on a six

thousand year earth. If you Google “without form and void” you can spend a

week trying to make sense of the interpretation Hebrew scholars have

devoted to these first two verses. There are some who insist that the gap is

valid and others who are not so sure. Grammatically the argument is

inconclusive, from what I can gather Hebrew grammar is contextual and

therefore open to varied interpretation. All I know is the existence of this

“gap” allows for previous ages and therefore is in harmony with ancient

geological and biological data. For those with an academic interest in this vital

question I would recommend you google Arthur C Custance 'Doorway Papers'

and then 'without form and void' Chapter twenty three

As we approach the end of this offering I would like to put forward an

interlude chapter without categorisation but as a general conversation on the

validity of each side’s point of view. I realise for the majority of reader’s

attitudes are entrenched and nothing will change their respective positions,

clearly once a Christian/Atheist mostly always a C or A. It is rare to be

persuaded by the opposing argument although it can happen. Otherwise I

suppose we would have the same political party in power for generations.

This tends not to happen so a change in attitude or allegiance is possible.

In the main both sides are defending their belief not from an open well

thought out considered position but from entrenched religious or secular

commitment, hence the absurd statements both sides tend to make when

defending these beliefs. We have touched on the theory that the Earth is only

six thousand years old, clearly nonsensical, almost as bizarre as believing that

a Giraffes neck grew a millimetre every thousand, ten or one hundred

thousand years, those extra millimetres giving the creature an advantage

when feasting on the leaves of tall trees! Incidentally what advantage is

there for the young and adolescent Giraffe who for the first couple of years has to make do with foliage a little closer to the earth? The point is no matter

how different within either camp the various theories on the origins of life

may be, all differences are suspended to repel any attack mounted by the

opposing side.

Quickly getting back to the Giraffe thing I can hear the die-hards still bleating

“well it could happen given enough time” no folks it could not. That extra

millimetre would have to come from one chance mutation in the Giraffe’s

DNA, and mutations in the main are not passed on to offspring. The odds of

several million mutations over a period of time surviving and gradually

bringing about a three metre elongation of a neck with the accompanying

changes in respiratory, muscle, gullet, skin etc. and that mutation eventually

spreading to the total world population of giraffes are more than there are

atoms in the universe (about 4 followed by seventy nine zero’s according to

one source) No, forget the odds it could never happen. Every one of the two

million species of plant and animal life identified and every one of the five to

forty million not yet identified had to, according to evolutionist reach their

current state of being by similar advantageous mutation. The chances of that

occurring my friends would require a number somewhat more than the

number of atoms in ten trillion Universes. Please believe that’s not the way it

happened. We have touched upon the atheistic motivational spell that evolutionist from

Huxley to Dawkins have worked under. J.B.S Haldane was another giant

revered by some evolutionist. A brilliant man influencing evolutionary thought

for fifty years before his death in the mid sixties. He was a friend of Aldous

Huxley and a lifelong old school communist and right until the end of his life

an apologist for Stalin. (Again isn’t it strange that most evolutionists lean

politically to the left.... (apart that is from Rod Liddle.) For me Haldane's

saving grace is the amusing way he described existence.

“Myown suspicionisthattheuniverseisnotonlyqueererthan wesuppose
butthatitisqueererthan wecan suppose.”

Haldane’s political and atheistic beliefs were the driving force for his life’s

work. All these men and hundreds of other like minded scholars have it seems

to me no other choice but to embrace evolution. Just as the creationist must,

by his belief support a God created world.

Both sides cannot budge because to do so would undermine core belief. They

and we are both willing prisoners to religious or atheistic conviction. I don’t

for one moment think that even Richard Dawkins or for that matter any other

evolutionist who has public-ally stated their position dose not in the wee small

hours experience just a twinge of doubt over an unanswerable anomaly. And

I’m equally sure creationists entertain similar unease. The high flyers of every branch of science have for the last ninety years all

been educated with the basic assumption that evolution is a fact, therefore I

can understand and have some sympathy with their refusal to countenance a

religious interpretation. It is unfortunate though; no it is tragic that the life

work of brilliant men in the field of genetics, palaeontology all fields of

biology, and the rest of the natural sciences choose, or rather are compelled

to embrace what after all is a provable untruth only because they refuse to

accept that there is a God. They will never know the truth because they are

forced to carry out their life's work with the very real encumbrance of a basic

underlying falsehood.

I’m trying to imagine what it would be like to be totally convinced that there

is no God, and what’s more be antagonistic to any organisation or individual

who dose believe. I’m not talking about people who really don’t care one way

or the other or those who prefer not to dwell on the subject but those who

are if you like strident atheist. How did they first formulate their conviction,

and by what influence? I can see that taking a certain political stance may

incline you to the total rejection of any supernatural aspect in our lives. I’ve

just mentioned the preponderance of the political left in embracing atheism,

and I suppose that goes right back to the influence of Marxist dogma. For it cannot be denied there is a link. Just as it can be said that there is a link

between fundamentalist believers and the centre-right.

I just feel that it must be quite ….what’s the word, not lonely but almost as

though there is no real point to your life, certainly a void. When you die is

that it, nothing. I don’t think I could take that. How do atheists feel when

they are at deaths door, or when they have lost a love one? It must be

terrible. You can’t tell me that for the most part they are content to pass into

oblivion.

Because I know there is a Supreme Being that is concerned, indeed loves you

me and all humanity past and present therefore I know that everything that

has ever occurred has gone on under the auspices of that Supreme Being and

therefore everything will eventually be revealed according to his plan and

purpose. That purpose although revealed in the pages of Biblical text is

perhaps outside the scope of this work. I have over the years found a great

deal of inspired interpretation and revelation from the Living Church of God

www.lcg.org indeed it was probably that church or at least a previous

incarnation of that church that led me into questioning this whole subject but

my readers will have to make up their own mind as to whether they should pursue that particular line of enquiry. Thought you wouldn’t mind if I gave

them a plug though!

We have up to now concentrated on the physical make-up of living creatures

we have stated our case and the reader must abide with their opinion or

change it. But before you finally decide which camp to stay with or join let’s

explore the difference between animal and human intelligence, between

human intellect and animal instinct. Earlier we quoted Darwin as having no

idea on the origins of intelligence or with life itself. Evolutionary writers have

in the main steered clear of the awkward fact that evolution demands that life

originally formed from non-life. This has been thoroughly discussed and you

will now know the views expressed here. But what about intelligence is there

a fundamental difference between Human kind and animal kind? Are we no

more than a more developed species that has by chance mutated a more

advanced brain?

It is my assertion that animal behaviour is ruled only by instinct and

experience. Already I hear dog lovers howling there disagreement avowing

that their pooch really dose show its owner love and affection. Well actually

no, the dog owner is the principle source of food and so the animal soon

learns that particular behaviour is associated with the provision of that food. Being a pack animal it seeks out its place in the household hierarchy and

when found be it dominant or subservient, achieves the equivalence of canine

contentment. The fact that in all other respect apparently intelligent, certainly

sane people can actually believe that their dog is…. OK I can see that perhaps

I’m not helping my cause by relegating household pets to something less than

the status some owners are happy to bestow on them.

So let’s just concentrate on animal behaviour, dose an animal have intellect?

Can it reason? I’m not talking about a Chimpanzee poking a stick at a termite

mound. Dose it actually have intellect. It seems to me that all animals will

only behave according to the rigid criterion that appertains to their particular

species. We observe these behaviour patterns, indeed exploit this known

instinctive behaviour to our own advantage. Be it trawling for cod or livestock

farming there are no surprises, animal behaviour is dictated by a pre ordained

set of rules. The wildebeest has in its make-up a need to migrate vast

distances as dose that supreme performer among migratory birds the Arctic

Tern, this is their natural instinctual behaviour. The point I’m trying to make is

that every aspect of animal behaviour and practice is dictated by a pre given

set of instincts that in the main cannot change. I will accept that man’s

expansion has altered the habits of certain species, gulls now nest on coastal

buildings instead of cliffs and the population of gulls will be greatly enhanced if there happens to be a town rubbish tip nearby. But their diet is and always

has been in the main scavenged.

How different the function of Mankind. For we have been given a human spirit

that allows us a level of consciousness and potential far beyond mere animal

instinct.? It has unfortunately become the norm to make light of this unique

gift. Evolution teaches that we are merely a variety of hominid. Despite the

blindingly obvious difference between humanity and animal kind evolutionist

still somehow vaguely assume that our intellect is the result of ….well,

evolution. It was fashionable a few years ago to attempt to explain all aspects

of Man's behaviour and physical make-up in evolutionary terms. I remember

being told that the appendix (a small outgrowth from the large intestine) was

a redundant member with no useful function at all, being a throwback from a

distant past, a past when our dietary requirements were totally different.

Can’t quite remember if that was another of Mrs Nicholas’s gems! By the way

we now know that this seemingly insignificant tube carries cells that are

important to our immune system.

The fact that you are now reading what I once wrote is put down to a lucky

haphazard mutation! Which when you think of it does a great disservice to

the God who created us! Our intellect, our intelligence and our potential has been God given; it is a gift from the creator of the universe. So do we daily

give grateful thanks for our good fortune, no why should we? In the main we

merely put it down to a stroke of biological luck, descending from something

like Dawkins fish!

The fact that we alone possess consciousness has in this modern era greatly

troubled atheists. Alan Turing was a mathematician working at Bletchley Park

during the Second World War. He was one of many assigned to decipher the

German enigma code. Although no-one can truly be said to be the father of

computers Turing worked on and built computing machines. He wrestled with

the philosophical impossibility of a machine (in our case a biological human

machine) possessing “consciousness” Turing was an atheist and could never

rationalize this anomaly. This is a classic example of a belief (in his case

atheism) dictating the direction of all thought and logic. Of course by slavishly

following this line of reason he would never be able to find the answer to his

own question. In the end he assumed that human philosophical prowess was

nothing more than ever more complicated biological process, quietly ignoring

the fact that animals also possess the same complicated biological process but

seem to lack any form of consciousness. He was a troubled man, and

committing suicide after the revelation of his at that time illegal sexuality and

court imposed medical hormonal treatment. How times have changed. Chapter twenty four

What specific emotional characteristic might be deemed exclusively human.

Attributes that separate us from the animal kingdom and characteristics that

cannot be explained in evolutionary terms? Well, I’m pretty sure we are the

only species able to experience pangs of conscious. In an evolutionary world

what possible advantage would there be with the emergence of this

potentially restrictive emotion. Isn’t it all about the survival of the fittest?

Animals do not ponder on whether their behaviour or a particular action

infringes on the sensibilities of their peers or for that matter other species.

They can only get on living out their lives within the confines of their given

roles. Their sole function is to eat, mate and defend territory. That’s it,

period! Can you think of any other aspect of existence that your flea, otter or

elk would ever be concerned with? We on the other hand have been given

human intellect a human spirit, so it follows that there is a fundamental

difference in the perception of existence as viewed by man and beast. Which

means that mankind is just a little bit special, and so he is, for he has been

made in the very image of God (Gen 1: 26. 27) That one sentence by the

way carries enlightenment that is way beyond the remit of this work! So can we take it then that animals do not have a conscious? What about

consideration? I remember on a Brighton beach watching an old lady feeding

gulls and I have to say on that occasion there was no indication to me that

those seagulls had an ounce of consideration. The biggest and most

aggressive were the ones that bolted down most of the bread. The fact that

mankind can understand the concept of consideration and because he has a

choice on whether to embrace or reject that principle indicates to me that this

perception must have been given. Lastly and without labouring the point

consider humility, would it not be impossible for “nature” to recognise let

alone implant this trait in what after all according to evolutionist is just

another branch of biped.

This unique understanding of concept along with our capacity to choose the

direction of how we should conduct our lives separates us from all other

forms of life on this earth. This is the essential difference; we have free will,

allied to a God given human spirit, whereas animals can only act according to

their God given pre- set instinct. This difference though is only confined to

Man's intellectual prowess and behaviour. In all things physical we are as

animals having very little input on our metabolism. Our bodies work

throughout our lives quietly processing nutrient, breathing air and pumping

blood all without any conscious effort from ourselves. We cut a finger and a myriad of complex procedures moves effortlessly to restore broken tissue. An

animal gashes a flank and the same general repair mechanism becomes

active. Apart from avoiding risk and living a reasonably healthy lifestyle we

have no influence on our lifespan. The only thing that separates us from

animal kind is our God given mind, an expressive face and opposing thumbs

Sympathy, compassion, consideration, an appreciation and ability to create

music, art and literature, these gifts have been given to mankind alone. How

can you doubt that they are indeed gifts? There is a chasm of difference

between the perceptions of man and of animals, perception that is impossible

to explain by evolutionary means. If evolution were a fact how could it and

why would it evolve an appreciation of a Mozart concerto or the brushwork,

technique and hues of a Turner canvas. Progressives no doubt will scoff and

call these last examples simplistically clichéd, well maybe they are but that

dose not dilute its essential truth. We are different.

Perhaps we can all agree on this one, can anyone doubt that the insect world

is entirely devoid of sentiment? Bugs of every description hatch and scurry

away doing exactly what they has been pre-programmed to do and all this

without any encouragement or instruction from their unconcerned parents. So

am I right, the life and behaviour of any given insect is pre programmed. They communicate by means of chemical, tactile, acoustic and visual

language and cannot help but react to the stimulus presented. This dictates

how one individual reacts to another, this behavioural pattern because it is

inbuilt must have been pre-ordained. For surely it is asking a lot from

evolution to formulate in the 920,000 species of insect so far discovered and

the 20-30 million (according to some sources) not yet discovered, the 10,000

or so unique individual complex chemical stimuli with the accompanying

receptor apparatus that demands the correct behavioural reaction that is

conducive to the well being and continual reproduction of our Beetle, Ant, or

Earwig. Nature is supposed to be blind but these responses are precise. Two

or three pheromone molecules given out by a cricket will be detected by the

antenna of a prospective mate. Sense organs (sencilla) made up of

microscopic hairs and irregular protrusions on the insect’s body all have holes

or pores that allow scent molecules to enter and be recognised by connecting

receptor nerves. A single sencilla on the antenna of a Polypemus moth can

have 8,000 pores ready to assimilate and respond to a single molecule of

airborne chemical information, with the correct response pre-programmed.

What enables millions of ants to act as one body in colonies that are

sometimes hundreds of years old continually building, repairing, and even

regulating the mean temperature of the structure by adjusting ventilation

levels? It is all done by a fabulously complex chemical, tactile, acoustic and visual language. Languages that dose not have to be taught but has been

innate in the creature from the day it first hatched. How can a given chemical

stimuli always evoke the same life supporting physical response. This

response had to be formulated, set, and then programmed into the creature.

It is inconceivable that blind “nature” could ever formulate the precise

beneficial or adverse responses demanded from these exact chemical

footprints. It then follows that it was all put in place by the being that created

them! But if anyone can offer a credible alternative explanation then I’m all

ears. At the moment though I have to say there is nothing, plenty of research

on this existing chemical communication, precious little on any theory that

would explain its origins.

How lucky we are then that our creator keeps tabs on his creation knowing

when a sparrow falls to the ground even counting the number of hairs on our

head. (Matthew 10; 29-31) With that in mind let’s explore just how lucky we

are to be here. Consider the odds of you or any other person on this planet

actually being born. The scripture just quoted states that God knows and can

count every hair on our heads. I would go further, and speculate that God

probably is familiar with every cell in our bodies. He knows what we are in

need of before we are aware of it ourselves so is aware of any problems real

or imagined that may be of concern. It then follows that when we were given our human spirit, or whatever it is that separates us from animal kind, we

then individually became a matter of interest to the creator of all physical

matter. To me that is truly amazing.

As you read on, consider how fortunate you are to have actually been given

life in the first place. Don’t ever take for granted the fact that you actually

exist, for consider the odds. Your Father during his adult life would have or

will produce on average eighty five million sperm per testis per day. In round

figures roughly one and a half billion per week, let’s say seventy five billion

per year. Your mother has maybe thirty child bearing years. The chances of

you actually existing are roughly one in two and a quarter trillion!! Impossible,

the odds are impossible. In fact none of us should really be here it’s against

all statistical logic. Yet here we all are, around seven billion of us at the last

count.

I can sense ultra’s even now raising their hand and breathlessly pointing

out that I am apparently happy to accept the stupendous odds against our

even being here, and yet seem unwilling to accept the equally impossibility of

life spontaneously formed from the inorganic. Your dammed right! The fact

that despite the impossible odds we actually exist has nothing to do with our

supposed origins. Your Father and Great grandfather existed because of a

pre-existing hierarchical continuum. Evolutionary development dose not have the luxury of commencing and progressing from that pre-existing state,

evolution had to invent the state! The bottom line is that evolution had to

start from scratch…. from the inorganic, which we know, or should know is

impossible.

This is a musings chapter so let’s just mention the 98.5% argument. As the

genetic make up of various life forms have been documented evolutionist

have gleefully pointed out that the chimpanzee has more or less 98.5 %

identical DNA sequence to humans. Surely this then must clinch the

evolutionary argument. This is one of those examples where the message

(Man and chimp sharing a common ancestor) has to be promoted even

though that evidence has nothing to do with any supposed relationship

between man and beast. One and a half percent represents about 80,000,000

different nucleotides, that’s a fair old number plus there is the awkward fact

that humans have 46 chromosomes and chimps have 48. Somewhere along

the line we either lost a couple or the chimp gained two extra! If you

extracted two chromosomes from each cell then you would destroy millions of

life supporting functions. Chimps were designed with 48, we were designed

with 46. A nematode worm has to make do with just 6, whereas the black

mulberry has 308. Incidentally we share the same number of chromosomes

as a muntjack deer. The largest genome so far discovered belongs to a humble little plant Parisjaponica some fifty times larger than man’s

containing around 150 billion base pairs, unravelled they would stretch out to

328ft all contained in one plant cell!..... Isn’t creation great?

The whole argument is spurious anyway. There is always only four DNA

letters A, G, C and T in the whole of creation so if you compared an aardvarks

DNA with a daffodils then the chances are they would match at least 25% of

the time. Which is why taking half a dozen human chromosomes and

matching them with a nematodes six there is a 75% match, a nematode by

the way is invisible to the human eye.

Evolutionists know, or at least academic evolutionists know that this

percentage argument comparing DNA pairings between different species is

completely irrelevant. It’s not as simple as the glib percentage difference

between man and chimp. All life works on a God given physical biological

plane that adheres to universal laws. Because we share some of the same

DNA code with watercress it dose not mean that this is a throwback to an

alleged vegetative beginning. Again, all life needs to adhere to the previously

mentioned seven requisites vital to sustain existence. Let me repeat Growth,

Nutrition, Reproduction, Respiration, Excretion, and Locomotion. Now if you

have a mind to create a world teeming with different life forms from tape worms to tall trees then would it not be sensible to have these various forms

adhere to the same biological laws. In mammals the DNA responsible for

kidney function would have a similar job to do, be it stoat or stallion. So apart

from differences in 'kind' there would be similarities in function (again the five

universal life properties). So apart from the statistical likelihood of totally

different life-forms sharing a percentage of DNA (only four letters) there is

also the mechanics needed to power these seven properties of life which

would explain more similarities in the DNA sequencing of diverse species.

Let’s move to consider a possible motive or at least the driving force needed

for there to actually be evolutionary progress. Evolutionists are in a bit of a

quandary here because no matter what theory or explanation is put forward

to explain the supposed process of change the mechanics of this

change have to be couched in either a formalistic or pre-ordained format.

The very term “survival of the fittest” demands this formalistic approach. An

event or condition occurring which happens to marginally suit the possessors

of a certain trait within a species thereby allowing the possessors of this trait

an advantage over it’s less well endowed cousins. That in essence is the

theory. In reality the extra millimetre on the giraffe’s neck makes not a scrap of

difference to the viability of the giraffe, nor would it if there was a millimetre

less. Which means, getting back to our hippo/whale link because there

cannot be a preordained scenario (nature is blind) there cannot be radical

change. Each supposed change would cancel itself out in the next generation.

In short an animal specialised for existing in a particular environment cannot

change that specialisation. Any deviation from the norm will be a

disadvantage not an advantage. That sentence bears repeating. ANY

DEVIATION FROM THE NORM WILL BE A DISADVANTAGE NOT AN

ADVANTAGE. Don’t give me this nonsense of adapting to changing

conditions, if the animal is not equipped for that condition it dies. Fish will

always die in dried up ponds. Chapter twenty five

So far in this book we have concentrated on the ultra-Darwinian argument

and you will judge if the view presented has in any way succeeded in

demolishing or in part demolishing that school of evolutionary theory. I want

now to address the theories of an opposing group, the so called “naturalistic”

branch of evolutionary science. I have been reading some of the literature put

out by these naturalists and these two schools just do not get on. I can see a

parallel between ultra- Darwinian and naturalist evolutionist as between

young earth creationist and gap theory or intelligent design adherents, all

parties believe in their respective core belief, evolution or creation but the

means by which they believe these two states have come to be are as

different as chalk and camembert .

I shall be arguing against the naturist cause mainly from the work of Niles

Eldredge. For it was he along with Stephen Jay Gould in 1972 announced

their theory of Punctuated Equilibria. The meaning and consequence of this

theory will be explained in due course, and for convenience sake henceforth

will be termed P.E

Do not think that P.E in any way throws doubt on the general concept of evolution, when stripped down to the bare bones Ultra’s favour a gradual

continuous almost imperceptible change (phyletic gradualism) whereas PE

adherents maintain there are long periods of inactivity (stasis) and then a

sudden divergence into new species (cladogenesis) From reading the

publications of both sides there seem to be as much squabbling between

them as there is between young earth creationist and gap enthusiasts.

Stephen Jay Gould had no patience with creationist who used his P.E theory

to beat ultras over the head with. He puts them firmly into place with the

cutting

“Since we proposed Punctuated Equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to

be quoted again and again – whether through design or stupidity I do not

know – as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms.

Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level but they are

abundant between larger groups”

I would only repeat that these so say transitional forms have clearly been

spliced together in order to support the theory. Can you really believe that the

blue whale and pygmy shrew have a common ancestor? I suppose if you

believe we evolved from fish then perhaps it’s not that hard. The theory

deduces transitional form because it has to, even from illogical examples. The reality is that these transitional elements were originally in the eye of the

early evolutionist and are now accepted as fact

I know it has already been mentioned but I still cannot figure out how the

world was taken in and still accepts Nathanial’s perfect horse linage, still

taught today with absolute conviction. The naturalist school of evolution really

have only one contention with ultras, namely ultras believe in a continuous,

slowly changing form which eventually may split off and develop into

completely new types, while naturist believe that there are long periods of

“stasis” and then a sudden branching into new species eventually leading into

new “types”

Of course the two sides will unite in a heart- beat if creationists use these

differences to promote doubt in the general evolutionary belief. So let’s just

scenario naturalist belief and how they think evolutionary change occurred

1) A species exists over a wide area of sustainable habitation, interbreeding

within that total population dose not encourage genetic change. Fossils may

be laid down during this period of evolutionary dormancy.

2) Perhaps there is a small population on the periphery of this suitable habitat

who become isolated from the main group, perhaps by relatively rapid geological change. This new environment encourages an accelerated genetic

change the effects magnified by the smaller population.

3) Over a long period this change will render this new species incapable of

breeding with the original bunch, and if the two groups were reintroduced the

new group may drive the parent group to extinction. Then you would have

another long period of stasis.

That in a nutshell is the naturist view on how evolution progressed. It’s quite

a nice story but we are assuming a great deal here, it strikes me that it relies

on a complicated set of theoretical circumstances for there to be any hope of

change. You must remember that these are palaeontologists who have

searched in vain for evidence of ultra Darwinian gradualism, they are right in

that respect of course it doesn’t exist. So this theory has been concocted

allowing imagined circumstances to be sympathetic to what actually appears

in that record. How ironic that the two schools of evolutionary theory cancel

each other out.

As you would expect from naturalist palaeontologists, there is much less

emphasis placed on the mechanics of genetic change than we see from the

mainly geneticist based ultra’s. Nevertheless both groups are in broad agreement as to the means of this change namely bio- chemical mistakes in

the copying of information (mutation) which means my friend no matter

which branch you favour, according to them we are all bio-chemical mistakes.

I don’t see why we have to trouble ourselves countering their position. Both

sides are tarred with the same brush, the main disagreement between them

being the timing of that change. Niles Eldredge gives us a figure of between

5,000 and 50, 0000 years to effect any significant change with of course long

periods (millions of years). of stasis. (Stability, unchanging)

In his ReinventingDarwin(the great evolutionary debate) Eldredge sites a

project embarked upon with Carlton E Brett of the University of Rochester in

which a comprehensive study was made of around 300 species of hard

shelled marine invertebrates. The sediments forming the rock in this study

took some six million years to accumulate. He found only two apparent

instances of specialisation…….

“Each involving only minor amounts of anatomical change”. The central

species in the line up “evolved” (my emphasis) at the very beginning and

persisted to the very end. It is the paradigmatic, (definitive’…my translation)

model instance of stasis. Nothing discernible happened to it throughout the six million year interval, except some minor proportional changes discernible

only to my computer.”

He then sites other studies which give the same result

“Brett and his colleague Gordon Baird have documented ten such faunas

in the Middle Palaeozoic of the Appalachian region. Each lasts some five to

seven million years. In each, from 70 to 85 percent of the individual species

were there at the start and persist to the very end.” No ultra gradual change

here, which is the reason for the great evolutionary divide.

Darwin himself was a little perplexed about this lack of intermediate evidence

He reasoned that for his theory to hold water those intermediates musthave

existed and he seemed to be at a loss at their absence, He wrote in The
originofspecies
“Why then is not every geological formation andevery stratum full
of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any
suchfinely graduatedorganicchain, andthis, perhaps is the most
obvious is the most obvious and gravest objection that can be urged
against my theory.”

You may well ask that if Darwin, recognising this inherent weakness, was

not one hundred percent with his own theory how come it’s now accepted by

the majority. The answer is that it’s ignored by ultra Darwinians in the sense that they point to a linage e.g. the horse (sorry to keep bringing up that

example) and say there is your progression ignoring the fact that the seven or

eight animals represented keep coming up over and over again with the

thousands of necessary intermediates strangely missing. The recognition of

this indisputable fact paved the way for the naturalists.

Fig 1 Gaudy Sphinx Caterpillar
This caterpillar not only looks like a Western Diamond Rattler it exhibits the same defensive stance when threatened.

Fig 2
From top: Mesonychid, Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus and Basilosaurus. A supposable seamless progression from land to sea mammal. Not quite as seductive when comparing their scaled silhouette (Fig 3)

Fig3
Fig 4 Huxley's now famous horse progression.

Fig 5 Juramaia Sinensis, Eomaia (Jurassic earth Mother) Whimsical name for the oldest mammal fossil yet found. From which we all have descended.. some would say.
Fig 6 From Pezosiren to our modern Manatee in 140 milion years.

Fig 7 Cross section of a cell showing expanded DNA. The first life form would

need to be as complicated as this coming into existence spontaneously. Chapter twenty six

I now want to address the tricky subject (at least for creationist) of

Neanderthals, those so say primitive creatures that apparently pre-dated man,

with whom some say man co-existed and who man eventually completely

superseded. Creationists have one or two problems here for it has been

authoritatively stated that Neanderthals not only co-existed with man but

there was some interbreeding between the two. Moreover Neanderthals lived

about 30,000 years ago. This would make the Biblical account impossible.

Again I have no idea where this is going to lead and I approach it with some

trepidation for the consequences for literal creationist are serious, if there

were Neanderthals around even ten thousand years ago it would be

impossible to match that fact with the Genesis account.

I want to ask you what you see in your minds eye when conjuring up an

image of Neanderthal. Early artists impressions give a fairly brutish figure,

bent legs, stooped, always with a glum expression apparently not much given

to humour wry or otherwise. Generally of a wild appearance, unkempt hair

and if he is dressed it would be in rude animal skins. He is often depicted

huddled round a waning fire leaning on a crude spear with his mate and

dejected children squabbling over a bone. Apparently he was also fond of

painting pictures on cave walls. He appears to be well built with a slightly larger brain than ours, which is interesting. The main feature of a

Neanderthals depicted face is his pronounced brow and protruding face

(prognathic) as opposed to the straight face (orthoganthism) of the

Caucasian, Latin, Arab and most oriental races. Now political correctness

cautions me to be judicious here but it has to be said that the main facial

feature of an Australian Aboriginal man is his pronounced brow and forward

looking jaw, along with the highland tribes of Papua New Guinea, Kalahari

bushman and several Central and west African peoples. Although not as

pronounced as various reconstructions of the Neanderthal. This obvious

similarity with modern man is never mentioned of course and I'm sure it's not

only me who has spotted it! They try to make amends though by never

depicting Neanderthal as black. Always white or at least a swarthy

Mediterranean type with long matted rust coloured hair.

Most people in my age group (pretty old) will be amused by this absolute

need not to imply primitiveness to some modern peoples. They had no such

reservations when these skulls were first discovered and openly eluded to the

similarity with so called modern “inferior races”. Although we will discover

that this similarity is bogus and born by the misinterpretation of Neanderthals’

remains. Along with I suspect most creationists, I was putting Neanderthal to one side

preferring to believe that the scientific establishment had somehow

miscalculated the time that he was on this earth. But as more and more

evidence was bought to light linking Neanderthal with man even claiming DNA

evidence of co-habitation then an answer within the Biblical framework had to

be found, if not and as I have asserted so many times in this book it can't be

true, certainly not divinely inspired.

What do we actually know about his appearance about his lifestyle and of the

conditions that were prevalent during his time? We have mentioned the facial

features but he also seems to have had a large frame hence the artistic

depiction of a brutish fellow. He was apparently family orientated there being

remains of both sexes and children found in the same location. He had

mastery over fire and used fire for cooking and heat. There is also the cave

paintings depicting the hunt (modern animals) showing a degree of group co

operation although there is disagreement as to whether these were executed

by so say modern humans or the supposed older Neanderthal. Due to the widely differing opinions as to the Neanderthal time line it is

difficult for the layman to grasp just exactly when his kind was dominant. I

have seen estimates ranging from five thousand years to as many as 250,000

years. I attended a lecture given by Chris Stringer where he held up a shaped

sharpened flint and claimed it was half a million years old! The truth is that as

always the estimate has been influenced by the presumed evolutionary

scenario. I do not see how a figure of 250,000 years can be realistic for if

that were the case then we would have been inundated with Neanderthal

fossils. We could scarcely thrust a spade in the earth without disturbing some

ancient remains, If that quarter of a million years was anywhere near the

mark then the inevitable population growth of Neanderthal would mean

throughout that period hundreds of billions would have lived and died. To

date we have discovered around 400 fragments.

The first bones classified as Neanderthal were discovered in 1856 although

earlier excavations of around 1830 were subsequently classified. One of the

most famous and incidentally the first one from which an illustrated

impression was attempted was found at the French village of La Chapello aux

Saints. The public’s general impression of Neanderthal is even today that of a

primitive barely human creature. In 1911 the French scientist Marcellin Boule

described Neanderthal Man as “Ape like, slow witted and hunched back” The

original illustration appeared in a 1908 copy of L’Illustration and a few weeks

later in the Illustrated London News. The artist, Frantisek Kupka set the tone

for sixty years of fanciful speculation as to the physical appearance of

Neanderthal Man. One of the more blatant examples of artistic impression

dictated sorely by pre-supposed evolutionary appearance. I would dearly love

to know how he was able to ascertain the amount of hair on Neanderthal by a

fragment of skull or leg bone. Of course it was impossible but at the time the

image sat happily alongside an evolutionary assumption of primitiveness.

There seems to be no real agreement in the anthropology world as to where

Neanderthal originated or even their relationship to modern man. Theory’s

and suppositions proposed by qualified men and women are often in direct

contradiction to the proposed theories and suppositions of equally qualified

men and woman. It seems that every other month the magazine' Nature' '

brings out another speculative account of the life and times of Neanderthal.

The truth is science dose not know where they came from, when they died

out or how long they were around. Even renowned anthropologist C. Loring Brace who according to Wikipedia

considers his greatest contribution to anthropology to have “Introduced a

Darwinian outlook into biological anthropology.” even he refuses to be drawn

into the popular conception of Neanderthal, he states “Because full modern

cranial capacity and more has been attained, presumably indicating

intellectual capabilities at least the equivalent of modern humans, it would not

be justifiable to regard the Neanderthal as specifically distinct from people of

today.” In other words, they were human! That bit about the cranium being

as large perhaps even slightly larger than modern humans is in direct

contradiction to the supposed stepping stones of human evolution. We have

evolved larger brains but it seems share that advantage with supposed

inferior beings that according to most pre-dated us. There has also been

some work done on a fossilised Neanderthal “hyoid bone” a small horseshoe

shaped bone that acts as an anchor to the tongue it is identical to modern

man. This bone in part enables man to talk. So it looks as though dumb old

Neanderthal could hold a conversation. When I was researching this section I found that even I had a pre-disposition

to picture Neanderthal as a long armed shuffling moron. This just shows how

easy it is to be subtly influenced to the perception of primitive, enabling

involuntary acquiescence to the evolutionary agenda. But it still leaves a

problem for creationist if Neanderthal really has been around 30,000 years

ago, if that really is the case then we are sunk. Because I'm not a

palaeoanthropologist I can only review what other suitably qualified men and

woman have written on the subject and see if there is anything out there that

can help us in our quest to reconcile Biblical teaching with this cave man

stuff. I am fortunate in that I find most things are within my grasp, although I

must own it has to be read about thirty times before a glimmer of light begins

to clear the fog, a little time consuming perhaps but for me it’s the only way.

The first thing I noticed is that virtually all studies on this subject are

conducted with the pre-supposed notion that Neanderthals were, to varying

degrees ape-like in appearance, certainly when compared to modern humans.

Not perhaps to the extent of Kupka's fanciful imagination but certainly to our

modern perception, primitive. Reconstructions of the skull and jaw of various

examples all appear to confirm this quality. Which would go along with the

evolutionary idea that faces became less projecting, less ape-like as they

evolved into modern humans. Although I have to say that recent artist impressions of the Neanderthal face are a little kinder than previous

interpretation.

But the fact remains that for most, Neanderthal gives us an image of what

most think prehistoric man looked like. Taking a Biblical literalistic point of

view, what we call Neanderthal had to be around in ancient Biblical times, so

he cannot be more than 6000 years old. I know that this is where one or two

of you will click on to the red x but I ask that you hear me out. Incidentally I

have to say at this point I was struggled to arrive at an explanation that fitted

both scientific findings and the Biblical account.

It seemed an impossible task, where in the Bible are there accounts of what

we call Neanderthal, basically human but with noticeable differences in

physical characteristics and yet possessing a high proportion of modern man’s

DNA. What are these physical differences? The adults seem to have larger

skulls with pronounced brow and eye sockets and yet strangely the children

exhibit none of these characteristics. I will remind you of C Loring Brace

statement that “Because full cranial capacity and more has been attained.

Presumable indicating intellectual capability at least the equivalent of modern

human” The skeletal remains indicate stronger muscles and bones, better teeth and

crucially a slower growth pattern. Far from being inferior to modern man it

seems that in many respects he was modern man's superior. For some this is

difficult for we still have to grapple with our ingrained ape-man image.

And then I discovered the work of Dr John (Jack) William Cuozzo.

All the unanswered questions, the doubts regarding any Biblical explanation of

Neanderthal were answered. I urge all creationist who have been searching

for rational answers on this subject to immerse yourself in his published work.

View his lectures on youtubemost of us have to find validity for our religious

belief from a non-academic background I think that is one of the reasons

evolution has been accepted by the majority, how can the layman insist on a

creationist premise when that premise has been rejected by the educated

elite. However that situation is now changing, data that until now has been

confined to the scientific community is now available at the touch of a key to

any who care to look, low and behold equally qualified men have cast doubt

on accepted evolutionary doctrine. Moreover they have done so from

academic as well as religious reasons.

, Dr Jack Cuozzo is one such beacon who is shining an illuminating light on this

Neanderthal question. He qualified as an orthodontist forty years ago and in

1979 began studying Neanderthal with the late William M Krogman. Krogman,

who died in the mid eighties had an illustrious career in police forensic

investigation and even worked under the famed Eliot Ness. He also

determined the age of Pharaoh Ramses the third. So all in all pretty well clued

up on forensics. Cuozzo has been given access to a number of Neanderthal

remains housed in museums and universities around the world. He was the

very first to take radiographic readings of a number of Neanderthal skull

samples. He reminds us that the skull is the only part of skeletal structure

that continues to grow throughout the lifetime of the individual and that this

growth is entirely consistent with the Biblical account of immediate post flood

life spans of several hundred years. It follows then that if these individuals

lived to these great ages then their rate of growth would be considerable

slower than ours. This leads us to the inevitable conclusion that their children

took a great deal longer to mature than the modern child. This fact is

confirmed by his studies of Neanderthal children’s skulls. They do not exhibit

the same exaggerated brow ridges and the “box shaped” skull of adults which

would be a characteristic of great age. Cuozzo claims that during his investigations he has uncovered at the very

least misinterpretation or at worst a tampering of specimens in order to

accommodate the presumed evolutionary scenario. He cites one example of

sections of a Neanderthal child’s skull assembled in such a way so as to give

the impression of an ape-like appearance. The jaw bone being thrust forward.

His naval experience as an orthodontist has given him plenty of experience in

dealing with shore leave jaw fractures acquired by returning sailors. He saw

that the reconstruction of the jaw in relation to the rest of the skull was

wrong but when correctly assembled was almost identical to a modern child.

There were some differences in the teeth but those differences only served to

confirm the Neanderthal juvenile’s unusual longevity in attaining full adult

status.

There are some lively on line communications between Australian

anthropologist and staunch evolutionist Prof Colin Groves, and Jack Cuozzo

mainly stemming from Groves’s criticism of Cuozzo’s book “Buried Alive” At

least on this occasion Groves recognises Cuozzo’s contribution and expertise

although naturally both men do not draw the same conclusion. Again I urge

you delve into Cuozzo’s work he can explain far better than most the Biblical

implications of Neanderthal. To sum up Cuozzo’s position. Neanderthal was around post flood. They were

not ape-like if anything they were our physical superiors with possibly larger

brains. Their skull shape and growth pattern indicates great age, which is

consistent with the Biblical insistence of a long post flood human life span.

Their children were therefore slow to mature which is reflected in the

preserved Neanderthal dental structure (Cuozzo’s speciality)

They were human but they were different to us. To attain that great age their

DNA would have to be significantly different but still recognisable as human.

I am sure that despite Jack Cuozzo’s marvellous work which allows a biblical

perspective to Neanderthal he perhaps has not quite got everything exactly

right, what I will say is that he has given a plausible scientific explanation to

Neanderthal tying in with the Genesis account. But again I urge you to delve

into his work yourself. Chapter twenty seven

To conclude our argument we will return to basics. It has been stated by

creationists that the laws of thermodynamics make it impossible for life to

have evolved. I can’t pretend that my knowledge of the various laws of

thermodynamics are at academic level but again we live in a society where

with a touch of a key we are given access to vast swathes of data.

The first law of thermodynamics was originally formulated by Richard Mayer

(1814-1878) who stated

“ I thereforehope that I may reckon onthereaders assent whenI
lay down as an axiomatic truth that justas inthecase of matter, so
also in the form of force(his term for energy)only a transformation
but never a creation takes place”

In other words the total energy in the universe is a constant although of

course it will change in form. The favourite example to illustrate this principle

is the burning log. When a log is burnt it gives off heat and smoke and when

this process has been completed the by-products of this incineration, smoke

ash, heat etc would weigh the same as the original log. No new energy has

been created, merely changed in form. This first law of thermodynamics is a

proven fact; there is no ambiguity therefore it can be said to be invariable. As is the second law of thermodynamics which states that although there is

no new energy created from burning our log the altered state of this energy is

becoming more difficult to access. (the heat produced will have been

absorbed by the prevailing air temperature.) The science fiction writer Isaac

Asimov put it like this

“Theuniverse is constantly getting more disorderly.We can see the
secondlawall about us. We have to workhard to straighten a room.
Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty andmusty. How difficult
to maintain homesand machinery, and our ownbodies in perfect
working order howeasy to let them deteriorate. In fact all we have
to do is nothing and everything deteriorates, breaksdown, collapses
all by itself-and that is what the second law is all about”

He wasn’t a bad science fiction writer either.

As interesting as all this may be to some of you, what dose this have to do

with the subject under discussion? Well it proves beyond doubt that there is a

God, which means we are a good deal more than halfway there. Please bear

with me, and don’t forget it’s not really my subject; I also have to get my

head round the subtlety of these laws and there implications. Jeff Miller Ph D on the web site apologeticspresshas written one of the best

articles I have read on this subject and I urge readers to check out that site.

He breaks down the only three possibilities for the existence of the universe

namely

1) The universe spontaneously generated.

2) The universe is eternal.

3) The universe was created.

He's right isn’t he, it’s one of these there can be no other explanation. If we

take point number one which holds that the universe created itself

spontaneously then that would seem to go directly against the first law No

new matter is ever created only altered in form (our burning log). That is of

course if the universe is itself a closed system unable to take in energy or

mass from an outside source, -- which it must be….. Otherwise it’s not the

universe! The big bang theory has it that everything all mass and energy

exploded from an indescribably dense core, in an instant and that the billions

of galaxies indeed all matter is still accelerating outwards across the cosmos.

Expanding they may be, but a chaotic big bang? this is not what I see when I

view images of distant galaxies there is order to the spirals and patterns of

the billions of galaxies shown. If we adhere to our first law then all the mass and energy in the universe

must have been there in an unimaginable compact pre big bang form. But as

the first law of thermodynamics states no new energy is ever formed –just

altered so it could not have spontaneously formed itself.

The second possibility is that all matter is eternal, that it has always been, so

it was not created, it has always existed and will exist in some form or

another for eternity. Trouble is that goes directly against the second law

which states that recoverable energy becomes more difficult to retrieve after

process. If everything in the universe is eternal, has always been, then by

now it would have all reduced or degraded itself into irretrievable chaos, but

instead we still see perfect order. So it had to have a beginning it has not

always existed.

Unless you can come up with of any other possibility that would account for

the existence of matter, then there is only one possible explanation; the

universe was created. It was created by a non physical entity, an all powerful

spiritual being that created matter and the laws that govern matter. This

being had to be spiritual otherwise that would be in conflict with the first law.

Well there you have it, I thank you for your time and attention. There is so

much more we could have covered but I think that's enough for now. On a personal note what started out as an experimental writing exercise one

that I thought would be completed in a relatively short time has turned out to

be a far lengthier process than I would ever imagine, although you would

never think it from the modest size of this volume. I won’t embarrass myself

by revealing exactly how long; suffice it to say I am a different man at the

conclusion of this work than I was at the beginning. I would encourage any

who are contemplating or have commenced writing be it fiction or non-fiction

to persevere with their project, you will find that structures and problems that

seem unsolvable and ideas that would normally be outside your normal

comprehension will suddenly become illuminated and clear. You will grasp

concepts that ordinarily would be beyond your comprehension. All this ability

and potential is encapsulated within the human spirit which I now firmly

believe is God given. It’s all so simple really, when most of the suspect stuff

from either side has been discounted, along with the refusal to accept any

possibility of merit from the position of the opposing view what then are we left with? Forget the arguments and theories focus on this: ………

Of itself life can never arise from non-life therefore life will have been created. Of itself organic can never arise from inorganic therefore organic must have been created. Adversvs solemne loqvitor.

Thankyou.

↓