Back in the 1700 and 1800s when science was bringing mankind into the modern era
with the advances in medicine, physics, and mathematics which paved the way for the
industrial and information revolutions, scientists generally had a profound belief
in God and often searched for their answers to problems with an eye toward finding
out how the Creator had designed his creation and what rules governed it. Religion
and science had little trouble coexisting (except for an occasional squabble from
time to time) since both the scientists and religious thinkers were basically exploring
different sides of the same coin.
This started to change in the late 1800s when Charles Darwin proposed what would
become commonly known as the theory of evolution or the survival of the fittest.
In 1859, he wrote what could be called the basic premise of his theory:
"The affinities of all the beings of the same class have sometimes been represented
by a great tree. I believe this simile largely speaks the truth. The green and budding
twigs may represent existing species; and those produced during each former year
may represent the long succession of extinct species... The limbs divided into great
branches, and these into lesser and lesser branches, were themselves once, when the
tree was small, budding twigs; and this connection of the former and present buds
by ramifying branches may well represent the classification of all extinct and living
species in groups subordinate to groups... From the first growth of the tree, many
a limb and branch has decayed and dropped off, and these lost branches of various
sizes may represent those whole orders, families, and genera which have now no living
representatives, and which are known to us only from having been found in a fossil
state... As buds give rise by growth to fresh buds, and these, if vigorous, branch
out and overtop on all a feebler branch, so by generation I believe it has been with
the great Tree of Life, which fills with its dead and broken branches the crust of
the earth, and covers the surface with its ever branching and beautiful ramifications."
This theory of one "branch" leading to another type of life certainly is useful for
classifying objects, whether plants, animals, or cars. Today all of biology is built
around such classifications which can be useful — though whether or not they represent
any actually development of one type of creature or plant to another is, as noted
below, very doubtful.
Although modern history credits Charles Darwin with the "discovery" of the Theory
of Evolution, in fact this was proposed nearly two centuries earlier by John Locke,
a prominent member of the Royal Society in England.(1) It also appears that Darwin’s
grandfather apparently first proposed the theory that his grandson would adopt.(2)
It is also known that Dr. Thomas Henry Huxley, a Fellow of the Royal Society and
a Freemason, encouraged Charles Darwin to put his theory into paper. Later Huxley
would become the "official spokesman" for Darwin.(3)
Ammunition for the Battle
It is an unfortunate truth that those who don’t take the time to follow the logic
and lack of data to support the Theory of Evolution have embraced it without questioning
it. One reason for this is that it gives more "ammunition" to those interested in
undermining religion and morality. Because when one assumes that the various animals
simply evolved one from another, you come to the realization that man is simply an
And that the natural order of things is for the superior to make the inferior extinct.
It isn’t surprising that Darwin’s theories have been part of the mental building
blocks that led to Nazism, Communism, and even the New Age movements in the 20th
Century. Too, the basic tenants make for some convenience in otherwise tough moral
situations; in the past, euthanasia and abortion were tantamount to murder. Through
the magic of the Theory of Evolution, killing an old duffer or aborting a baby is
little different from swatting a fly; one is simply killing an unwanted "animal"
in either case.
The Theory of Evolution, if it were true, would also destroy the credibility of parts
of the Bible. Obviously the creation of the earth couldn’t take place in seven days
— according to this line of thinking of the evolutionists; instead it would have
to take billions of years. That makes the creation story in the Bible just a fable
or allegory if one accepts evolution. (That said, there have been some misguided
attempts to somehow relate the creation story to evolution. While these may be well-meaning,
they don’t hold up scientifically since all plants are created before all animals;
evolutionists would maintain that many plants and animals had to evolve at the same
time since some plants need animals to fertilize them and spread their seeds.)
With evolution, mankind also becomes much older than the genealogies given in the
Bible leading back to man. This means Adam wasn’t the first man; and a human-looking
Adam and Eve are tossed out and an ape-like being embraced as our ancestor. That
means he must just be symbolic, according to those embracing evolution. And since
Jesus and the New Testament writers referred to Adam as a living person, then obviously
they didn’t know what they were talking about. That makes them fallible and lays
the groundwork for arguing that Christ was less than divine.
Little by little the Bible is soon full of holes if the Theory of Evolution becomes
the measure of the accuracy in the Biblical account of things. And this is just what
many anti-religious groups want. (Little wonder Time-Warner and other mainstream
publishers interested in undermining Christianity regularly print their pictures
of mankind "evolving" through a line of creatures that stretch from an ape on the
left to modern man, dressed in suitable caveman attire, on the right.)
Why haven’t any scientists spoken up about the impossibility of evolution?
The reason is simple and similar to the situation with the mainline press: Those
scientists that protest that the facts don’t support the Theory of Evolution are
quickly branded "Creationists", thrown out of scientific circles, and blacklisted
so they can’t obtain work with any major university or government science project.
Not many scientists are willing to risk their livelihood to point out the facts.
They remain mute, mouthing the party line when necessary in order to keep their positions.
Those illogical arguments mouthed by the scientists then fuel misunderstanding among
those who are unable to double-check the truth and logic behind the Theory of Evolution.
A Theory Full of Holes
When one listens to biologists, and especially paleontologists, it sounds as if the
fossil record is well established so that it demonstrates a gradual step-by-step
development of lower animal life into more and more complex forms that lead to man
and the various animals now walking the earth. Since the development of the animals
currently roaming the earth would dictate many, many transitional animals from one
"branch" to the current "tip of the branch", one might even expect the number of
intermediate transitional fossils to outnumber those of extinct animals as well as
those currently alive.
And that leads us to the dirty little secret of the evolutionists: There are no (AKA
zero, cipher, zilch, nothing, nada, goose eggs) "missing links" or intermediate fossils
of creatures that were in the process of developing from one type of animal to another.
Yes, it is possible to group animals into similar families, and even neatly arrange
the fossils so they appear to be evolving from one group to another, but the fossil
records don’t reflect this.(4)
According to evolutionists, there should be about 100-million-years worth of "missing
links" during the time it took for fish to evolve from invertebrates, for example.
Instead there are no intermediate fossils, only full-sprung fish or well developed
invertebrates. No fossil that looks even remotely like an invertebrate on the road
to evolving into a fish has ever been discovered.
Evolutionists claim it took upwards of 50 million years for a fish to evolve into
an amphibians. But again, there are no transitional forms. Not a single fossil with
part fins/part feet has ever been discovered. That there would be 50 million years
of creatures living and dying without a single fossil being produced again stretches
the credibility of those defending evolution by an enormous factor.
Fossil ants look like today’s ants; fossil cockroaches look like today’s cockroaches;
etc., with no intermediate "ancestors" leading up to their appearance. Fossils that
scientists claim are 50 million-year-old bats have the bone structure that is identical
to today’s bats. This pattern remains true with every major plant and animal line.
All higher categories of living things, such as complex invertebrates, fishes, amphibians,
reptiles, flying reptiles, birds, bats, primates and man, appear abruptly without
any "missing links" preceding them.
There are extinct animals and plants that only appear as fossils, though there are
no fossils that can be viewed as missing links leading toward the development of
today’s plants and animals. But this doesn’t keep those wanting to "create" missing
links from taking advantage of these extinct animals.
For example, one of the current "popular" evolutionary theories is that the dinosaurs
evolved into birds. Often the fossil of the Archaeopteryx is displayed to buttress
the claim that there is a link between birds and reptiles. In fact this isn’t much
of a "missing link" at best and, even if it were, what happened to all the other
"missing links" between it and the reptiles that purportedly led to its appearance?
A closer look at Archaeopteryx leaves one with a much different impression that the
evolutionists would have you believe. It has little to do with reptiles; it had wings
and you can still see the impression of its feathers in some fossils. It doesn’t
have scales; it did fly rather than gliding like some of the flying dinosaurs did.
Archaeopteryx had claws on its wings — but so do two types of birds which are living
today (something you’ll seldom run into in the mainstream press). Most of today’s
paleontologists will grudgingly admit that Archaeopteryx was a bird if confronted
with these facts.
Even if Archaeopteryx were half reptile/half bird, it wouldn’t fit into the fossil
sequence properly. Because what can only be seen as real birds, without teeth or
claws, were apparently alive before the so-called transitional Archaeopteryx appears
in the strata of the fossil record. This means that either the strata don’t give
a realistic time scale of the fossil record (something evolutionists can’t suggest
since it would derail the whole way they date fossils) or that birds had evolved
long before they were supposed to have if they came from the dinosaur line.
As a paleontologist at Kansas State University recently put it: "This means the so-called
grandparents of birds [the winged dinosaurs] are actually younger than their grand
children." Obviously something is wrong with the Theory of Evolution, at least as
it pertains to birds evolving from the dinosaurs.
The Animal Kingdom for a Horse
The avians aren’t the only animals with problems in the evolutionary scheme of things.
When any group of animals are carefully arranged on the "tree of life", they appear
to display a chain of evolution from one to the next. Horses, we are often told,
evolved from small creatures to today’s modern horse; displays in museums often appear
to demonstrate this fact. Yet this is really an arrangement by association rather
than actual evolution. Because many of these "horses" appear to have lived side by
side during some of the time and, more importantly, their internal structures don’t
change "step-wise" from one creature to the next.
Even if one ignores the fact that the fossils that supposedly evolved into horses
are not found in the proper time sequence, and that the major types appear abruptly
without transitions, there’s still internal conflict that prevents the conclusion
that one animal evolved into the next. For example, the "earlier" Eohippus had 18
pairs of ribs; the next in line, Orohippus had 15 pairs; Pliohippus gained ribs for
a total of 19 pairs; and then Equus Scotti dropped back to 18.(5)
Losing or gaining ribs would be a major evolutionary change at any one of these steps,
changes which arguably would serve no purpose in the evolutionary scheme of things.
And to lose and then gain and then lose ribs again would be a truly fantastic chain
of events. Since evolution is supposed to operate through blind chance, the odds
against such random changes are indeed astronomical — and that’s just for the rib
cage of these creatures.
Close inspection of other such groups of animals displays similar differences which
fail to go in a stepwise pattern. Those who support evolution like to place animals
as well as plants into these bogus ancestral charts create an enticing visual argument
for evolution. But when the animals get more than a causal external inspection, anatomical
differences show an evolutionary change is impossible and suggest a much different
mechanism must be in operation.
The fossil record of predecessors of modern man is missing just as is the links that
lead up to other complex creatures. Of course that hasn’t stopped many scientists
from producing what they purport to be human ancestors; doing so gets them lots of
favorable press from publications intent on destroying religion in the US and Europe.
Such fossil creatures are introduced to the public with great fanfare and then quietly
laid to rest when the "missing links" prove to be apes, baboons, or, worse yet, hoaxes.
Often the scientists producing these fossils have the barest of bones to work with.
Ramapithecus, for example, was introduced as a man-like ape that was the ancestor
leading to modern man — or so the theory went. The only fossils found of this creature
were a few fragments of the jaw. From these bits of bone, elaborate skulls and drawings
were made to "prove" that the creature was manlike. Of course these were pure speculation
designed to make the discovery fit what was needed to support the idea that man had
evolved from a lower life form.
Since the introduction of Ramapithecus, a species of baboon in Ethiopia was discovered
to have the same dental and jaw characteristics. Today most anthropologists concede
that Ramapithecus was simply a baboon.
Ramapithecus follows in the footsteps of other similar finds. Australopithecines
was "discovered" in 1924. Its discover claimed that it combined an ape-like skull
with human-like teeth. Soon drawings were produced to show it walking about, manlike,
though only four feet tall. Then Richard Leakey, the son of Dr. Leakey, published
evidence that showed that Australopithecines were long-armed and short-legged. Abruptly
everyone realized that the creatures walked on all fours like living African apes
do. The creature went from being a forerunner to man to an ape with unusual teeth.
There are other similar cases. During the 1920s, fragments of skulls, jaws, and teeth,
were found in a limestone cliff near Peking, China. Scientists proclaimed it was
a distant ancestor to modern man; today this creature recognized to be an extinct
The "Java Man" is another "cave man" put together from a minimum of fossil bones.
In this case a femur, skull cap, and three teeth were its sum total — with the parts
discovered scattered over 50 feet apart. For 30 years the discoverer concealed the
fact that he found human skulls near the Java Man at the same level. Today most scientists
believe that the femur was probably from a human while the skull cap was probably
that of a giant ape. Since it lived in conjunction with modern man, it seems doubtful
it could have been an ancestor.
Not that long ago the "Nebraska Man" and "Piltdown Man" were regularly shown off
by evolutionists as missing links. At the famous Scopes evolution trail in Dayton,
Tennessee, the Piltdown Man was even presented as evidence to uphold the Theory of
Evolution (and this trial is still trotted out by evolutionists as a reason their
theory must be true). The defense as well as reports scoffed and laughed at William
Jennings Bryan when he protested that there wasn’t much proof that the Piltdown man
had ever really existed.
Had he lived long enough, Bryan would have had the last laugh since today scientists
don't talk about the Piltdown man -- it was simply a hoax. The Piltdown Man was "discovered"
in 1912 and consisted of a piece of skull which was claimed to be a half million
years old. In 1953 closer inspection revealed that the jawbone belonged to modern
ape; the teeth had been filed down and the bones were artificially colored. The Piltdown
Man was a hoax.
Ditto with the Nebraska Man; when more fossils were unearthed, the Nebraska Man’s
teeth were discovered to belong to an extinct pig.
Both the Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal Man have been found as complete skeletons. But
the structures of these two "cave men" are nearly identical to that of modern man.
Additionally modern man was on the scene when these creatures walked the earth; the
skeletons of all three have been found in the same strata. In fact, one researcher
has noted that if either of these were to walk down the street of a busy city, they
wouldn’t look any different than many other people you might chance to meet. If anything
they might be viewed as extinct races of mankind, but not much of an argument can
be made that they are missing links leading to modern man.(6)
In 1973 a modern-appearing human skull was discovered and dated at 2.8 million years.
Since most evolutionists contend that modern man evolved around one million years
ago, this creates a serious problem because this makes it older than Pithecanthropus,
the creature evolutionists now point to as the ancestor of mankind.
This leaves us with another situation where the offspring are older than their grandparents
if you are to believe the evolutionists. Richard Leaky, the discoverer of Pithecanthropus,
has since stated about this discovery that, "What we have discovered simply wipes
out everything we have taught about human evolution, and I have nothing to offer
in its place."(7)
Because the "intermediate" transitional "missing links" are, indeed, missing, and
because the "simple life" that complex life is supposed to have evolved from is also
missing from the fossil record, and because evolution "proves" that the offspring
is older than its parents, it’s impossible to seriously contend that the Theory of
Evolution has any basis in reality. This has lead to some bizarre attempts by scientists
to come up with new theories to support their hope that evolution can be proven.
One of the more fantastic of these is that spaceships that visited Earth millions
of years ago accidentally released creatures that evolved into today’s animals. No,
this isn’t a tabloid theory you’d see at your local supermarket but something seriously
suggested by scientists.
Those Missing, Missing Links
The Earth’s fossil record displays a detailed record of complex life appearing suddenly
with the earliest fossils being complex organisms found in what is known as the Cambrian
rock strata. Billions of fossils are to be found, all highly complex. There are no
fossils of simpler life before this strata. Since most evolutionists maintain it
took over a billion years for such complex life to evolve, the missing fossils leading
up to these complex forms suggests something is amiss with the Theory of Evolution.
However such a fossil record fits in fine with the idea that the world was created
by a supernatural power.
Charles Darwin himself was puzzled by the lack of missing links. Before his death
he wrote, "As by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why
do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? The
number of intermediate kinds, between all living and extinct species, must have been
inconceivably great." This situation has led Professor E.J.H. Corner of Cambridge
University to say, "I still think, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants
is in favor of special creation."
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..." works well with the fossil
record. Evolution doesn’t.
Where Are the Debunkers?
The near sanctity given to the Theory of Evolution is a clear demonstration of how
the press, scientists, universities, and other segments of our culture are controlled.
It doesn’t take a great investigative reporter or a scientific Einstein to see that
the basic holdings of evolution are pure hokum.
So why does it continue to be taught in our schools and blatantly promoted in every
science text and TV program that is produced for public consumption?
The answer can only be that evolution serves to undermine religion as well as the
value of mankind; the Bible as well as any idea of morality goes out the window if
man is simply another animal and the Bible is simply a nice fairy tale. And if man
has only evolved from the lower animals, then a porpoise, fly, or whatever has as
much value as a man. Environmentalists, socialists, and liberals all like this thought.
Evolution fits right in with the anti-Christian, mainstream press agendas. Don’t
expect anyone from these camps to step forward and admit that evolution is the biggest
hoax of the century or that they’ve been instrumental in perpetuating the hoax.
That said the truth is slowly coming out. A few scientists are speaking out or noting
that this or another assumption behind evolution must be false. One good example
of this is the work done by Dr. Michael Denton.(8)
Although Denton is not a creationist, he has been speaking out against many of the
assumptions of traditional evolution, making his points from a biochemical standpoint
that shows amino acid sequences from species spanning the entire biological world
do not support the theory of progressive evolution from one species into another.
Denton also disproves the theory of punctuated equilibrium. Denton maintains that
the Theory of Evolution will crumble from the shear weight of evidence against it.
[Postscript: For a look at why Evolution doesn't work at the molecular level, see
Heaven's Lower Gate by Corey Bohling. Ben Stein’s movie Expelled: No Intelligence
Allowed gives insight into how the dogma of evolution is preached at campuses as
well as displaying the flawed logic of many of those in the evolution camp.]
(1) Albert G. Mackey"Leland Manuscript," An Encyclopedia of Freemasonry (New York:
The Masonic History Company, 1921), Vol. I.
(2) Daniel, Vol. II, 33-34.
(3) Albert G. Mackey, "Darwin, Charles and Freemasonry," An Encyclopedia of Freemasonry
(New York: The Masonic History Company, 1921), Vol. III
(4) For a detailed look at how the fossil record won’t support evolution, see Evolution:
The Challenge of the Fossil Record by Dr. Duane T. Gish. This book systematically
demonstrates the complete absence of missing links in the fossil record. The book
also discusses recapitulation, the origin of man, living fossils, alleged transitional
species (e.g. archaeopteryx), punctuated equilibrium, and many other points that
evolutionists hold dear but which aren’t supported by the facts.
(8) Dr. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Alder & Alder,Publishers,
Inc., 1986; ISBN 0-917561-05-8).