I t has often been said that if you tell a big enough lie often enough, people will believe you.

The gullibility of human beings is very well attested to - Adolf Hitler is one of several people in human history who proved this to be true. According to Hitler, all the problems of Germany were the fault of the Jews! He kept spouting off about this and trained his henchmen also in this perverted and lying philosophy.

Without doubt, within a few years most Germans really believed that this was true; just get rid of the Jews and...hey presto... the German nation can again be great! Today it seems incredible to us that the Nazis blaming of the Jewish people for all the problems of society could have been accepted.

Of course, he was not the first; another famous German, Karl Marx, believed and continually taught that all the problems and evils in the world could be solved if only one could get rid of the wealthy capitalists. Have a society just composed of the 'workers' and...hey presto!... there too you would have the perfect society. Even well before Hitler's time, thousands accepted his theories. 'Das Kapital' proved to be a very influential book, just as 'Mein Kampf' would later prove to be!

But not only politicians have proven the 'big enough lie' thesis! Perhaps nobody has been as lastingly successful as Charles Darwin, the British naturalist. Now I don't suggest that Darwin necessarily started off with the intention to get a big lie accepted as truth by the majority of the world - he may well have been sincere to some degree, but just comsider the following points:
Evolution has proven to be hugely influential and has become something of a 'badge' of respectability among the science community, even though, as we always say, it is really a philosophy and not a science at all. It is not, and never has been, empirically testable. I just find it incredible that although a great deal of what goes under the 'umbrella' of 'evolution' is really pseudo-science (unproven and unprovable and really a philosophy), evolution remains largely unchallenged within the scientific community. Why? Because it is the badge of 'scientific' materialistic respectability. Reject it and you only have God left, plus the eating of an awful lot of 'humble pie'!

I find that the current crop of school science teachers - at least here in the UK - are not even aware of the work of people like Michael Behe, the brilliant molecular biologist. Behe has - effectively - shown that evolution could not have happened because of the principle of Irreducible Complexity. To Darwin, the human cell was just a blob of gunk, not a lot more. But people like Behe have shown that the human cell is a miniature factory of amazing complexity - moreover, you take one part away and nothing works!

So how could this have possibly 'evolved'??

Yet evolution remains largely unchallenged even though the theory is now in tatters, as many scientists will freely admit (especially privately).

I am told that even in this year of our Lord, 2002, several new books have rolled off the printing presses which uphold and promulgate evolution as aspiring new science writers try to make a name for themselves. Of course, if some of these writers were really brave, they really could have made a name for themselves by powerfully attacking the theory of evolution! But that would be dangerous and could bring their careers to an early conclusion! No, despite the work of Behe and others the science community still upholds evolution as their 'badge of office.' So these new books just try to take new angles and slants without - for the most part - daring to challenge the theory.

I also noticed a BBC television series which every week puts forward a candidate as the 'Greatest Briton.' Charles Dickens has been put forward, among others. But a recent edition of the series upheld Charles Darwin for the title of the most influential and greatest Briton.
I was surprised that the man speaking for, and advocating, Darwin was BBC Television's Political Correspondent, Andrew Marr, who appears to be a very sharp and intelligent commentator on politics. But even Marr's keen and bright intellect did not allow him to see that Darwin was not only a plagiarist (it's now known that he was not the first to teach evolution, but he made the theory famous, with little indication that he gave credit to the man who first upheld this worldview), but that Darwinism is now shot through with holes!

In truth, little remains of the theory, but the non-scientific public are never told this and even Andrew Marr appears to be taken in.

Without any doubt Darwin thought that within a few years of his death, the fossil record would have demonstrated evolution to be a clear fact of our pre-history. The truth, of course, is that the fossil record has never shown evolution to be a viable proposition. Despite repeated hoaxes and exaggerated claims of 'missing link' finds, there is - in reality - nothing in the way of evidence to support this philosophy. But, again, the public are kept in the dark about this. A few weeks ago I read a local science teacher's 'guidelines on evolution' in which the incredible statement was made,
"Of course, we uphold evolution because of the evidence of fossils." Against this mis-information the famed paleontologist, Stephen Jay Gould has pointed out that,
"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change...all paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms..."(Gould, 1977).
When we put this together with the fact that it is now believed that around 250 million fossils have now been catalogued, we can see that the lack of available fossils is certainly not the problem!
In the face of this welter of evidence which does not support gradual change, one evolutionist, Niles Eldridge, in a moment of utter candour, wrote, "Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution."(Quoted by Philip Johnson, p60-61, Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, Inter-Varsity Press, 1997).
No, most knowledgeable scientists would smile with their tongues 'firmly in cheek' about our local science teacher's non-scientific assertion! Let me clearly state it here, lest there should be the slightest doubt: THE FOSSIL EVIDENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT EVOLUTION!

Another huge problem for devout evolutionists which has emerged over the last few years, is the discovery of DNA. DNA would have been an utter mystery to Darwin and if he had known about it in his day he may well have revised his teachings.
To be frank; DNA does not fit in with evolution - its as simple as that. Maybe the honest thing would have been for scientists to have jettisoned the theory of evolution there and then - upon the discovery of DNA - but just think what would have been involved in that: countless thousands of science teachers and lecturers would have had to be re-trained, countless thousands of scientific textbooks would have had to have been destroyed. And on and on it goes. Moreover, the scientific establishment would have suffered a massive 'loss of face'; would anybody ever be prepared to listen to scientists again? This would all have been a virtually impossible undertaking and the cost to our schools and universities would have been astronomical! So the 'scientific establishment' instead decided to somehow make DNA fit into the theory of evolution! One can't help being reminded of the old proverb: 'Oh what a tangled web we weave when we first set our hearts to deceive'!! Of course, I am not suggesting that the average scientist wants to deceive, evolutionary theory is simply the intellectual diet which they have been fed for a long time.

Here are just a few of many amazing admissions about evolution:

Charles Darwin: "Long before the reader has arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to him. Some of them are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without being in some degree staggered; but, to the best of my judgment, the greater number are only apparent, and those that are real are not, I think fatal to the theory."
Toward the end of his life, Darwin openly admitted: "Not one change of species into another is on record.... We cannot prove that a single species has changed into another." (Darwin, Charles, My Life and Letters, Vol. 1. Page 2 10).

Thomas Huxley said that "evolution was not an established theory but a tentative hypothesis, an extremely valuable and even probable hypothesis, but a hypothesis none the less." (Himmelfarb, Gertrude, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, Doubleday and Co., New York, 1859, page 366).

Dr. Austin H. Clark, noted biologist of the Smithsonian Institute, stated: "There is no evidence which would show man developing step by step from lower forms of life. There is nothing to show that man was in any way connected with monkeys.... He appeared SUDDENLY and in substantially the same form as he is today.... There are no such things as missing links."
He also said, "So far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists appear to have the best of the argument. There is NOT THE SLIGHTEST EVIDENCE THAT ANY ONE OF THE MAJOR GROUPS AROSE FROM ANY OTHER. Each is a special animal complex, related more or less closely to all the rest, and appearing therefore as a species and distinct creation." (Meldau, Fred John, Witness Against Evolution, Christian Victory Publishing Co., Denver, Colo., 1953, page 39, 40, 73).

William Herschel (1738-1822), who discovered Uranus and built some of the world's greatest telescopes, said, "The undevout astronomer must be mad." (Cited by Henry M. Morris, 'Men of Science - Men of God' page30).

Professor Albert Fleishman, professor of Comparative Anatomy at Erlangen University, said, "The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are becoming more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge, nor does it suffice for our theoretical grasp of the facts. The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination." (Fleishman, Albert, Victoria Institute, Vol. 65, pages 194, 195).

Sir William Dawson, Canada's great geologist, said of evolution: "It is one of the strangest phenomena of humanity; it is utterly destitute of proof." (Dawson, Sir William, Story of Earth and Man, page 317).

And some more quotes:

"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

"The problem of the origin of species has not advanced in the last 150 years. One hundred and fifty years have already passed during which it has been said that the evolution of the species is a fact but, without giving real proofs of it and without even a principle of explaining it. During the last one hundred and fifty years of research that has been carried out along this line [in order to prove the theory], there has been no discovery of anything. It is simply a repetition in different ways of what Darwin said in 1859. This lack of results is unforgivable in a day when molecular biology has really opened the veil covering the mystery of reproduction and heredity . . "Finally, there is only one attitude which is possible as I have just shown: It consists in affirming that intelligence comes before life. Many people will say this is not science, it is philosophy. The only thing I am interested in is fact, and this conclusion comes out of an analysis and observation of the facts."—*G. Salet, Hasard et Certitude: Le Transformisme devant la Biologie Actuelle (1973), p. 331.

" `Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.' A tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling [Tahmisian called it]."—*The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959, p. 1-B [quoting T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission].

" `The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake.' "—*Louis Agassiz, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1966), p. 139. [Agassiz was a Harvard University professor and the pioneer in glaciation.]

"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.

"It has been estimated that no fewer than 800 phrases in the subjunctive mood (such as `Let us assume,' or `We may well suppose,' etc.) are to be found between the covers of Darwin's Origin of Species alone."—L. Merson Davies [British scientist], Modern Science (1953), p. 7.

Dr. Robert A. Millikan, famous physicist and Nobel prize winner, said, "Everyone who reflects believes in God." (Millikan, Robert A., The Commentator, June 1937).
In an address to the American Chemical Society, he said: "The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no scientists can do."

Dr. George Wald, a Nobel prize winner, chooses to believe in evolution even though he said he regards it as a scientific impossibility. He says, "The only alternative to a spontaneous generation is a belief in supernatural creation...." (Wald, George, "Innovation and Biology," Scientific American, Vol. 199, Sept. 1958, page 100).

Dr. Wernher Von Braun, who masterminded the V-2 rocket of Germany in World War II and the space program of the United States for two decades, said in a speech at Taylor University: "The idea of an orderly universe is inconceivable without God -- the grandeur of the cosmos confirms the certainty of creation. One can't be exposed to the law and order of the universe without becoming aware of a divine intent." (Keith, Bill, Scopes II the Great Debate, Huntington House, 1985, page 55).

Richard Goldschmidt, Ph.D., Professor of Zoology, University of California, said, "Geographic variation as a model of species formation will not stand under thorough scientific investigation. Darwin's theory of natural selection has never had any proof .. yet it has been universally accepted. There may be wide diversification within the species ... but the gap (between species) cannot be bridged .... Sub-species do not merge into the species either actually or ideally." (Keith, Bill, Scopes II the Great Debate, Huntington House, 1985, pages 55-56).

Dr. Warren Weaver, formerly chairman of the board of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said, "Every new discovery of science is a further 'revelation' of the order which God has built into His universe." (Weaver, Warren, Look Magazine, April 5, 1955, page 30).

Sir Robert Boyd, Emeritus Professor of Physics at University College, London, says, "I worship an unseen God...getting to know him...changed my whole world-view". (God and the Scientists, CPO - Design & Print, page 2).

Gareth Jones, Head of the Anatomy and Structural Biology Department at the University of Otago (New Zealand), considers biblical truth as his "driving force". (Ibid., page 6).

Sam Berry who is Professor of Genetics at University College, London, has explained how his considerable research in Antarctica has made him "more and more convinced that God has revealed himself in both creation and the Bible". (Ibid., page 11).

Here are some links which contain a great deal of reading (some are virtual on-line books) which show that evolution is not only anti-scientific, but is actually an act of faith!

Please note that some of these sites and articles (not many) will probably support the 'Old Earth Theory' (the earth is many millions of years old), and some will support a literal six-day Creation with a 'Young Earth Theory.' Here at UK Apologetics we tend not to support the 'Old Earth Theory' since it appears to be imposing something on the text of Genesis 1 which is foreign to it; moreover, some outstanding scientists like the late A.E. Wilder-Smith can provide much positive evidence that our earth is only a few thousand years old. But true Christians may be found in both camps. Always remember that the creation account itself pictures God creating things which have the impression of great age. When Jesus turned water into wine, the wine was created with the impression of maturity. (Good wine cannot be produced quickly). Nevertheless, we encourage an open mind. What we do know is that we are powerfully anti-Macro-Evolution.
Sometimes these sites move and a link becomes a 'dead link', if that happens and you become aware of it, PLEASE E Mail me to tell me.
Robin A. Brace, 2002.

You May Also Wish to Read:
(An essential 'read'!)

(The internet is full of 'information' on Darwin which is years out of date! I painstakingly researched my material for this article in order to bring you what we can definitely state about this man in this 21st century. His admirers will not like it)

(Which goes a little deeper than this article).

Here are the links:
























A burgundy cross

I dedicate this page of resources to the glory of our wonderful Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
Robin A. Brace, 2002.





Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional