mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ 
For complete access to all the files of this collection
	see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php 
==========================================================
The Theory of Evolution

Last modified, 8/08/2001

Evolutionism and Catastrophism

This page is one of two large www pages which I maintain. The other,
the Catastrophism page, is more complicated and more of a load to try
to absorb than this page, but contains an overwhelming argument
against any and all contemporary versions of evolution, which most
Christians in particular will be unfamiliar with: a straightforward
demonstration that nothing heavier than 21000 lbs. could stand or walk
in our present world, along with a huge body of historical evidence
indicating that the peculiar set of circumstances which did permit
much heavier animals to live in the past came to a final, convulsive
end within the memory of man. That, of course, utterly destroys the
gigantic expanses of time which evolutionists like to use as an
enabling mechanism for their dogmas.

Evolutionism and Fascism

There are numerous reasons for rejecting evolutionism, many of which
appear on these pages, but there is one which should be kept in mind
above all others.

The notion that "survival of the fittest" is the only moral principle
in nature was one of the most major and probably the most major
philosophical foundation of the nazi, communist, and fascist regimes
of this century. Social Darwinism, the logical precursor of fascism,
was generally accepted from around 1870 until WW-II. Communism has
finally been rejected in Russia after untold misery and suffering
caused by it brought the soviet state to the brink of total collapse.
The victory over the other adherents of these ideas was not achieved
with super weapons, but rather was purchased with an ocean of
American, British, Canadian, Australian, and Russian blood. These
people laid down their lives and asked very little in return other,
presumably, than that we conduct our own lives in such a manner as to
occasionally justify the sacrafice. There is simply no rationial way
in which adopting the same idiologies which were the foundations of
the Nazi and fascist states may be construed as doing that.

The first ten or twelve paragraphs of the section on races and nations
in Mein Kampf sound so much like Darwin's works that it's hard to tell
the difference.

In fact, the brilliant evolutionist crew of talk.origins, aka
bandarlog aka brothers of Ediacara/Toromanura, were once given an
opportunity to see if they in fact could tell the difference between
the writings of Hitler and those of Darwin, and they failed the test.

The ICR documents some of the extent to which evolutionism fertilizes
the soil for racism. Finally, the Bible Believers' Resource Page and
Charismatic Movement offer a fairly detailed and serious article on
evolutionism and racism.

Claims from evolutionists notwithstanding, the milieu in which
Darwinism arose makes it impossible to believe that Darwin was
ignorant or innocent of the kinds of uses to which his theories would
eventually be put.

Evolution and Stupidity

We observe that any change to a substantially different kind of
creature with new kinds of organs, an entirely new set of system
integration requirements for those organs with both old and other new
organs, and a new plan for life, is seen to be a zero-probability
event, both statistically and programmatically.

The basic problem is that evolution requires millions of such events
while, as we have seen, even one such event is basically impossible.
Every once in awhile you get lucky in life; a theory which required
one or even two miracles to happen in the entire history of the Earth
might still be worth looking into. But an essential infinity of
zero-probability events? You have to want to believe something pretty
badly...

Evolution has been so thoroughly discredited at this point that you
assume nobody is defending it because they believe in it anymore, and
that they are defending it because they do not like the prospects of
having to defend or explain some axpect of their lifestyles to God,
St. Peter, Muhammed...

To these people I say, you've still got a problem. The problem is that
evolution, as a doctrine, is so overwhelmingly STUPID that, faced with
a choice of wearing a sweatshirt with a scarlet letter A for Adulteror
or F for Fornicator or some such traditional device, or an I for
IDIOT, you'd actually be better off sticking with one of the former
choices because, as Clint Eastwood noted in The Good, The Bad, and The
Ugly:

God hates IDIOTS, too!

The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves
trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic
plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both
old and new organs.

Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to
become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems,
including wings, flight feathers, a specialized light bone structure,
specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail,
specialized general balance parameters etc.

Most people only have to take one look at a flight feather with its
complex system of interlocking barbules under a microscope to
comprehend that such a thing could not possibly evolve from any
sort of a pre-existing down feather, the purpose of which is
insulation rather than control of air streams.

For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until
the day on which the whole thing came together, so that the chances of
evolving any of these things by any process resembling evolution
(mutations plus selection) would amount to an infinitessimal, i.e. one
divided by some gigantic number.

In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things
happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says
that the likelihood of all these things ever happening, best case, is
ten or twelve such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth
or twelth-order infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe
isn't long enough for that to happen once.

All of that was the best case. In real life, it's even worse than
that. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for
hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to
evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In
real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk around
some starting point, rather than the unidircetional march towards a
future requirement which evolution requires.

And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism
dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were
to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become
a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled
around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been
disfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and
either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.

Now, it would be miraculous if, given all the above, some new kind of
complex creature with new organs and a new basic plan for life had
ever evolved ONCE.

Evolutionism, however (the Theory of Evolution) requires that this has
happened countless billions of times, i.e. an essentially infinite
number of absolutely zero probability events.

And, if you were starting to think that nothing could possibly be any
stupider than believing in evolution despite all of the above (i.e.
that the basic stupidity of evolutionism starting from 1980 or
thereabouts could not possibly be improved upon), think again. Because
there is zero evidence in the fossil record (despite the BS claims of
talk.origins "crew" and others of their ilk) to support any sort of a
theory involving macroevolution, and because the original conceptions
of evolution are flatly refuted by developments in population genetics
since the 1950's, the latest incarnation of this theory, Steve Gould
and Niles Eldredge's "Punctuated Equilibrium or punc-eek" attempts to
claim that these wholesale violations of probabilistic laws all
occurred so suddenly as to never leave evidence in the fossil record,
and that they all occurred amongst tiny groups of animals living in
"peripheral" areas. That says that some velocirapter who wanted to be
a bird got together with fifty of his friends and said:

Guys, we need flight feathers, and wings, and specialized bones,
hearts, lungs, and tails, and we need em NOW; not two years from
now. Everybody ready, all together now:
OOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....

You could devise a new religion by taking the single stupidest
doctrine from each of the existing religions, and it would not be as
stupid as THAT.

But it gets even stupider.

Again, the original Darwinian vision of gradualistic evolution is
flatly refuted by the fossil record (Darwinian evolution demanded that
the vast bulk of ALL fossils be intermediates) and by the findings of
population genetics, particularly the Haldane dilemma and the
impossible time requirements for spreading genetic changes through any
sizeable herd of animals.

Consider what Gould and other punk-eekers are saying. Punc-eek amounts
to a claim that all meaningful evolutionary change takes place in
peripheral areas, amongst tiny groups of animals which develop some
genetic advantage, and then move out and overwhelm, outcompete, and
replace the larger herds. They are claiming that this eliminates the
need to spread genetic change through any sizeable herd of animals
and, at the same time, is why we never find intermediate fossils
(since there are never enough of these CHANGELINGS to leave fossil
evidence).

Obvious problems with punctuated equilibria include, minimally:

1. It is a pure pseudoscience seeking to explain and actually be
proved by a lack of evidence rather than by evidence (all the
missing intermediate fossils). Similarly, Cotton Mather claimed
that the fact that nobody had ever seen or heard a witch was proof
they were there (if you could see or hear them, they wouldn't be
witches...) The best example of that sort of logic in fact that
there ever was was Michael O'Donahue's parody of the Connecticut
Yankee (New York Yankee in King Arthur's Court) which showed Reggie
looking for a low outside fastball and then getting beaned cold by
a high inside one, the people feeling Reggie's wrist for pulse, and
Reggie back in Camelot, where they had him bound hand and foot.
Some guy was shouting "Damned if e ain't black from ead to foot, if
that ain't witchcraft I never saw it!!!", everybody was yelling
"Witchcraft Trial!, Witchcraft Trial!!", and they were building a
scaffold. Reggie looks at King Arthur and says "Hey man, isn't that
just a tad premature, I mean we haven't even had the TRIAL yet!",
and Arthur replies "You don't seem to understand, son, the hanging
IS the trial; if you survive that, that means you're a witch and we
gotta burn ya!!!" Again, that's precisely the sort of logic which
goes into Gould's variant of evolutionism, Punk-eek.

2. PE amounts to a claim that inbreeding is the most major source
of genetic advancement in the world. Apparently Steve Gould never
saw Deliverance...

3. PE requires these tiny peripheral groups to conquer vastly
larger groups of animals millions if not billions of times, which
is like requiring Custer to win at the little Big Horn every day,
for millions of years.

4. PE requires an eternal victory of animals specifically adapted
to localized and parochial conditions over animals which are
globally adapted, which never happens in real life.

5. For any number of reasons, you need a minimal population of any
animal to be viable. This is before the tiny group even gets
started in overwhelming the vast herds. A number of American
species such as the heath hen became non-viable when their numbers
were reduced to a few thousand; at that point, any stroke of bad
luck at all, a hard winter, a skewed sex ratio in one generation, a
disease of some sort, and it's all over. The heath hen was fine as
long as it was spread out over the East coast of the U.S. The point
at which it got penned into one of these "peripheral" areas which
Gould and Eldredge see as the salvation for evolutionism, it was
all over.

The sort of things noted in items 3 and 5 are generally referred to as
the "gambler's problem", in this case, the problem facing the tiny
group of "peripheral" animals being similar to that facing a gambler
trying to beat the house in blackjack or roulette; the house could
lose many hands of cards or rolls of the dice without flinching, and
the globally-adapted species spread out over a continent could
withstand just about anything short of a continental-scale catastrophe
without going extinct, while two or three bad rolls of the dice will
bankrupt the gambler, and any combination of two or three strokes of
bad luck will wipe out the "peripheral" species. Gould's basic method
of handling this problem is to ignore it.

And there's one other thing which should be obvious to anybody
attempting to read through Gould and Eldridge's BS:

The don't even bother to try to provide a mechanism or technical
explaination of any sort for this "punk-eek"

They are claiming that at certain times, amongst tiny groups of
animals living in peripheral areas, a "speciation event(TM)" happens,
and THEN the rest of it takes place. In other words, they are saying:

ASSUMING that Abracadabra-Shazaam(TM) happens, then the rest of the
business proceeds as we have described in our scholarly discourse
above!

Again, Gould and Eldridge require that the Abracadabra-Shazaam(TM)
happen not just once, but countless billions of times, i.e. at least
once for every kind of complex creature which has ever walked the
Earth. They do not specify whether this amounts to the same
Abracadabra-Shazaam each time, or a different kind of
Abracadabra-Shazaam for each creature.

I ask you: How could anything be stupider or worse than that? What
could possibly be worse than professing to believe in such a thing?

Evolution and Religion

Evolutionists insist that the conflict is between evolution and
religion. It isn't; the conflict is between evolution and mathematics,
as noted in the documents of the Wistar Institute Symposium of 1966
and following symposia, as Dr. Bass comments upon below. One thing you
notice in comparing various religions to evolution is the count of
miracles: the sum total of miracles in the bible, violations of
apparent physical laws by supernatural agencies, is probably between
25 and 100, and closer to 25. Evolution requires literally billions of
probabilistic miracles, i.e. real violations of mathematical and
probabilistic laws.

It has been said that the only two religions which might possibly
serve as replacements for evolution in American schools, would be
voodoo and rastafari, and even that statement is an unwarrented insult
to the voodooers and rastas. In fact, you could devise a new religion
by taking the single stupidest doctrine from each of the existing
religions, and even that would make sense compared to evolution.

Evolution and the Stegosaur

[mishi6.jpg] 

Nothing resembling macroevolution has ever occurred in recorded
history. Evolutionists claim that gigantic expanses of time are
required for evolution. What if the gigantic expanses of time can be
coercively shown to be fictional? In particular, what if the 65
million years which supposedly intervene between our age and the age
of dinosaurs can be shown to be just another white-man's fairytale,
that Indian ancestors dealt with dinosaurs on a regular basis, and
that accurate images of known dinosaur types exist in American Indian
rock art (petroglyphs)?

Quoting Evolutionists and Others

The theory of evolution today is in such a state that any collection
of quotes from paleontologists regarding the fossil record,
mathematicians regarding the odds involved in abiogenesis etc. will
amount to a horrific indictment of the doctrine (evolutionism). The
best collection of such quotes I am aware of resides at Steve
Jackson's Vast Cosmos www site.

For evolutionists, there is no possible rational response to the
overwhelming case these collections of quotes make other than say to
themselves "Gee, how did I ever believe in anything like that?" and
cease being evolutionists. Obviously nobody should hold their breath
waiting for that to happen, and one may therefore anticipate that
their response will be irrational. They won't disappoint you; the
basic response of the evolutionists on the net to anybody attempting
to quote any of these lists of quotes on discussion groups has always
been that each and every one of the scientists being quoted is being
quoted out of context, that the gist of what they were trying to say
has been inverted in each and every case, and that the person posting
such a thing is therefore a liar. One WWW site advancing such a view
is that of Andrew MacRae. The claim is that each of the scientists (in
the case of evolutionists) remains an evolutionist, and that therefore
I have to be a liar.

My response has always been that the full context of each of these
quotes is basically irrelevant despite the rest of the page in most
cases giving reasons why the author remains an evolutionist.

It's as if a general was trying to get a picture of what was happening
on the front and were to debrief a number of lieutenants and sergeants
and each one said something like "Well sir, we took a lot of
casualties this morning and really got our butts kicked, but overall
things are proceeding ok and I'm sure we're gonna win..." Macrae would
insist that the data be interpreted as meaning that the general had no
problems; in real life the general would be insane to assume anything
other than that he had a major problem on his hands. Discussions of
these kinds of quotations on talk.origins tend to be nasty to the
point of being comical.

Then, of course, there's always the ultimate evolutionist quote, taken
from an interview with Jeffrey Dahmer:

"If a person doesn't think that there is a God to be accountable
to, then what's the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep
it within acceptable ranges? That's how I thought anyway. I always
believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all came from
slime. When we died, you know , that was it, there is nothing..."

Basically, the next time an evolutionist calls you a liar for quoting
paleontologists and biologists on the pitfalls of evolution, run this
one by him, saying "Make my day: tell me how Dahmer really believed in
evolution, and how I'm a liar for quoting him out of context!"

Real Experts on Evolutionism

Robert W. Bass is one of America's greatest living mathematicians and
the author of a dynamical derivation of the Titus-Bode law in
celestial mechanics. His comments on evolution and on several related
topics are interesting to say the least. Apparently, not too long ago,
a group of the world's best mathematicians investigated the likelihood
of evolutionary scenarios and ruled them flatly impossible. Dr. Bass
comments on this and other topics.

Real World Paleontology

Human/hominid and other large animal remains in Carboniferous strata
indicate that paleontological dating schemes are FUBAR. FUBAR (Fouled
Up Beyond Any Recognition) is US Army terminology for a maximum
possible state of disarray and disorder.

Population Genetics and Evolutionism

David Plaisted is claiming that published mutation rates are either
much too high (much lower ones would eliminate all possibilities of
evolution) or, if correct, would imply a genetic meltdown of all
animal species within a terribly short time, a few hundred
generations. That would imply either a very young age for all animal
species, or the constant protection against this sort of meltdown
until very recent times, by some super agency, God, Odin, or whatever
you want, but again ideas about evolutionism would be superflous under
such conditions.

The entire discipline of population genetics would appear to be a
pretty lethal environment for evolutionism. Particularly the question
of the Haldane dilemma, named after the famous geneticist J.B.S.
Haldane who, in the 1950's, provided mathematical qualification for
the immense time frames which would be required to spread any genetic
trait throughout any halfway large population of animals.

The most major expert in that sort of that thing on the internet is
Walter Remine. The event of the year in 1995 on talk.origins was
Walter ReMine's demolition of the t.o. bandar-log in a series of
exchanges constituting the worst beating which the
bandar-log/Ediacara/Toromanura crew has ever absorbed. Well worth
reading. ReMine's Biotic Message is now featured on a special www site
for the purpose maintained by St. Paul Science.
_________________________________________________________________

The Modern Religion

There are at least four aspects of evolution which need to be examined
in order to understand why many scientists act so much like people who
have painted themselves into corners on this particular topic:

Abiogenesis:

The original manner in which raw materials lying in the ground get
lucky and, entirely by chance, are formed into the original one-celled
animals.

The problem is that even a one-celled organism turns out to be far
more complex than anything which man has yet built.

The odds against even the simplest parts of a one-celled animal
arising via chance are known to be far beyond astronomical.

Of course, no available amount of time would suffice for trying to
overcome those kinds of odds, least of all the piddling four billion
years which evolutionists claim as an age of the Earth. You're still
looking for an event with odds like 1 to ten to the 167,887 power
EVERY YEAR for a billion years, assuming one-celled animals are
supposed to have arisen in a billion years.

That's asuming a cell might have developed ala evolutionism over a
billion year time span without being destroyed by outside forces as
Struss notes. Realistically, the cell would probably have to
completely form from scratch in less than one day.

Aside from the impossible odds, there is another problem just as bad.
All versions of abiogenesis require a "pre-biotic soup", a rich
amalgom of the major kinds of building blocks required for living
cells in the ancient oceans of the world. Such a concentrations of
proteins etc. would leave traces in the rocks of those oceans;
unfortunately for the evolutionists, there are no such traces.

Thus, abiogenesis, by any rational standard, should be viewed as a
simple impossibility for which there is zero supporting evidence.

The question becomes, how do evolutionists deal with this? The general
answer, at least judging from what one sees on talk.origins or the
Ediacara WWW system, is via a combination of insulting people who
mention the problem, and attempting to claim that abiogenesis and
evolution are two separate topics. The working hypothesis from the
point of view of the evolutionists is that, if they get sufficiently
good with the ad-hominems, they will only have to defend one
indefensible theory as opposed to two.
_________________________________________________________________

Mutation amongst one-celled animals, and microevolution.

Of the four areas mentioned here, this is the one in which evolution
has not been shown to be flatly impossible in anything even remotely
like its present forms. Thus, an anti-evolutionist, creationist, or
whatever should usually leave this one for the evolutionists to gloat
over. Common decency in fact demands this; it's all they really have.

Nonetheless, trying to argue from this one area of applicability into
the larger realm of macro-evolution, as evolutionists do, is like
claiming that one's Harley would suffice to get to Mars because it
suffices for getting from D.C. to Philly. Further, there is the very
real question as to whether bacteria do themselves any long-term good
in mutating to defeat antibiotics.

Dan Hughes (fbai at ionet.net), replying to a typical evolutionist claim
that such mutation/adaptation amongst bacteria constitutes proof of
evolutionary principles, noted:

If this phenomenon is evolution, the evolution has been disproved.
When these bacteria 'evolve' to avoid the effects of the antibiotic,
the change _always_ reduces the viability of the organism.  This
does allow the organism to grow and reproduce in the presence of
the particular antibiotic however.

This is why multiple antibiotic therapies are being tried.  The
multiple mutations necessary for the organism to overcome all of
the antibiotics usually render it unable to grow and reproduce.

It's just a matter of how many antibiotics are currently available
for any particular organism.  In addition, some organisms may
require more antibiotic challenges before they reach the point of
having mutated beyond the ability to grow and reproduce.

The only evolution ever detected in nature is devolution.  All present
life forms are degenerative forms of what we find in the fossil
record.  The evidence does not support increasing complexity, it
does support decreasing complexity, longevity and variety.

Evolution is a deception for those who reject God.

That, of course, is the dim view, and in all likelihood the correct
one.
_________________________________________________________________

Macro Evolution

The rise of ever increasingly complex kinds of creatures from the
simplest creatures. This is what is generally meant by the theory of
evolution.

The rise of man and other higher creatures from one-celled animals via
mutation and other random events involves a chain of millions of
events, each of which is impossible both from a view towards
statistics and from a programmatic point of view as noted above.

To get an idea of how impossible it is to gain any sort of a complex
capability or even the tiniest bit of a complex capability which you
do not already have in nature, I recommend a look at the case of the
escaped (or 'feral') chicken.

Consider that man raises chickens in gigantic abundance, and that on
many farms, these are not even caged. Consider the numbers of such
chickens which must have escaped in all of recorded history; look in
the sky overhead: where are all of their wild-living descendants??

Why are there no wild chickens in the skies above us???

A flying bird requires a baker's dozen highly specialized systems,
including flight feathers, wings, a special light bone structure,
specialized flow-through design hearts and lungs vastly more efficient
than ours, specialized tails and balance parameters, and a number of
other things. Now, you can imagine the difficulty involved for
something like a dinosaur which did not have any of these things to
evolve them all, but the feral chicken

already has all of these things!!!!!

In other words, if there's any chance whatsoever of a non-flying
creature evolving into a flying bird, then surely, surely the feral
chicken, close as it is, could RE-EVOLVE back into being a flying
bird. They're only missing the tiniest fraction of whatever is
involved.

They've got wings, tails, and flight feathers, and the whold nine
yards. In their domestic state, they can fly albeit badly; they are
entirely similar to what you might expect of an evolutionist's
proto-bird, in the final stage of evolving into a flight-worthy
condition.

According to evolutionist dogma, at least a few of these should very
quickly finish evolving back into something like a normal flying bird,
once having escaped, and then the progeny of those few should very
quickly fill the skies.

But the sky holds no wild chickens. In real life, against real
settings, real predators, real conditions, the imperfect flight
features do not suffice to save them.

Thus we see that "proto-bird" (TM) not only couldn't make it the
entire journey which he is supposed to have, he couldn't even make it
the last yard if we spotted him the thousand miles minus the yard.

The basic question is: How in hell is some velociraptor supposed to
make it the thousand miles, if history proves that a creature which
amounts to the final stage of such a development cannot make it the
final yard of such a process?
_________________________________________________________________

The rise of humans

The rise of modern man from supposedly ape-like ancesters within the
roughly 10 million year time frame which is usually given out is the
final area which must be considered. The bottom lines here are fairly
straightforward. The Neanderthal, which used to be viewed as a missing
link of some sort turns out to be a modern man as we can see from Jay
Matternes' reproductions; the other "missing links" we really don't
know enough about to talk about; results from genetics, particularly
the Haldane dilemma, clearly show that modern man could not begin to
arise from anything remotely ape-like in ten million years, via any
process involving chance. Finally, evolution postulates the
development of ever more refined creatures in the rise of modern man,
during a long period of time within which refinement would be a
serious disadvantage.

As if to make matters worse when that would not seem possible, recent
research in Germany shows neanderthal DNA to be "about halfway between
ours and that of a chimpanzee", clearly explaining the lack of
evidence of our ever having interbred with them. This poses a big
logical conundrum for the evolutionist: If we could not possibly be
descended from the neanderthal via evolution, then an evolutionist
must believe that there is some nearer hominid ancestor which we ARE
descended from. That closer ancestor would have had to have left
traces however. Neanderthal remains and works are all over the place
and the nearer ancestor would have to be closer to us in time THAN the
neanderthal. Nonetheless, there is no trace of any such ancestor on
this planet.

Of course, there is a real answer as to the relationship between
ourselves and the neanderthal. Gunnar Heinsohn, one of Europe's
leading scholars, notes that that there is no reason based upon
evidence to assume that the change from neanderthal to modern man took
more than one or two generations and, as noted above, you have to
regard such a change as evidence of bio-engineering or re-engineering
rather than as evidence of any sort of a long sequence of events
driven by stochastic processes and guided by "natural selection",
which is what we call evolution.
_________________________________________________________________

Versions of Evolution

Given all of that, just what is it that scientists would have us
believe? The answer is that it depends on who you listen to. We have,
in rough chronological order:
* Darwin's Version
* Hopeful Monsters
* Velikovsky's version
* The Gould/Eldredge version
* The Lieber/Stoller version
* The Slick Version
_________________________________________________________________

Evolutionist Assumptions

Evolution generally requires assumptions which would embarrass a
used-car salesman. A list amounting to a small sampler of these would
include:

The normal Darwinian version assumes that minute differentials in some
capability will drive a multi-thousand generation process of change
from one kind of creature to another. In real life, who lives and who
dies will be far more powerfully determined by such things as fights,
disease, bad luck, volcanic eruptions, floods, predation (in real
life, groups of adult predators take what they want, and not just the
sickly or unfit...), wars, accidents...

Evolutionists assume that the tiny handful of strange animals which
their hundred-year search for intermediate fossils has turned up
constitutes a case for evolution. That is plainly idiotic; evolution
requires that the vast bulk of all fossils ever found should be
intermediate forms and Gould, Eldredge, and numerous other serious
paleontologists are now clearly on record to the effect that there are
no meaningful intermediate fossils. In particular, the
Talk.origins/Ediacara Intermediate FAQ is transparently bogus.

Evolution assumes that natural selection can select for hoped-for as
opposed to real functionality. For instance, in the case of
proto-bird, it is supposed to select on the basis of traits which lead
towards the hoped-for ability to fly over a period of thousands of
generations. It won't. If it selects for anything at all, it will
select for traits which are useful NOW, while traits which might be
useful a million years down the road will do some sort of a random
walk about a mean.

Evolution assumes and requires that, despite an overwhelming
preponderence of neutral and harmful mutations, it is ALWAYS the
beneficial mutation which survives and propogates through a
population, just as we know from experience that it is always the good
which drives out the bad in government work, teaching, academia,
politics...

Evolutionists generally assume that categories of evidence which could
be interpreted many ways constitute unquestionable proof of evolution.
In particular, they invariably assume that the rare fossil records of
sequential changes indicate evolution. There is no reason to assume
this; using the same logic, a junkyard or museum with Chevrolets from
1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958... could be seen as evidence that the 58
Chevy had evolved from the 54 model.
_________________________________________________________________

Origins of Darwinism

The milieu from which Darwinism arose makes almost as interesting a
story as the theory of evolution itself...
_________________________________________________________________

FUBAR Doctrine

Thus, from all sides and viewed from all angles, we are forced to
conclude that the theory of evolution in any of its present
manifestations, is what American servicemen call "FUBAR", or "fouled
up beyond any recognition".

At some point, any theory can only be mangled so badly, and you're
better off without a theory. Evolution has evolved its way to this
exalted status.
_________________________________________________________________

Books Worth Having Around

* Michael Denton's "Evolution, a Theory in Crisis", available in
major book outlets.
* Phillip Johnson's "Darwin on Trial
* Alexander Mebane's "Darwin's Creation Myth"
* Walter ReMine's "The Biotic Message"
* Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box", available in major outlets
* Wendell Birds two-volume Origin of Species Revisited,
Philosophical Library of New York.
* Charles Ginenthal's "Sagan and Velikovsky", New Falcon Press
* Ginenthal, Wolfe, Rose, Cardona, Talbott, Cochrane "Gould and
Velikovsky", Ivy Press Books
* Rupert Sheldrake, "Seven Experiments Which Could Change The World"
* Emmet J. Sweeney, "The Pyramid Age"
_________________________________________________________________

Useful Internet References:

Talk.origins/Sci.Bio.Evolution Realities

* True Origins (Talk.origins FAQs Refuted

Major Scientific Problems with Evolution

* Wistar Symposia: Mathematics vs Evolution
* Natural Selection an Agency of Stasis, not Change 
* Evolution's quadrillion-year time requirements
* Evolution as Anti-Science 
* Critique of Gould 

Many Experts Quoted on FUBAR State of Evolution

(Steve Jackson's Web Site)

* aboutBible.htm
* fossil.htm
* life.htm
* man.htm
* species.htm
* theory.htm

Social Darwinism, Naziism, Communism, Darwinism Roots etc.

* Malthus and evolutionists
* Darwin's Environment
* Darwin, Racism, Evil
* Ascent of Racism
* Talk.Origins and the Darwin/Hitler Test
* Chuck Darwin's Family: Social Clymers and Worse
* Darwin at Nuremberg I 
* Darwin at Nuremberg II 
* Darwin at Nuremberg III 
* Darwin's Racism 

Creation and Intelligent Design Links

* Dembski on Intelligent Design
* Dembski: No Free Lunch
* Evolution or Christianity: Pick One...
* IDEA Club
* Fossil Record Quote collection
* Evolution Deceit
* Answers in Genesis 
* Faith Facts 
* Center for Renewal of Science and Culture
* Micro vs Macroevolution 
* Science Design Kit 
* Behe's Book
* Dogmatic Darwinism
* ICR
* Dembski/Origins
* Center for Scientific Creation 
* Creation Research Society 
* Biblical Creation Society 
* Christian Apologetics 
* Phillip Johnson's Page 
* Intelligent Design Network 
* Torah and Science 
* 50 Reasons to Leave Evolutionism 
* Darwin Papers (Jim foard)
* Evolution Deceit
* Jack Chick (Making the Truth Simple Enough for Evolutionists and
other Feebs...) 

Catastrophism

* Kronia
* Velikovskian Journal
* Catastrophism dot Com 
* Aeon
* Global Flood(s)
* Velikovsky Page, Links
* Saturn Thesis
* Al DeGrazia's web site, Quantavolution, Solaria Binaria etc.
* Venus and Differing Paradigms
* Holden WWW Site, Main Page
* American Indians and Dinosaurs
* Wal Thornhill home page 
* Electric Universe
* Halton Arp; Demise of Big Bang Theory 
* Tony Peratt, Los Alamos; plasma cosmology etc. 
* Don Scott's Version of Electric Sun Theory

Intelligent Versions of Biogenesis etc.

* Quantum intelligence in the universe?
* Message Theory/Remine 
* Rupert Sheldrake, Morphogenic fields, resonances etc. 
* Bruce Lipton, Cells and Computer components etc. 
_________________________________________________________________

The Silver Lining...

They say that the darkest gloom clouds sometimes have a silver lining,
and that April showers bring May flowers. In the case of science and
technology, it sometimes turns out that a project which utterly fails
in its original intent or application, is useful for something else.

If evolution cannot rationally be viewed as a way to get from ape-like
creatures to man, then cannot the use of evolutionism as an
ideological belief system get us from man to an ape-like creature?
Such a capability would be of enormous value in politics and a number
of other fields in which IQ reduction is known to be a positive
advantage, but in which drugs, alcohol, and the normal means of
achieving this are increasingly in disfavor for social and political
reasons. The following testimonial pretty much sums it all up.
_________________________________________________________________

This, then, is the theory which cannot be challenged in American
schools without exposing oneself to ridicule, and whose adherants
insist be taught as a "fact".

Return to Ted Holden's home page.

Theory of Evolution - Another site taking a critical look at the
theory of evolution.
_________________________________________________________________

[hit.asp?sSiteName=bfevolution]