Bone Inventory (1971). A complete listing of all the Australopithecine finds, up to the end of 1971, was printed in a new book. This included all the African bones of our “half-ape/half-human ancestors” (*Time-Life, The Missing Link, Vol. 2). Although over 1,400 specimens are described, most are little more than scraps of bone or isolated teeth. Not one complete skeleton of one individual exists. When parts of bones are found, they, of course, can be moved into various positions and be interpreted as belonging to different creatures with very different skull and jaw shapes. To this day, there is no real evidence of any genuine non-human ancestor of ours. Chapter 13 explains why reputable scientists question or reject the various finds by anthropologists.

*Matthews Attacks Darwinism (1971). By the latter part of the 20th century, even though the ignorant public continued to be told that evolution was a triumphant, proven success, it was difficult to find any scientist who would defend Darwin’s theories before his peers. *L. Harrison Matthews, another distinguished scientist, was asked to write a new introduction to Darwin’s Origin of the Species, to replace *Thompson’s 1956 Introduction which scathingly attacked Darwinism. In his Introduction, Matthews said that Thompson’s attacks on Darwin were “unanswerable.” Then Matthews proceeded to add more damaging facts (*L. Harrison Matthews, Introduction to Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, 1971 edition). The evolutionary theory must have run into hard times, when book publishers cannot find a reputable scientist who is appreciative either of its basic teachings or its founder.

Nice Symposium(1972). By the early 1970s, not only were biological evolutionists in turmoil, but cosmologists (astronomical evolutionists) were also. The Nice Symposium met in April 1972, to summarize what had been accomplished and list what was still unknown. The unanswered questions included just about every aspect of evolution in outer space! (See “Nice” in the back index for a number of the questions.) How did hydrogen clouds form themselves into stars? How did linear momentum from the theorized Big Bang change itself into angular momentum—and begin circling. How did the planets and moons form? The entire list is mind-boggling. After all these years, the astronomers still do not have answers to any of the basic evolutionary problems (Review of the Nice Symposium, in R.E. Kofahl and K.L. Segraves, The Creation Explanation, pp. 141-143).

Institute for Creation Research(1972). Henry Morris and associates founded the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) this year. It has since become the leading anti-evolution organization in the world and is located in El Cajon, California.

Return of the Hopeful Monster(1972). *Stephen Jay Gould, a highly respected paleontologist at Harvard; *Niles Eldredge, the head paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City; and *Steven M. Stanley, of Johns Hopkins University, led out in resuscitating *Richard Goldschmidt’s “hopeful monster” theory—and demanding that the community of evolutionist scientists consider it as the only possible mechanism for trans-species changeovers.

It was first revived in a cautious science paper presented by*Gould and *Eldredge in 1972 (Punctuated Equilibria: An Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism, 1972), but it was not until 1977 that an article by Gould brought it back to center stage (“Return of the Hopeful Monsters,” in Natural History, June-July, 1977). The increasing despondency among evolutionists, over their inability to use natural selection or mutations to provide even the slightest evidence of cross-species evolution, eventually led large numbers of scientists, in the 1980s, to switch over to this astoundingly ridiculous concept that millions of beneficial mutations occur once every 50,000 years to two creatures, a male and female, who are living near each other—thus producing a new species pair!

Poll of Citizens and Parents(1973). A survey of 1,346 homes found that 89% said Creation should be taught in the public schools. In a separate poll of 1995 homes, 84% said scientific evidence for Creation should be presented along with evolution (“A Comparison of Students Studying . . Two Models,” in Decade of Creation, 1981, pp. 55-56).Dudley’s Radiodating Research (1975). Radiodating of the sedimentary rocks, based on uranium, thorium, and other chains, had been relied on heavily to provide the “millions of years” dates. But a broad variety of research data repeatedly demonstrated that these methods are extremely unreliable (much more on this in chapter 6, Inaccurate Dating Methods). *H.C. Dudley, one of these researchers, found that using pressure, temperature, electric and magnetic fields, stress in monomolecular layers, etc., he could change the decay rates of 14 different radioisotopes. The implications of this are astounding. The strata were laid down under great pressure, and samples would vary widely to temperature and other changes. Such discoveries, along with the fact that the dates never agree with one another, greatly reduce the value of radiodating uranium, thorium, and other rocks (*H.C. Dudley, “Radioactivity Re-Examined,” in Chemical and Engineering News, April 7, 1975, p. 2).

Source: Evolution Handbook 

 The Wistar Institute Symposium (1966). A milestone meeting was the four-day Wistar Institute Symposium, held in Philadelphia in April 1966. A number of mathematicians, familiar with biological problems, spoke—and clearly refuted neo-Darwinism in several ways. An important factor was that large computers were by this time able to work out immense calculations—showing that evolution could not possibly occur, even over a period of billions of years, given the complexities of DNA, protein, the cell, enzymes, and other factors.We will cite one example here:*Murray Eden of MIT explained that life could not begin by “random selection.” He noted that, if randomness is removed, only “design” would remain,—and that required purposive planning by an Intelligence. He showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. Coli (which has very little DNA), with 5 billion years in which to produce it. Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance. He also reported on his extensive investigations into genetic data on hemoglobin (red blood cells). Hemoglobin has two chains, called alpha and beta. A minimum of 120 mutations would be required to convert alpha to beta. At least 34 of those changes require changeovers in 2 or 3 nucleotides. Yet, Eden pointed out, if a single nucleotide change occurs through mutation, the result ruins the blood and kills the organism! For more on the Wistar Institute, read the following book: *Paul Moorhead and *Martin Kaplan (eds.), Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, Wistar Institute Monograph No. 5.(1968). Trilobites are small marine creatures that are now extinct. Evolutionists tell us that trilobites are one of the most ancient creatures that have ever lived on Planet Earth, and they lived millions of years before there were human beings. *William J. Meister, Sr., a non-Christian evolutionist, made a hobby of searching for trilobite fossils in the mountains of Utah. On June 1, 1968, he found a human footprint and trilobites in the same rock, and the footprint was stepping on some of the trilobites! The location was Antelope Springs, about 43 miles [69 km] northwest of Delta, Utah.

Antelope Springs Tracks

Then, breaking off a large two-inch thick piece of rock, he hit it on the edge with a hammer, and it fell open in his hands. To his great astonishment, he found on one side the footprint of a human being, with trilobites right in the footprint itself! The other half of the rock slab showed an almost perfect mold of a footprint and fossils. Amazingly, the human was wearing a sandal! To make a longer story short, the find was confirmed when scientists came and found more sandaled footprints. Meister was so stunned that he became a Christian. This was Cambrian strata, the lowest level of strata in the world; yet it had sandaled human footprints! (“Discovery of Trilobite Fossils in Shod Footprint of Human in ‘Trilobite Beds,’ a Cambrian Formation, Antelope Springs, Utah,” in Why Not Creation? 1970, p. 190).

The Alpbach Institute Symposium(1969). A follow-up meeting of scientists was held and given the title, “Beyond Reductionism.” But it only resulted in fruitless discussions by scientists who had carefully researched the problems with men who were desperately trying to defend evolutionary theories, against an ever-growing mountain of evidence to the contrary.

First Moon Landing(1969). By the 1950s, scientists were able to predict that, if the moon was billions of years old, it would have a thick layer of dust many miles thick. This is due to the fact, as *R.A. Lyttleton explained, that the lunar surface is exposed to direct sunlight; and strong ultraviolet light and X-rays from the sun gradually destroy the surface layers of exposed rock and reduce them to dust at the rate of a few ten-thousandths of an inch per year. In 5 to 10 billion years, this would produce 20-60 miles [32-97 km] of dust (*R.A. Lyttleton, quoted in R. Wysong, Creation-Evolution Controversy, p. 175).

Because of this, NASA first sent an unmanned lander, which made the discovery that there is very little dust on the moon’s surface. In spite of that, Neil Armstrong feared that he and Edwin Aldrin might suffocate when they landed. But because the moon is young, they had no problem. Landing on July 20, 1969, they found an average of 3/4 inch [1.91cm] of dust on its surface. That is the amount one would expect if the moon were about 6000-8000 years old (at a rate of 1 inch every 10,000 years). In *Isaac Asimov’s first published article (1958), he predicted that the first rocket to land on the moon would sink ingloriously in the dust, and everyone inside would perish (Article mentioned in *Isaac Asimov, Asimov on Science: A Thirty-Year Retrospective, 1989, pp. xvi-xvii).

Source: Evolution Handbook

Revolt in France (early 1960s). A large number of French biologists and taxonomists (species classification experts) rebelled against the chains of the evolutionary creed and declared that they would continue their research, but would no longer try to prove evolution—which they considered an impossible theory. Taxonomists who joined the revolt took the name “cladists” (*Z. Litynski, “Should We Burn Darwin?” in Science Digest, Vol. 51, January 1961, p. 61).

(1962). Telescopes found a mysterious object, which was named 3C273. It had a spectrum that was unintelligible. This peculiar object radiated most strongly in the fringes of the visible spectrum. It was a total mystery until February 1963, when *Jesse Schmidt recognized that the problem was that it had a radical 16% shift toward the red. If the speed theory of redshift, promoted by evolutionists, was correct,—that meant the object was moving away from us at 16% of the speed of light—and was a massive 3 billion light-years from earth!As more—and apparently “faster”—quasars were discovered, the situation kept worsening. Ultimately, their existence debunked the evolutionists’ speed theory of redshift. Yet the redshift and background radiation were the only two “evidences” of an earlier Big Bang! For example, in 1977, a quasar was found which, according to the redshift theory, was moving faster (eight times faster) than the speed of light! Of course, scientists know it is impossible for anything to travel faster than the speed of light (*George Abell, Exploration of the Universe, 1973, p. 409; *Time-Life, Cosmic Mysteries, 1990, pp. 68-69; *Sky and Telescope 53, 1977, p. 1702).

Creation Research Society(1963). This important Creation research organization was founded by doctoral scientists, with the express purpose of conducting research into Creation-evolution topics and publishing regular reports on them. Its Journal reports have been of a high scientific caliber. (See our website for address.) (1965). Using a sensitive radio astronomy telescope, *A.A. Penzias and *R.W. Wilson (researchers at Bell Laboratories) discovered low-energy microwave radiation coming from outer space. Big Bang theorists immediately claimed that this proved the Big Bang! They said it was the last part of the explosion. But further research disclosed that it came from every direction instead of only one; that it was the wrong temperature; and that it was too even. Even discoveries in the 1990s have failed to show that this radiation is “lumpy” enough (their term) to have produced stars and planets. (1965). *Fred Hoyle abandoned his steady state theory entirely in a public announcement at a meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. He listed five scientific reasons why it was impossible (Nature, October 9, 1965, p. 113). (See our website for the five.) (1965). It was not until the 1960s that the neo-Darwinists (those who had given up on natural selection and believed that mutations were the mechanism of cross-species change) began fighting with one another in earnest. At this meeting of mathematicians and biologists, mathematical doubts were raised about the possibility of evolution having occurred. At the end of several hours of heated discussion, it was decided to hold another meeting the next year.

Background Radiation

Steady State Universe Theory Abandoned

The Switzerland Meeting

Source: Evolution Handbook

First Quasar Discovered

 The Scopes Trial (July 10 to July 21, 1925) was a powerful aid to the cause of evolution; yet scientific discoveries were not involved. That was fortunate; since, except for a single tooth (later disproved) and a few other frauds, the evolutionists had nothing worthwhile to present (*The World’s Most Famous Court Trial: A Complete Stenographic Report, 1925).The ACLU (*American Civil Liberties Union) had been searching for someone they could use to test the Butler Act, which forbade the teaching of evolution in the public schools in Tennessee. *John Scopes (24 at the time) volunteered for the job. He later privately admitted that he had never actually taught evolution in class, so the case was based on a fraud; he spent the time teaching them football maneuvers (*John Scopes, Center of the Storm, 1967, p. 60). But no matter, the ACLU wanted to so humiliate the State of Tennessee, that no other state would ever dare oppose the evolutionists. The entire trial, widely reported as the “Tennessee Monkey Trial,” was presented to the public as something of a comic opera. (A trained ape was even sent in, to walk around on a chain in the streets of Dayton.) But the objective was deadly serious; and they succeeded very well. Although the verdict was against Scopes, America’s politicians learned the lesson: Do not oppose the evolutionists.

The Scopes trial, the first event nationally broadcast over the radio, was a major victory for evolutionists throughout the world. Ridicule, side issues, misinformation, and false statements were used to win the battle.

Click to see cartoon of Scopes Trial

Source: Evolution Handbook

When the god of Empiricism Fails – Science Blocks Its Ears

In a recent report out of one American university students were advised not to debate with creationists about the origins of life. Debates have become a great medium just to bring the latest findings of creationism to the table. Secularisms academicians are now saying the best way to null the message is to ignore both it and the messengers. Does anyone remember why we call them universities?

The key word in the latest guidance offered to today’s students is "ignore." Is it blatant, brazen or both to call for the use of ignorance to gain or retain knowledge? It is no secret that every deadly ideology of the past had to ignore the truth about a lot of things including itself for its survival and proliferation. Ignoring a message usually gives way to ignoring, abusing and then killing the messenger. History is replete with examples from both the ancient and the modern world.

We can only wonder if "ignoring" or laughing at the creationist will be enough. Is it only, a matter of time before scientists who are the priests of the god of empiricism want to conduct their own inquisitions? Will history repeat itself so soon after man (secularists) makes God in his own image?

A familiar pattern always seems to appear when the so called "open minded" crowd decides they don’t want to allow the alternatives to their emerging dogma. An especially poignant and microcosmic example of this pattern is seen in the sixth and seventh chapter of the book of the Acts of the Apostles.

The young and zealous disciple Stephan is dragged before the religious leaders to give an account of the gospel he has been preaching. He keeps the crowd of priests and leaders swaying and assenting as he rehearses the history of Israel from Moses to the present. He enforces the status quo and the acceptable doctrine of the day. Then in a sudden shift he accuses the leaders of resisting the Holy Spirit and killing the Lord of Glory. The accusation enrages the "religious and holy crowd" so much that they stone Stephan to death.

What often goes un-noticed is that just before they stoned him to death the Bible says they "blocked their ears." The best way of stifling any chance of a message getting to the heart is still to stop it from getting into the head. This gives meaning to the phrase "close minded." It is the opposite of universality and it is the end of knowledge and the seed of ignorance.

So the question doesn’t hang unanswered in the mind of the reader, we call them universities because they are the repositories of universal knowledge. Or at least they used to be. When we instruct young minds to see theology and philosophy as mutually exclusive we have begun a downward trek that leads to something far beneath universal knowledge. Ignoring one truth to extol another is the gateway to ignorance not knowledge. The practice of ignoring one truth to raise the credence of another is called dogma. Dogma is not reason, it is not knowledge and it can never be referred to as universal.

Have we gone from the right to disagree on to the need to disallow? Empiricists hold that belief in the creation can only be held by pure religious dogma. Yet, the Apostle Paul calls on reason when he says that the creation itself is its own witness to a creator. Neither he nor the Bible demands belief in creationism but both implore mankind to exercise the highest reasoning to arrive at such conclusions.

That reasoning Paul says needs to be directed to the creation itself not the bible alone. "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse." (Romans 1: 20)

Science that once was content to pursue an alternative answer to the creation account has capitulated to the idea that its quest for that answer is the only possibility. Its pathology has now become its dogma because it excludes any other answer offered. When science reverts to dogma it has ceased to be objective and it is not far from becoming dangerous if not deadly. By all accounts this is the point where science becomes pure dogma and highly religious.

Dennis Haysbert plays Jonas Blane on the hit series "The Unit" on the CBS Network. In a recent episode he shoots dead a government agent who even after being given evidence that he is acting on a lie, tries to kill Jonas anyway. Jonas given no choice defends himself thus killing the agent. Blane and members of his team stand around for a moment stunned by the dead agents willingness to carry out his plans even after being shown that he was totally mislead. Blane pauses and then says "It was suicide by dogma." The right and wrong of it no longer mattered, only the mission.

It is the mission of secular empiricism that is clouding the better judgment of its proponents not the evidence. The evidence needs more defense than the Bible and to a growing number of scientists around the world it is sinking in its own oblique incredibility if not altogether committing "suicide by dogma."

It could safely be said that in some way Paul was appealing to us to use something akin to "common sense" to see that the creation tells its own story. Common sense doesn’t preclude investigation but it often tends to defy false conclusions even if they are derived from investigation. Science seems to take exception to this as well. This is how dogma is born.

Science must be dogmatic not because the Bible says God is the creator but because the creation says God is. This is exactly what the Apostle Paul was saying in Romans 1: 20 rather than pleading with people to believe what he said at face value or because it was scripture.

It may seem like the perfect non sequitur to say that knowledge and ignorance have married in the science of the twenty first century but this is a century not unfamiliar with perversities. Furthering one body of knowledge or epistemology by means of ignoring another is dogmatic, perverse and dangerous. Just what is mankind ignoring as it blindly does obeisance to the god of empiricism? Let’s see.

Empiricism is ignoring the fact that after a generation of hammering Darwinism into the heads of our youth and scoffing at the idea of teaching them creation as an alternative they are defying the very premise of science itself. Hiding behind the thin veil of "the separation of church and state," science has managed to hide all the possibilities to a generation whose knowledge is made suspect thereby.

Not knowing that the "separation of church and state" is an extrapolation derived from misconception and driven by the "common wisdom of the day" (word of mouth) America’s youth recently displayed their ignorance of this fact in the State of Colorado.

In one high school in Colorado where they were thinking of re-writing the pledge of allegiance, students said they didn’t want anyone interfering with their "separation of church and state." Forget science, it seems that social studies, civics and political science teachers failed to tell the students that "Congress shall make no laws regarding religion" does not necessarily mean "separation of church and state." Common wisdom doesn’t usually give much importance to semantic differences; it is all too often only interested in what is common or with what is better known as popular wisdom. This is another example of the marriage of knowledge and ignorance.

The remarks of the students in Colorado cause me once again to recall the quote from author and educator Josh Billings who said "I’d rather know a few things for certain than be certain of a whole lot of things that just aren’t so."

Secular empiricism would have us ignore the voluminous new discoveries that creation science has made in the last forty years that defy the basic premise of Darwinism. Some discoveries are so astounding that if it weren’t for the intrinsic dignity of the creation scientist the information could be used to deride and embarrass the Darwinist’s The restraint afforded to the secularists is never returned in kind and any college freshmen risks being laughed out of the classroom for just bringing up the subject of creation as a legitimate possibility.

Secular empiricism asks us and our children to ignore reams of material recently discovered that supports creation. It is not what has been recently discovered that cast aspersions on secular science but it is still what "has not" been discovered that casts the darkest cloud over its musings.

Evolutionists are not likely to defer to the mathematicians who have concluded that the missing links should be overwhelming us in every dig from the Boston Tunnel to the average backyard vegetable garden. The most conservative calculations show that the skeletal remains of inter-species links would be so pervasive that we would be numbering them in the millions or billions instead of the eighteen or so that evolutionist’s now embarrassingly flaunt to an unsuspecting generation. Creationists don’t need to wait for the return of the Lord Jesus Christ to have the last laugh. But it isn’t about who’s laughing, it is about who is losing. In this case it is the minds and souls of an entire generation.

The Bible that secularist’s hold in such contempt has subjected itself more truly to the definition of science than modern empiricism. Science which is defined by the pursuit of data derived from "repeatable and observable phenomena" refuses to recognize the miracles of sight to the blind, healing of the lame and resurrection from the dead that was so often repeated and observed by crowds of witnesses to the life and public ministry of Jesus Christ.

It was witnessed, recorded and carefully disseminated to each successive generation for their examination. Isn’t that enough repeatable observable phenomena for empiricists? Isn’t an entire generation of religious pilgrims, transients and travelers going in and out of Jerusalem and seeing Jesus performing these things enough eye witness?

Evolutionists haven’t anything to compare with the Bible account but must rely heavily on prior philosophic postulate to present their theories. And since no one was there to witness the alleged unfolding of evolution throughout the ages, they haven’t a single witness. For many this requires far more faith than belief in God as creator of the universe. Those who say faith in God is too taxing on the reason of man should take another look. After weighing what the ignorance of empiricism’s god offers it seems the God of the Bible isn’t asking for all that much.

The list of scientific inadequacies doesn’t end with the theory of evolution. Science seems all too unaware even of the similarities and associative verifications it gives to the Bible. The idea that God could be Omni-present is not unlike the new theory of quantum physics which holds that it may be possible for some things to exist in two places at the same time.

Science says that when physical objects (biological or not) approach the speed of light that time slows down in equal and direct proportion to that speed. At the speed of light it is believed that the physical object should still exist but in only a pure metaphysical state. Keep in mind that the word metaphysical is the most oft used term for what the Bible calls a spirit. The Bible also says that after life on earth all humankind continues to exist in a spiritual state and is no longer subject to the ravages of time. Science as seen in this case is not proven wrong when compared to the Bible, rather it is just late; this of course doesn’t give science any room to brag.

Science scoffs at the idea of a resurrected Christ appearing in a room without entering through a door, eating some fish and then leaving without exiting through the door. (Lk 24:36f) But they are willing to imagine a time when humans could be transported from place to place by something akin to Gene Roddenberry’s Star Trekian transporters.

The need to indoctrinate youth into a strong secular world view is driven by events that are yet to come. It is all part and parcel to the "last days’ the Bible refers to just before the second coming of Christ. The Antichrist will not have much difficulty convincing the largely secularized world that he is the best one to handle the world’s economy, politics and it’s military. He will be seen as a savior at first but he will always be no more than a dictator who will lead the world to its final demise at the battle of Armageddon.

Until the end it does well to remind ourselves that religion is not the only area where charlatans, fakers and fools are birthed. Science has its own hefty share of misguided, over zealous and closed minded ideas and individuals. The scientific community has the same limitations as the religious community, both should strive for excellence but neither has accomplished perfection. The only real difference is that the faithful can point to God for perfection and the scientific community has time and chance alone. For discerning minds, religious or not that is far too close to nothing at all.

Trusting in the god of empiricism will offer little comfort at the final judgment of all mankind. Christ said all will stand before God’s throne and the books would be open. There is little reason to believe that the book of science will be one of those books. No one will be frantically looking around for Dawkins, Hitchens, O’Hare or Darwin to help them make their defense before God.

Rev M. Bresciani is the author of "An American Prophet and His Message" and columnist for several online sites and printed publications. His articles are now read in every country throughout the world. For articles, news and features come to "The Website for Insight"

By Rev Michael Bresciani Published: 10/6/2007

 The Oxford Debate was held in June 1860 at Oxford University, only seven months after the publication of *Darwin’s Origin of the Species. A special meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, it marked a major turning point in England,—just as the 1925 Scopes Trial would be the turning point in North America. Scientific facts had little to do with either event; both were just battles between personalities. In both instances, evolutionists won through ridicule. They dared not rely on scientific facts to support their case, because they had none.

Samuel Wilberforce, Anglican bishop of Oxford University, was scheduled to speak that evening in defense of Creationism. *Huxley had lectured on behalf of evolution in many English cities and was not planning to attend that night. But *Chambers, a spiritualist adviser to Huxley, was impressed to find and tell him he must attend.

Wilberforce delivered a vigorous attack on evolution for half an hour before a packed audience of 700 people. His presentation was outstanding, and the audience was apparently with him. But then Wilberforce turned and rhetorically asked Huxley a humorous question, whether it was through his grandfather or his grandmother that Huxley claimed descent from an ape.

Huxley was extremely sharp-witted and, at the bishop’s question, he clasped the knee of the person sitting next to him, and said, “He is delivered into my hands!”

Huxley arose and worked the audience up to a climax, and then declared that he would feel no shame in having an ape as an ancestor, but would be ashamed of a brilliant man who plunged into scientific questions of which he knew nothing (John W. Klotz, “Science and Religion,” in Studies in Creation, 1985, pp. 45-46).

At this, the entire room went wild, some yelling one thing and others another. On a pretext so thin, the evolutionists in England became a power which scientists feared to oppose. We will learn that ridicule heaped on ridicule, through the public press, accomplished the same results for American evolutionists in Dayton, Tennessee, in 1925.

Source: Evolution Handbook

His book, Origin of the Species, was first published in November 1859. The full title, On the Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, reveals the viciousness of the underlying concept; this concept led directly to two of the worst wars in the history of mankind.

In his book, Darwin reasoned from theory to facts, and provided little evidence for what he had to say. Modern evolutionists are ashamed of the book, with its ridiculous arguments.

Darwin’s book had what some men wanted: a clear out-in-the-open, current statement in favor of species change. So, in spite of its laughable imperfections, they capitalized on it. Here is what you will find in his book:

• Darwin would cite authorities that he did not mention. He repeatedly said it was “only an abstract,” and “a fuller edition” would come out later. But, although he wrote other books, try as he may he never could find the proof for his theories. No one since has found it either.

• When he did name an authority, it was just an opinion from a letter. Phrases indicating the hypothetical nature of his ideas were frequent: “It might have been,” “Maybe,” “probably,” “it is conceivable that.” A favorite of his was: “Let us take an imaginary example.”

• Darwin would suggest a possibility, and later refer back to it as a fact: “As we have already demonstrated previously.” Elsewhere he would suggest a possible series of events and then conclude by assuming that proved the point.

• He relied heavily on stories instead of facts. Confusing examples would be given. He would use specious and devious arguments, and spent much time suggesting possible explanations why the facts he needed were not available.

Source: Evolution Handbook