Darwin’s Case for Evolution Dissolves

Charles Darwin’s case for evolution involved a great deal of fascinating information to hide the poverty of his scientific evidence. Whether that was intentional or whether he was deluded I cannot tell. His father had already introduced him to the idea of evolutionary process, so he was inclined to see it even when it did not exist. Influenced by Lyell’s Uniformitarian concept of geography and Alfred Wallace’s theory of evolution (which was supported by Wallace’s sailings to exotic places including the Amazon River) Darwin was ready to capitalise on his own marvellous adventures.

The exotic creatures of the Galapagos Islands off South America created the perfect setting for the ‘discovery’ of new and mysterious truth. Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species” drew heavily from his venture to the Galapagos Islands aboard the HMS Beagle between 1831 and 1836.

Nothing New

In reality, however, Darwin brought the world nothing that it did not already know. Darwin observed some unique examples of selective breeding, which he called “natural selection”. This was the process by which kings already had their own breeds of dog and gardeners already created their own special flower. It was and is nothing new at all. Dog breeding dates back to the Middle Ages – long before Darwin.

Darwin observed that finches and tortoises on the various Galapagos Islands were distinct from each other. He pointed out some intriguing distinctions. It was all fascinating stuff in a day when sea voyages and “discoveries” were the pioneering frontiers of the world.

“The islands of the Galapagos Archipelago are tenanted in a quite marvellous manner, by very closely related species” Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species

New Evidence to Dissolve Darwin

Now there is further scientific proof that Darwin’s amazing observations were simply different examples of the same old thing. All Darwin saw on his adventures were just more examples of what breeders of all kinds took for granted. There is no evolution in it at all, just exploitation of the existing genetic material. There is nothing new under the sun, even if it is the Galapagos sun.

To give authority to my claim Yale University’s Gisella Caccone now claims she can recreate extinct Galapagos tortoises. How will she do this? She will simply draw from the existing gene pool of the surviving varieties.

“We might need three or four generations to do this,” Caccone told BBC News. “But in theory it could be done, and I think it’s pretty exciting to bring back from the dead a genome that we thought was gone.”

Did You Get That?

What Caccone is telling us is that there is nothing mysterious or magical in Galapagos. The exotic creatures of those remote islands can be bred and cross-bred from their existing gene pool, just like pigeons and pussy-cats. These huge and ancient tortoise creatures have not evolved into anything at all, but simply been selectively bred from an existing gene pool. Even the extinct tortoises can be re-bred with the existing genetic material, just as breeders have done for centuries before Darwin.

There You Have It

That’s Darwin’s case for evolution. Natural Selection – where the fittest survive. It’s just what they taught us at school. But at school they made it sound like something wonderful and new. They made it sound like the death of God and the overthrow of the Bible. They made it sound as if science had sealed the coffin on morality and eternity.

The thousands of hours of television documentaries celebrating the grand reality of evolution are built on ancient and simple breeding processes which anyone on the planet could try at hand at.

I Feel The Shame

I am amazed how easily duped and confused I was. All the evidence was there before me, even in the term “survival of the fittest” (which was made to sound so scientific and profound). The healthy cat outlives the sick one! That’s the theory of evolution in a capsule. Everything else is smoke and mirrors. It is postulation and the bluff of an impresario. It is all show and confidence-trickster gimmickry.

How did I allow them to intimidate me so much with so little in their bag? They never fully opened that bag, but drew out selected examples to tempt the buyer of ideologies. If one morsel did not work they fished around for another one and produced it with flourish. They filled pages of text-books with fluffy stuff that lacked hard substance and real evidence. Illusions, carefully crafted illustrations, suggestions, hypotheses and bold assertions were the substance of this charade.

And yet I allowed it to take on the shape and form of substance. I feel the shame of my intellectual suicide, listening to such fakery with any level of interest or credibility.

Finches Too

What is proposed for the tortoise is equally true for Darwin’s Finches. The existing genetic information, given to us all at creation, allowed for specialised expressions of these birds. Galapagos provided the setting, but it did not produce a new process.

Darwinian Evolution is Dead

Darwin’s grand illusion of evolution is a farce. He did not present us with anything new nor anything of scientific value except more examples of the same old thing.

Sadly Darwin’s delusion lives on, even though his proposed process of evolution has long been set aside by scientists. It just does not work and there is no evidence for it. So the believers press on for new imaginations that will allow them to cling to something other than divine creation.

Darwin’s book is still hailed by some as “one of the most revolutionary ever published”. It was revolutionary, not because it was true, but because it provided the delusion that the deluded wanted to believe. It provided the basis for shooting aboriginals in Australia and for exterminating the Jews in Hitler’s camps. It provided legitimisation for Marxist murders and the violence of despotic leaders in many places. It undergirded the sexual abandon of the Sexual Revolution.

It is Time

It is time for Darwin’s delusion to be broken from the minds of men. It is time for nations to be delivered from the rule of sin and shame. It is time for science to be restored to a place of respect and value, and rescued from the abductors who mandate madness and intellectual suicide.

I don’t know what you and I can do, but at least we can pray that the world will know the truth and the truth will set them free.

For a link to the BBC report on the Galapagos tortoise proposal go to: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7630239.stm

For more information about the failure of evolution and for evidence for special creation go to: http://creationontheweb.com

Are Curses Genetic?

Now that researchers have been able to observe chemical changes within a person, directly linked to that person’s past experiences, there is a better understanding of how experiences can be translated into genetic changes. Those genetic changes may then be passed down to descendents.

Are these findings bringing us closer to understanding how curses are passed down from one generation to the next? Are curses genetic, and is there any scientific basis for understanding how they work?

I teach in my family seminars and explain in my flagship text, Family Horizons – Creating Families of Destiny (available from Family Horizons – www.FamilyHorizons.net) that the Bible teaches the reality of curses and of family curses. The Biblical case is for curses becoming part of the genetic inheritance of the family.

Here is a quick summary of some Biblical points to show that curses are genetic. At the giving of the Ten Commandments God specifically describes Himself as ‘visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of them that hate me’ (Exodus 20:5). This process is clearly one of passing to the children some form of curse or negative outcome, which continues for four generations. This is effectively a genetic curse.

When Eli the priest failed to give honour to God, but supported his sons’ evil activities instead, God pronounced a curse on Eli’s family that would be there ‘for ever’ (see 1Samuel 2:31-33). That curse was confirmed a few years later when the young lad, Samuel, first heard God’s voice. God told Samuel that Eli and his sons were going to die for their sins and that a curse would be on Eli’s family for ever (1Samuel 3:13).

Eli’s curse is that none of the males will grow into old age. They will all die in the prime of their life. This curse was not going to work for three or four generations, but would persist for ever.

Some evangelical Christians find it very hard to accept that curses could exist today. My answer is to ask, Is the curse of sin and death still operating in the world? The answer is, Yes. Where does it come from? The answer is, Adam. What is your connection to Adam? The answer is, I am his descendent. So, there you have it. Every evangelical clearly believes in family curses. We all believe that the curse of sin and death comes upon all people today, even after the resurrection of Jesus, as a curse we receive from our ancestor. This is a family curse!

Allow me to leave the doctrinal case there. The question I have posed is, Are Curses Genetic? Since the Bible clearly shows that they are, we should expect there to be some scientific clue to a physiological reality. That clue is now uncovered.

Since our DNA prescribes the range of options available to us in our species, and even limits us to the collection of features that have been successfully passed to us from our immediate ancestors, it could be argued that there is no real room for a ‘curse’ to impact the DNA. Dominant genes will assert themselves over passive genes. It is completely unlikely that some new gene will suddenly appear in the DNA as response to some ‘curse’ being placed on our life.

But genetics has moved beyond DNA as the sole prescriptor of our genetic options. Related genetic process work on the DNA to cause various genes to be activated (expressed), or not. A simple protein molecule might be all that is required to switch on or off some genetic capacity. The consequence can be such things as disease, mental instability, personality changes and so on.

Recent findings indicate that suicide is being triggered in some men who have been abuse victims in childhood. Brain research on 18 such men indicates that, while the essential DNA is OK, the methylation process accompanying gene activity is different in these men, compared with non-abused men.

This finding points to the importance of the switching process. A curse can theoretically be switched on or off in your life, by a basic act of cell chemistry. Your genetic DNA won’t change but the function of your genes will.

And that may very well be how God goes about the process of activating a curse in a person’s life, which is passed down through the family.

So, are curses genetic? I can’t be adamant in my answer, but I can see how it is possible in the light of current genetic understanding. One thing is for sure, family curses are Biblical and real.

My book, Family Horizons, does explain how to break curses. So please don’t have sleepless nights trying to protect your DNA from rebel proteins.

Genetics – Nurture or Nature?

A long-term debate has raged on the question of whether we are ‘born’ a certain way, such as happy, lucky, blessed or successful, or ‘made’ that way by our circumstances. Are we who we are because of the ‘nature’ of our being, such as something built into our DNA, or because of the things we are taught and the ‘nurture’ we receive in our formative years? This is the debate over whether it is Nurture or Nature that forms us.

Expert opinions and diverse theories have spoken to both positions. Life experience also argues both ways. We see people who seem to have innate advantage over others in the same situation. We also see how the right input makes a profound impact on people.

Elizabeth Kotlowski, in her book on Australia’s early history, points out that the convict parents of the colony’s children seemed irreparable in their nature, yet their children were recognized by an early judge as being of the highest integrity. This transformation was not embedded in the genetic ‘nature’ of the children, but came from the ‘nurture’ they received from the colony’s early church schools.

Similar transformation was noted by Charles Darwin on his second visit to Tierra del Fuego. He originally deemed the natives of that area to be so reprobate as to be incapable of nobility. On his second visit there, some years later, he discovered that the simple process of taking the Bible to these people had positively transformed them. Nurture, external impact from a quality source, has undoubted profound effect.

Recent genetics research now indicates a synthesis of the ‘nurture or nature’ ingredients. The science works like this. While we each have a unique DNA specifying our genetic potential and influencing all the many features of our being, we also have a unique set of control switches that activate or de-activate those underlying genetic choices. So there’s a double stream of genetic dice rolling that impacts who and what we are.

While the underlying DNA may prove to be strictly a matter of ‘nature’ – passed to us by our parents and resilient to the conditions under which we are raised – the genetic switches prove to be influenced by the ‘nurture’ we receive.

Recent scientific findings were reported in the Public Library of Science Journal, ‘PLoS ONE’. Moshe Szyf of McGill University in Montreal studied the brains of men who came from abuse or neglect backgrounds and who later committed suicide. These brains were compared with the brains of men who died of natural causes and who did not have an abuse background.

The genetic material of the suicide victims displayed changes in all 18 cases. While the genes were unchanged the related genetic material functioned differently. A cellular process called methylation, involving the RNA within the cell, is engaged in turning the genes ‘on’ or ‘off’. The observed changes in the cell indicate that the genetic function was being switched differently as a consequence of past abuse.

So, nature and nurture work together, not independent of each other.

Now that some discernible physiological change at a genetic level can be associated with nurture it will be interesting to see where science takes us in our further confirmation of what God’s Word says.

God & Genetics

God is the first one to describe genetic transfer. While geneticists unravel the mysteries of DNA, genes and related genetic machinations they are simply playing with stuff that God first documented about 6,000 years ago.

The original records of the creation, which were later compiled by Moses in about 1500BC clearly document that God created plants and animals to reproduce “after their own kind” (Genesis 1:11,21,24). Natural science has consistently attested to this creative limitation ever since.

I noted in a previous post (Genetics for Dummies) that Gregory Mendel and Charles Darwin both approached the question of heredity. The monk, Mendel, in due reverence for what the Bible clearly taught, was intrigued by how God did it. How was it that the distinctively created kinds could reproduce diversity among their population, while remaining within their distinctive kind?

Darwin chose, probably under the influence of his father who first proposed the theory of evolution, to seek explanation for how the various kinds could emerge differently to what the Bible taught. He settled on natural selection and the survival of the fittest as the mechanism for one kind migrating or transforming into a completely unrelated kind.

In the century and a half since both these men lived we can now compare the impact of these two scientific pursuits. Mendel, thinking consistently with the Bible, has spawned enormous breakthrough in science and technology. Our understanding of the cell and genetic processes has progressed at staggering rate until insights completely unanticipated by Darwin are now taken for granted.

Darwin, on the other hand has contributed nothing to science, except the waste of people’s lives. The century long quest for Darwin’s “missing link” proved to be a waste of the energy, intellect and lives of thousands of brilliant men and women. The gullibility his quest created has been widely exploited with fakes and false science. From Piltdown Man to Peppered Moths, vestigial organs to embryonic recapitulation, Darwin’s vain theory has filled the minds, textbooks and classrooms with nonsense. No technology can be traced to his work, except the industry of extermination employed by Darwin devotees such as Karl Marx, founder of Communism.

God’s revelation about genetics has proven to be the seedbed of good science and positive technology.

Genetics received another Biblical boost in the giving of the Ten Commandments on Mt Sinai in Arabia, in 1491BC. God supernaturally wrote on stone slabs the curse that would come on people who worshipped other gods. Their iniquity would pass on to their descendents for multiple generations. God described Himself as, “visiting the iniquities of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation”, Exodus 20:5.

We see ample evidence of generational transfer of good and adverse social and personal qualities. Some families have been infamous for many generations, while other families have enjoyed happiness and stability for equally as long. The debate about whether these distinctions are based on nature or nurture has been a popular one. However it actually takes place, the fact is that God has already identified a generational transfer process. God is the God of Genetics, and He may well use genetic coding to encode the very things He speaks into existence, be they substance, as animals, or consequences, such as curses.

Science may yet be able to describe exactly what a curse looks like in the genetic code. As I pointed out previously, we now know that genetics involves the substance of the coded options (the DNA) and the switching on of various genes by other proteins (such as RNA). While ‘kinds’ are locked in the DNA, it may be that curses are transmitted through the actions of RNA. God may exercise the right to switch certain things on and off in your life.

Next time I visit this subject I’d like to explore the issue of Nature versus Nurture.

Genetics for Dummies

Allow me to take you through a simple explanation of Genetics. This is “Genetics for Dummies”. It’s not meant to get anyone a post-graduate degree, but rather to give ordinary people a sense for the territory which comes under the general heading “Genetics”.

One hundred years before I was born takes us back to the middle of the 1800’s. No, that’s not when I was born! I was born in 1953. (I had no idea working with “Dummies” could be so frustrating!).

OK, all jokes aside, let me take you back to the middle of the 1800’s to a German Monk who patiently and meticulously worked on a theory that heredity is carried by both parents and its impact can be anticipated in advance and measured afterward. This man was Gregory Mendel. Amazingly he conceived his accurate notion of the process before being able to prove it. Here was a great man of science. His experiments with different kinds of pea varieties almost confirmed what he expected. He documented his findings, but in fact he had to doctor the evidence, since there was more inconsistency than he hoped for. (And isn’t that like so many scientists today? Doctoring the findings to make it look like they have discovered something? But I’m jesting again and that’s not a fair way to treat ‘dummies’.)

What most of us were taught about Mendel at school is based on his doctored, summarized, notes, not what he actually found. Which only goes to prove the text book writers must think we are Dummies!

At the same time as Mendel’s work another man of science proposed a theory about superior species outlasting weaker ones. The man was Charles Darwin, and his book was On The Origin of Species.

Mendel was concerned about how each species survived as a distinct entity and how genetic information was passed from parent to child. His landmark work led on to the modern day science involving amazing genetic insights, genome mapping, cloning, medical breakthrough, and so on.

Darwin was concerned about how each species came into existence, as some kind of deviation from previously existing species. His landmark work led on to:
the vain quest for missing links;
hoaxes which deceived men of science and wasted their energies;
genocide and social upheaval through Marxism, Nazism and the like;
erosion of social values through widespread rejection of the Bible; and
No Serious Scientific or Technological Consequence at all.

Darwin’s legacy is confusion, vain quests, dogma, blind adherence to a failed theory and the kind of intellectual tyranny described in Ben Stein’s recent documentary “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”. (No intelligence allowed – that sounds like the place for “Dummies”!)

Enough of this comparison. Back to Genetics for Dummies. Gregory Mendel, a contemporary of Charles Darwin, opened up for us the most amazing world of genetic understanding. He directed our attention to the human cell as the place where different chromosomes interact to pass on inherited differences. In 1996 Michael J. Behe wrote about the cell, Mendel’s area of interest, as “Darwin’s Black Box”, pointing out how the human cell provides an insurmountable biochemical challenge to evolution. Darwin dismissed the very thing that attracted Mendel, the cell. Mendel was right. Darwin was misguided.

In 1900 interest in the genetic processes in the cell began to gain momentum. But it wasn’t until 1944 that DNA was finally identified as the key to genetic heredity. DNA had first been discovered back in 1869, so it waited a long time for the respect it deserved. In time the spiraling coil of proteins has undergone intense investigation, its sequences have been mapped and chemicals have been identified which allow for people to cut and paste different bits together in new arrangements.

DNA discoveries prompt belief that we can build completely new DNA combinations, creating monsters or developing the perfect race of people. So that leads on to cloning, DNA reconstruction, gene mapping and so on.

Since the DNA pieces specify the physical qualities a person can have it was at first thought that playing with the DNA itself is all that matters. More recent discoveries, however, reveal that there is more to the picture. Other components of the cell are responsible for building new stands of DNA and making sure the new ones are a perfect duplicate of the one being copied. RNA not only helps in the formation of DNA, but it also has a part to play in the process of switching various genes on or off.

Genetics is more than a look at what beads are on the string. We used to think that dominant genes simply over-ruled recessive genes. We now recognize a further process of turning genes on or off. An inactive gene can sit in everyone’s cells, having no impact. But if other processes turn on the inactive gene the impact of the genes is felt differently. It’s not only a matter of what eye colour you have in your genes, it’s also a matter of whether there are proteins at work to pre-select one of those genes.

Recent research has even gone so far as to show that the way a person is treated will impact how their genes are turned on and off. And that’s really interesting, because it goes to the heart of the long debated question of whether heredity or life expearience is more important in making us who we are.

I’ll have more to say on that question in a later post. I trust that the dummies of the world are at least a little more comfortable with the topic of genetics.