Genesis Challenged

Christianity faced troubled times at the close of the nineteenth century. Darwin’s Theory of Evolution fed scientific scepticism about the Genesis account of creation by providing what seemed to be a viable alternative. At the same time, clay tablets from the ruins of the ancient city of Nineveh provided alternative accounts of the Flood and Creation, in clearly mythical form, suggesting that the Genesis record was similarly a mere myth.

Foundations Shaken

Creationist Ken Ham points out that Christianity has been distracted with taking pot shots at issues while its detractors have been aiming their weapons at Christianity’s foundations. If the Book of Genesis can be discredited then all that follows in the Bible can be brought into question.

During the nineteenth century (the 1800’s) assault on the Book of Genesis was vigorously pursued by some, based on emerging scientific hypotheses and on archaeological discoveries.

Charles Lyell, who lived from 1797 to 1875, proposed a non-catastrophic view of geography, despite the abundant evidence for upheaval in the geological record. His propositions of uniformity allowed for extended periods of time in the earth’s history. That extension of historical time was required by the proponents of gradual change over time (evolution).

The emerging notion of evolution was given seeming scientific status by Charles Darwin with his 1959 “Origin of Species” with its account of exotic creatures in the mysterious and remote Galapagos Islands. The notions of “survival of the fittest”, “natural selection” and “missing links” created a new scientific myth which had everything but substance and common sense.

Within days of the release of Darwin’s book, Thomas Henry Huxley, eventually dubbing himself “Darwin’s Bulldog“, began vigorously promoting the scientific worth of evolution over the religious notions carried in the Book of Genesis.

Enter Archaeology

As the battle for Genesis gained intensity, a new dimension emerged to give impetus to detractors. A pile of rubble in ancient mounds in the Near East yielded documents which dated back almost 1,000 years before Christ. Included in that rubble were ancient mythologies of events similar to those described in Genesis.

The city of Nineveh was a sprawling metropolis at its height. Successive rulers moved their principal residence to different parts of the city and so several palace buildings were established over time. Add to that the fact that Nineveh housed the world’s greatest library collection of its time, and you have the creation of a treasure trove of antiquity.

The ancient palaces and libraries of Assyria began to be excavated in the 1840’s, leading to the discovery of a vast collection of ancient documents on clay tablets. In 1850 English archaeologist Henry Layard uncovered the palace of the Assyrian King Sennacherib at tell Kouyunjik (one of the three principal palace locations in Nineveh – Kouyunjik, Khorsabad, and Nimrud).

In 1853 Layard’s former assistant, Hormuzd Rassam, found the famous library of the Assyrian King Ashur-bani-pal, in a different part of the Nineveh ruins. 26,000 of the original 100,000 clay tablets survived with decipherable text. Many were taken to the British Museum for translation.

Among those tablets were found Assyrian myths about creation and a fiction story which featured a great flood. When they were finally translated by George Smith he published them under the title “Chaldean Account of Genesis” in 1876 under the auspices of the British Museum of Oriental Antiquities. The very title suggests a direct link between the tablets and Genesis and those discoveries fuelled the accusation that Moses’ Genesis document was a mere evolution of earlier mythological writings. Note that George Smith died that same year, on his way back from his third visit to the ruins of Nineveh.

Assyrian Flood Story

In December 1872 George Smith published his translation of the oldest known literary work in human history. Smith was the first person to read the story in 2,000 years. But the Epic of Gilgamesh was not made famous for its literary worth, but for its reference to a great flood.

George Smith is an interesting character in that he was not a great scholar and came from a working class background. But he was fascinated with antiquities and taught himself to decipher ancient cuneiform inscriptions. He soon became more knowledgeable and skilled in the task than the staff at the British Museum where he pored over antiquities. Consequently Henry Rawlinson, the great Assyriologist of the day, arranged for Smith to be employed in the Assyriology Department to work on translating the thousands of clay tablets from Nineveh.

Smith translated several tablets in the fictional story of a man named Gilgamesh, who travelled the world facing various adventures. He came to a blank in the story, where a missing tablet was needed to continue the adventure. Smith then ventured to Mesopotamia to attack the pile of rubble left by Layard and Rassam, and, against all odds, found the missing tablet.

It told of a great flood, and of a boat and animals. It even mentioned birds being released at the end of the flood. This bore striking resemblance to the Genesis record of Noah’s Flood.

Assyrian Creation Story

Following Smith’s translation of the Epic of Gilgamesh he then came across another set of clay tablets telling a story which led to the creation of man. The series of seven tablets is known as the Enuma Elish.

While some tablets were broken and accurate translation is impossible, the general text of the story has been translated several times by different scholars. It was first titled “The Chaldean Genesis” by Smith. LW King’s 1902 translation was titled “The Seven Tablets of Creation“. EA Speiser’s translation was published in a 1969 book titled “Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament“. It is obvious that scholars readily link the Enuma Elish with the book of Genesis.

Mounting Evidence

When Smith followed his Assyrian Flood translation with the Assyrian Creation story in 1876 there seemed to be growing proof that the Bible was merely another expression of ancient mythological writings.

Combine that with the pseudo-scientific crusading of Huxley and other evolutionists and you can see that Genesis was under solid attack by the end of the 1800’s. That assault has played a large part in the increased secularisation of western society during the twentieth century.

Clay Tablets are No Threat

Despite the perception that the clay tablets from antiquity have demolished the Bible, the truth is quite the opposite. The abiding impact of archaeology at Nineveh is to confirm the first-hand authenticity of the Bible accounts. The clay tablets confirmed details, customs, language and similar details provided in the Bible, which had previously not been corroborated.

Further to that, the seeming case against the Bible crumbled on closer investigation. The Assyrian stories are vastly different to the Bible account and the differences set the Bible apart, rather than put it down.

Ignorance and Assumption

People who are ignorant are prone to making assumptions. This tendency can be exploited by those who wish to deceive or who make suggestions which are misleading.

When the public is told that the Assyrian stories of the flood and creation match the Bible, many people will gullibly assume that the parallels are striking and that the Bible’s authority has been damaged. Few are likely to read the source documents and remove their ignorance.

In a follow up post I will explain some of the glaring contrasts between the Assyrian and Biblical accounts which people have been led to believe are closely related.

Disposing of Millions of Years

The world is awash in references to amazing aeons of time. Dinosaurs disappeared so many millions of years ago. Natural features emerged another bunch of millions of years before that. Here a million, there a million, everywhere another million!

Now, why is speculative scientific thinking so obsessed with big numbers? Only a hundred or so years ago science didn’t need to think in terms of millions of years. Now it’s an obsession! What has changed? Has some new evidence come to light? No. All that has changed is scientific opinion.

Evolution Needs More Time

Before the widespread acceptance of the theory of evolution time was not a big component of scientific thought. Processes were observed in the real world and the implications of those observations were extrapolated over historical events. Nothing around us necessarily needs time in bucket-loads.

With the advent of an evolutionary mind-set, with its necessary transitional stages, science needed more time. It needed time for the first life to emerge, then for the next form to develop, and then the next, and so on. Mutations and missing links all needed time to develop, gain ascendancy over the previous population, then morph into the next stumbling step of development.

Mathematicians calculate that there will never be enough time for the millions of changes needed to accommodate evolutionary process. Evolution is a miracle, in any time frame. But that doesn’t stop the converts from pressing their long-age message hard and fast.

With evangelistic zeal the proponents and converts to evolution slash millions of years in every direction, like a child with a tin of paint. We are all wet with the wonder of time. Nature films, information at national parks, biology text books, television programs and just about every place it can be put, there are messages about time, times and then another million times.

Lyell’s Blindness

Compounding the problem of time was the proposition by Charles Lyell that the world has operated under uniform, constant conditions through the ages. Lyell ignored the evidence and proposed an imaginary world where all geological processes are even. The theory is called Uniformitarianism.

Lyell’s theory was a boon to evolutionists who knew that they needed to push the calendar back a few million years to give them time to breed. They also had an imagination issue, imagining a slow progression from one creature to the next, until all were able to blossom from the one common ancestor. Thus they needed time.

Lyell chose to ignore the historical records of catastrophe, both local and more global. His theory effectively ignores ice-ages, meteorite strikes, droughts, floods, earthquakes and other catastrophes which science observes on a regular basis. Lyell’s blindness became the platform for Darwin’s own misinterpretation of data.

Evolution Has it Wrong

The reason evolution needs gobs of time is that it is built on an insane interpretation of the visible data. As I have pointed out elsewhere (see below for links to other posts on related topics) Charles Darwin was a good naturalist, as an observer of what exists. Where he dropped the ball big time was in interpreting the data he collected.

Darwin and others imagined a progression that links all kinds of creatures from one biological source. That is contrary to what was already understood to be true.

Creatures of All Kinds

Prior to the popularisation of evolution scientists took their lead on biology from the ancient Biblical account of God creating a set of creatures that were bound into “kinds”.

“And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creeps on the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.” Genesis 1:24,25

The Hebrew word translated as ‘kind’ means that which is portioned out. It refers to species, as something assigned to creatures by God. The creatures were not all of the same species. They were not the same kind. They had natural boundaries to the biological nature and connections.

The limitations of kinds can be determined to some extent by the ability of creatures to reproduce viable offspring. Crossing horses and donkeys does not produce a viable offspring. The mule which results is sterile. The same occurs when a dog is crossed with a fox. Yet crossing dogs with wolves produces viable offspring which can reproduce further generations.

The observable science of breeding is evidence for the accuracy of the first chapter of the Bible. Observable science argues against the theory of evolution.

Watch the Time

How does the creation of kinds impact the issue of time? Firstly, divine creation of a range of viable and distinct creatures drastically reduces the more than millions of years needed by evolution to get to that point.

But the time frame is radically compressed yet again by the ingenious genetic miracle which God gave us. Built in to the DNA of each kind was a wide range of variables. Just as humans display diversity in skin colour, build, facial features, hair colour, ability and so on, without having to evolve from one kind to another, so too the animal kinds could quickly display their diversity.

In just one generation diversity of shape, size, colour, function and features could emerge. Siblings in one family could display quite unique qualities, as children in families or kittens in litters do today. Suddenly, then, all the diversity which evolution imagines requires long ages is on display in a few generations.

It’s Time to Tell the Truth About Time

Governments, schools, media and most social voices have taken up the chorus of “Millions! Millions!” The ubiquitous “millions of years” is repeated like a mantra by mindless devotees.

It’s time to tell the truth about time. Stop shutting down your brain because you have to make simple processes stretch over millions of years.

Fossils which protrude through multiple layers of other fossils, as is commonly found in coal deposits, show that the layers were not created over long ages. The eruption of Mt St Helens late last century showed how great canyons and other striking geographical features can be formed in days, not millions of years. Man made opals, huge stalactites formed in just decades and oil formed naturally in modern rubbish dumps all put a lie to the long ages. Today’s scientists have committed intellectual suicide, trying to force short processes into long, evolutionary time spans.

Excuse My Tone

Please don’t be offended at the strident nature of some of my expressions when I discuss this subject. As one who has suffered under the delusion of evolution and then struggled to open the minds of people who are choosing blindness for themselves I like to shake the tree a little. I want to grab people’s attention and get them to think for themselves again. I fear that some of the best minds on the planet are lost to the intellectual suicide which evolution demands of people today.

Links to Other Material

Other posts I have presented on related topics include: Despite Diversity Dogs Defy Definition; Darwin’s Case for Evolution Dissolves; Cave Man Proves to be Real Man; The Truth About Natural Selection. You can find these on this blog site:

For more information about the failure of evolution and for evidence for special creation go to:

The Truth About Natural Selection

When Charles Darwin observed Natural Selection and proposed that it was the alternative to divine creation, the world stood in awe of his amazing insight. But I am here today to show that Darwin’s guess was completely the reverse of reality. Darwin was a good observer, but a failed prognosticator. He failed to interpret reality and he distracted, fooled or misled generations of the most brilliant minds.

So it is time to take stock of the truth about natural selection.

Diversity Observed

Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace both published their concepts of evolution in the same year. They had both travelled to strange and exotic places and observed creatures which were new to their audiences. The mystique of their amazing travels and the authority which they could purvey on the basis of their experiences outside those of other men, gave their ideas an undeserved level of credibility.

What Charles Darwin observed on his six year voyage as naturalist aboard the HMS Beagle was ‘diversity’. He observed the same process which breeders had known for centuries.

The Bible records the selective breeding activities of Jacob, grandson of Abraham, almost 4,000 years ago. So the creation or refinement of diversity through breeding activities is nothing new.

Darwin observed finches and tortoises on the Galapagos Islands, as if he was discovering something profound and new. He certainly was observing diversity and the results of selective breeding by the natural isolation of animal communities. In this work he was not remiss.

Natural Selection

Rather than selection by human agency, such as animal and plant breeders would do, Darwin celebrated nature’s ability to provide the selection process. Here, without human intelligence, the process took place regardless.

Darwin’s religious perspective (seeking to prove creation without a creator) prompted him to an interpretation that misled generations of the world’s best minds. Darwin, happy to find an alternative to the reality and presence of an all-knowing and holy God, postulated that ignorant and mindless ‘nature’ could take a hand in the selection process. This allowed room for something other than an intelligent and divine creator.

Here Darwin stopped being an observer and became an interpreter. But every interpreter is influenced by his underlying premises. No scientist operates in a vacuum, but in the context of his or her frame of reference. Darwin’s frame of reference was antithetical to true science. His religious notions, when woven with his scientific observations, took on a scientific significance that has beguiled the world ever since.

Now We Know

Darwin was blind to many realities which we now know. He considered the cell to be a very simple entity. We now know that the simplest cell is more complex than a modern highly integrated city. Darwin imagined that the fossil record held evidence it did not contain. Darwin imagined that such processes as sexual relations contributed to the process of transformation of the physiology of a creature (sexually transmitted physiology into adult organisms).

Charles Darwin was patently wrong on these and many other accounts. As a prognosticator he was a miserable failure. As a hypothesiser he was a miserable failure. As a theorist he was a miserable failure. He was a good observer and there he should have stopped.

The Underlying DNA

What Darwin did not know is that the underlying DNA code does not just describe the organism as it is observed and as it currently functions, but that DNA also contains a much more vast scope of possibilities for the organism.

From an evolutionary point of view each new and discreet function is seen as advancement. It is seen as the ‘emergence’ of something new.

And there evolution is patently deceptive and patently wrong.

Evolution seeks to explain the creation of new features. But that creation happened only once, by a supernatural act of a supreme intelligence. No evolution has happened in the beginning or since. No evolution will ever happen. It is a fool’s notion.

What is really happening is that no new features are created, but the features which have already been gifted into the organism’s DNA are able to be activated or deactivated by the breeding process.

Each new and discreet function within an organism is not a creative process but a process of activation or switching, so that previously unseen features are now displayed. However, there is no new information within the organism. Nothing new has been created.

That is why the evolutionists are at a complete loss to explain the ongoing creative process. There is no such process! Evolutionists point to natural selection, as Darwin did, with the religious conviction that such an invocation will bring along a favourable fairy to solve their problem. But they are empty handed.

Of Breeds and Breeding

Any breeder knows that while you may be able to cross come creatures sexually the new animal may be sterile. This sterility factor is the means by which scientists are able to identify the genetic relationship between apparently similar kinds.

The mule is an example of a cross that creates a sterile animal. Dog breeders have proven the wolf as the ancestor to the modern dog breeds by this sterility factor.

“A wild wolf is genetically little more distant from the domesticated dog than a wild mustang is to a quarter horse. (That wolf and dog can be hybridized, while a fox and dog cannot, points to the genetic and ancestral affinities of wolf and dog.)….”In actuality, a poodle, like any purebred dog, already has innumerable wolf genes since they share a close common ancestry.” Dr. Michael W. Fox, D.V.M., Ph.D., D.Sc., Vice President, Bioethics, Humane Society of the United States. Affidavit.

Note in the quote from Dr Fox that the wolf and dog can be successfully bred together (hybridised) but the fox and dog cannot. There is an underlying DNA connection between the wolf and all the varieties of dog. There is no underlying DNA connection between the fox and dog. By this it can be determined that the dog was not bred from the fox, but from the wolf.

Full Genetic Complement

Note also that the fully hybridised dog variety still contains “innumerable wolf genes”. Hybridisation does not even have to involve the “loss of information” which many creationists refer to. It is possible to have remarkable hybridisation of a species and yet to have the entire underlying DNA intact. The function is not necessarily the addition or removal of DNA elements but the activity of “gene expressors” which effectively flick the switch to turn on or turn off certain genes.

Thus Brisbin notes that there is no discernible DNA distinction between dog breeds, despite the obvious physiological distinctions which we readily recognise.

“….Breeds of dogs can not be distinguished from each other by any known anatomical attribute or even biochemical genetic test, including DNA fingerprinting. Since a given breed of dog can not be defined by any scientific means currently known, our contention is that it is not possible to write any ordinance or law that would single them out for special treatment since they cannot be so defined in a legal sense. … there is no biochemical genetic test that can even distinguish wolves from domestic dogs. I. Lehr Brisbin, Jr., Research Professor, Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, The University of Georgia. Letter, 30, Jan. 1990

The Truth About Natural Selection

Natural Selection is just a fancy term for breeding that takes place without human involvement. The truth about natural selection is that it is not in any way related to the mythical concept of evolution. Natural Selection, as is the case with all breeding and cross-breeding, involves activation and deactivation of the pre-existing, and continuing DNA information contained within the organism since the entire genus was created.

There is no new information. Darwin and all who follow after cannot postulate a valid scientific process for the creation of new information, because there is no such process. There never has been such a process. There is no need for such a process.

God created the vast library of genetic options into the various kinds when He created them and we have had much amazement ever since as we have explored the limits of that genetic variety.

Modern science attests to this reality. The DNA of dogs and the DNA of the Galapagos Tortoise are all evidence for initial creation.

For more information about the failure of evolution and for evidence for special creation go to:

Despite Diversity Dogs Defy Definition

OK, so it’s a silly title, but I just like the alliteration. So, what is this all about? It’s about the fact that there is no way to distinguish a poodle from a wolf!

I’m Not Joking

This is not a joke. What we all take for granted as enormous physiological distinctions, clearly visible to our eyes, are almost non-existent! There is just about no way to distinguish between the myriad breeds of dog scientifically.

Isn’t that amazing? I am really stunned by that fact.

I have always assumed that a visible distinction would be clearly discernible in the DNA of a creature and that these very obvious features would have equally obvious genetic descriptors. It is not so!

What the Experts Say

I know you won’t believe me, so let me quote from an authority on the subject.

Here is a published quote based on a letter written by a Research Professor on Jan 30, 1990.

“….Breeds of dogs can not be distinguished from each other by any known anatomical attribute or even biochemical genetic test, including DNA fingerprinting. Since a given breed of dog can not be defined by any scientific means currently known, our contention is that it is not possible to write any ordinance or law that would single them out for special treatment since they cannot be so defined in a legal sense. “Recently I attended a canine genetics workshop at Texas A & M University in which it was further emphasized that there is no biochemical genetic test that can even distinguish wolves from domestic dogs. “….I would taxonomically identify all wolves, wolf hybrids and domestic dogs as the species Canis lupus. Technically, the domestic dog and wolf hybrids should be designated as the sub-species “domesticus”. I. Lehr Brisbin, Jr., Research Professor, Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, The University of Georgia. Letter, 30, Jan. 1990

Those Distracting Physical Distinctions

If dogs that are as diverse as the Chihuahua, the Great Dane and the Poodle can defy definition despite diversity (just to use my alliteration again) then we see the opposite of evolution before our eyes.

What the diversity of dogs does is do a deadly duel with dilly-dallying dodos ……

Oops… Sorry about that.

Evolutionary thought starts with observation of diversity and superiority of function and tries to imagine how these things emerged from nothing. Evolution must justify distinctions that facilitate the survival of the fittest, allowing for natural selection. It must then imagine how the very physical feature itself could have developed through progressive stages.

Evolution’s starting point is those distracting physical distinctions. But we have seen that those wonderfully diverse and distinct evidences creating quite individual superiorities of function can be invisible in the genetic code.

Punctuated Equilibrium

The progressive evolutionary concept is so fraught with difficulties, such as degeneration of the existing structure in the process of moving toward a more suitable structure, that it simply defies all logical suggestion.

Thus some evolutionists have tried to conceive of a more miraculous (all evolution is a miracle) spontaneous transition process. Stephen Jay Gould proposed the concept of Punctuated Equilibrium, which recognises that transitional forms do not exist but that rapid transition is more supportable from evolutionary interpretation of fossil layers (note that Noah’s global flood gives another much more plausible explanation for the fossil layers – but that factor is not acceptable to atheistic scientists who must reject the evidence and the historical records to support their empty theories).

Punctuation, then, is the magical process by which a new expression of an animal species can suddenly appear as if from nowhere. Those who believe in Punctuated Equilibrium do so with sober expression on their faces and then expect the waiting world to accept such explanations as: “What Is The Mechanism Of Evolution In These Cases? The theory of Punctuated Equilibrium does not say, and it shouldn’t.”

It shouldn’t? I beg your pardon, sirs, but you MUST! Otherwise you are simply distracting the wonderful minds which God created into a backwater of vain speculation so they will commit intellectual suicide and throw their marvellous minds into the trash can of evolutionary delusion.

The Amazing Genetic Library

The scientific study of dogs, however, is not supportive of progressive evolutionary progress nor of punctuation. Instead it supports the concept of an amazing genetic library from which each species can draw to find its most suitable advantage in diverse settings.

Natural Selection is not a tool of evolution, but a servant of the created genetic code. Charles Darwin’s observations do not support the God-less ideas of the evolutionists but the very opposite. The concepts of natural selection and “survival of the fittest” fit the scientific evidence of a profound genetic pool for each species, from which diversity can spring, even in a punctuated expression, contrary to evolution.

Punctuation Is God’s Tool, not Evolution

Describing Punctuated Evolution it is said that, “The point of the theory is only that evolution is more likely to happen to small groups, isolated from the homogenizing effect of the larger main group.”

This is not a description of evolution at work, but of natural selection drawing particular gene expressions from the pre-existing genetic pool. An isolated small group will experience in-breeding and thus the accentuation of some genetic expressions. That smaller group will either be weakened or strengthened by the resultant manifestation of selected features. Survival of the fittest will allow the appropriate expressions to gain some ascendancy.

Voila! God’s amazing and loving provision for His creation is activated to positive effect. A new breed of dog emerges, better adapted to the situation.

No New Genetic Information

Yet, as we saw earlier, there is no discernible change in the genetic information. Scientists cannot take the gene and distinguish it from the gene of the parent community, or even the originating source community after thousands of years.

There is no new genetic information. There is simply a fresh genetic expression.

Gene expressors and selectors are probably the key elements here. But that is not good news for the evolutionists. Gene expressors are not part of the creation of new genetic code, but simply the switching from one piece of code to another.

It’s A Dog’s Day for Darwin

Dear Charles, Sir, you were wrong. You were desperately and deceptively wrong. You turned everyone’s attention to the visible, discernible qualities, such as those you observed at Galapagos, when all along it wasn’t about the physically discernible distinctions at all.

You distracted science from its core business of exploring the glory of God and had wonderful young men and women digging in the dirt for non-existent missing links and scouring the world for evidence of something that simply does not happen. You destroyed several generations of brilliant minds. Shame on you.

It is recorded that you loved dogs and had eight of them in your large household. You should have asked them about your theories – they have more to reveal about the things you questioned than your own books possess.

You should have talked with your dog.

For more information about the failure of evolution and for evidence for special creation go to:

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:

For more information about the failure of evolution and for evidence for special creation go to: