If there is one immutable philosophical underpinning to our entire modern society, and upon whom its continuing existence depends, it would have to be the theory of evolution. It has become so ingrained in our collective psyche that to question it marks one as an irrational fanatic out to enslave mankind to primitive fantasies. I have to wonder if it is even possible to dispassionately discuss the matter at all. Certainly any academic or member of the “scientific” community who dares to espouse “intelligent design” or seriously question evolution's basis, is risking not just his reputation, but his job as well. I can still clearly recall the words of my professor in Anthropology 101 during the first lecture he gave. “If you hear anyone talk about the theory of evolution, know that such a person is mistaken. Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact”. In reaction to this I would make the following observation; True scientists today have become much more wary of using such language when describing something which still has as many gaps and unknowns as the theory of evolution does. There is a certain humility which has become more common in our time because more and more we are realizing the limitations on what we know. The reason this is so significant is that earlier generations of scientists were way too overconfident that they had things figured out. Just to cite a classic example of such overconfidence, Napoleon once met the renowned French mathematician and physicist Marquis de Laplace  at a social gathering. Laplace had written 'Mecanique Celeste', a book explaining how the universe functions in terms of classical Newtonian mechanics.  Napoleon was supposed to have said to Laplace the following; “Messieur Laplace they tell me you have written a book describing the universe and have not once mentioned its creator !” to which Laplace replied, “I have no need for that hypothesis”.  There were instances where physicists (in the early years of the 20th century) advised students aspiring to become physicists “not to bother,since we have all the knowledge we need, and further research is unnecessary”, something which would be unthinkable today. Then along came men like Einstein and the Quantum physicists. The theory of relativity seriously invalidated the framework of Newtonian physics, showing it to be based on a human imagined construct, which similar to evolution, relied heavily on visual inspection of the phenomena [regardless Einstein still credited Newton with the greatest advance science ever made]. But there is an important difference between anthropologists and physicists. Physicists have to come up with mathematical proof and experimental support for what they claim as well as a convincing consistent explanation of why their theory should be accepted.  This makes them somewhat cautious. Anthropologists have no experimental or mathematical framework to work within, and rely much more on plugging the gap between known and unknown parameters in a vague time based matrix of approximate duration. It is often difficult for their peers to accurately evaluate each others research. Hence there is of necessity a more subjective definition and framework to their observations, despite progress in various studies such as comparitive anatomy, geology and earth science. The masses who trust these people, are often glossing over important human elements aside from just any ignorance of the actual facts. Anthropology, continues to be a stream of theories many of which are eventually totally or at least partially discredited by later research. As an example one can read how some of the work of the well known anthropologist Dr. Louis Leaky was invalidated because later experts in anatomy showed that he made gross assumptions in that subject which were shown to be false. Yet that did not prevent his work from being considered authoritative in its time.* The point is that physicists can be forgiven for mistakes made in abstract theoretical matters because many basic points have been either proven or bare widespread agreement and physics is more clear on the issue of theory verses fact. Anthropologists, on the other hand, have still not settled many of the basic points, and more often cannot really bring empirical evidence, so how can we unquestioningly accept their theories ?


There is much at stake for the academicians who make up this cadre of so called scientists. There is pride, peer status, fame, respect and of course with a little luck money too, not to mention “publish or perish”. There is no way the 'facts' can be separated from the human element part of it. If you feel that I am being unfair to these people, just watch a video where they take questions from doubters, especially of the religious type. Many of them can hardly conceal the contempt and intolerance for those who do not accept evolution at face value and consequently become irrationally defensive, often avoiding answering the questions asked of them or mocking those who dare defy their faith. After all, many of the big names like Richard Dawkins, have their entire life invested in it and having it invalidated would be devastating. Furthermore the atheist in them will cling to such an idea as a veneer of respectability and defense against facing the harsh reality of the existence of a deity and accepting what they consider base irrationality. As an example, I offer the explanation put forth by the Mathematician Philosopher Bertrand Russell in his essay “Why I am not a Christian” (based on a speech in 1927, first published in 1957). To Russell, the idea of a deity is not just scientifically unacceptable, it is just plain degrading to the esteemed dignity of a human being. He simply cannot accept that a man would humble himself and grovel before clergy decrying his sins or calling out to the deity to acknowledge and intervene in his life because he is unable to manage it himself. Science has become their defense and religion, enabling them to define the terms of the argument. Just to give you an idea as to what point the "Science" of anthropology has reached in its openness to investigation, I offer the following incident; The University of California at Santa Barbara has a series of lectures on Evolution that is viewable on Youtube. One of these lectures, given of course by an "expert", Duke Professor Alex Rosenberg,  is entitled "Debating Darwin: How Jerry Fodor Slid Down the Slippery Slope to Anti-Darwinism" . Jerry Fodor was a well known philosopher of science from Rutgers University, who eventually came to the conclusion that Darwinism is not as sure a thing as its supporters would like us to believe. For this act of heresy he is now excoriated by his former colleagues who have no problem questioning his sanity for daring to question Darwinism ! This is science ??? This is what they call a debate ??? You may recall that Einstein's theory of relativity was also received by the top experts of the day with total disbelief. Today that theory is universally venerated, but suppose there was a reputable dissenter who felt he could explain the difficulties which led to Relativity in some other way.  Would it not behoove us in the interests of truth and science to give him a fair hearing and allow the chips to fall where they may or alternatively to say we don't have enough information to make a clear decision ? Why is science now the captive of an absolute view which cannot be challenged despite its total failure and virtual impossibility to prove its thesis ? The title of that lecture should send chills down any concerned persons spine. Had it said "Debating Darwinism, why Jerry Fodor has dissented from the current evolutionary doctrine" I would not have reacted in the same way. The difference however is the idea that in the case of evolution the alternative implies a belief in G-d, which according to evolutionists and scientists in general is a no-no and not legitimately part of science. While it makes sense to say, ok, we cannot really know anything definite about G-d and therefore we cannot define speculation about him as proper human limited science, it does not follow that we are forbidden to say "we cannot explain our observations on the development of life with certainty and therefore an alternative theory could legitimately be that an intelligence we cannot know much about has had a crucial role in it. This is not mere semantics. Their control of the definition of science defacto gives the atheists power to control the flow of  not just academic discourse, but social, religious and political discourse as well.  Make no mistake, they have a strong self-interest in keeping it that way, ergo the academic execution of traitor Jerry Fodor. Interestingly enough I am reminded of how insurance companies always include a clause exonerating them from payment in the case of  "an act of G-d". I guess when money is at stake the powers that be take no chances, least there actually be a G-d !, pity they won't be more flexible when truth comes into question.


 Let me go further with this because the ramifications are vital to the current state of our culture and I want to impress upon anyone reading this that one should be very discriminating where one is asked to accept a hypothesis as a fact. Let us go back to the 19th century and even to the 16th century in Europe at the time of the renaissance. As is well known, until the beginning of the renaissance and the spread of the scientific method by men like Galileo, Copernicus, and Kepler. The so called Judeo-Christian Bible based theology was consciously or unconsciously the underlying assumption of the land. While not everyone took it to heart, it is safe to say that one risked ones life and reputation to publicly denounce it. The spirit of the new academic inquiry which began to take hold in Western culture at this time made the first inroads in pushing back this underlying assumption which had mostly gone unchallenged until then with some exceptions such  as Baruch Spinoza. The rise of empiricism (a.k.a. Scientific method)  meant that one had to show some sort of  logical or visual proof  for one's suppositions. Still it was a gradual process and many of the intellectual luminaries of the 17th and 18th century (including Newton himself) still clung to the theistic assumptions of previous centuries. Science was only more proof that there was a creator and that he was all powerful whether one believed in gradual natural development or clear biblical creation. However, by the eighteenth century men such as Voltaire, Hume and Hobbes were actively disparaging faith in the Bible as the new academic environment in Europe continued to advance. But the real revolution occurred when Charles Darwin published his famous Origin of the Species in 1859. Certainly Darwin's ideas were not necessarily all new. The hundred or so years preceding him had been a cauldron seething with much new and revised thinking on such diverse subjects as geology, anatomy,  genetics, etc and even the idea of life evolving from the inanimate can be traced back to Anaximander in ancient Greece. The idea of the transmutation of species, however, was still a bit radical, and had no real basis (although Darwin's own father espoused it). Overall there certainly was a division of opinion pro and con which interestingly enough went strongly along nationalistic lines, with German scientists generally giving it support and French scientists generally opposing it. Nevertheless, within ten or so years it was unquestionably dominant in England. From that point it didn't take long for it to sweep away the edifice of belief in the all powerful deity as the pillar upon which the world rested. There is simply no way to understate the effect in scientific and academic circles. So if most of the ideas were not necessarily his own, how did Darwin succeed in fomenting such an intellectual revolution. The answer is in part that he gave them a method to explain how it all supposedly happened.


Now it seemed, there was no turning back. It is not that Darwin necessarily set out with the mission of disproving the veracity of the Bible. Rather that his theory gave an opening to those who now realized that they had a basis to put the intellectual underpinning of society on a new footing. The biblical criticism that existed before Darwin, was not a majority opinion and not universally popular. Darwinism breathed new life into it and it morphed into a serious academic subject supported by ever expanding main stream universities and institutions. Soon it was joined by such disciplines as archaeology, linguistics, and ancient literature.  It is undeniable that there was much unjustified enthusiasm in the published results. It became a given among secular scholars that if the development of life could be explained naturally and if the earth was obviously more than 5000 some odd years old, then the Bible must be nothing more than an ancient legend to be dissected and analyzed with the assumption that it could not possibly be divine in origin. Why ? Because Darwinism suggested that “we have no need of that hypothesis” !


Of course I do not expect the Hebrew Bible as it is translated into English to necessarily convince the average person of the reality of a creator, and I am not at all surprised that in the context of today's intellectual environment,  it should be viewed as just some kind of mythology. Although many of those who have not studied the Bible in the original hebrew with Jewish commentaries on it may very well be quite surprised as to what it is really saying. This is very germane to my point because even though the vast majority of the public knows almost nothing about how Jewish tradition studies the Hebrew Bible (Torah) and what it is saying, they are perfectly willing to make sweeping assumptions against it. At the same time evolution gets a pass for all kinds of reasons having little or nothing to do with a clear understanding of the issues involved. However, as far as this essay goes, I am more concerned with the general idea “that there is a discernible G-d” or creator within nature apart from our being informed of this strictly through the holy scriptures.  At the same time I am in no way denigrating the incredible strides that some scientific and  semi-scientific disciplines have made in the last hundred to two hundred years despite existing gaps and disputes. Nor is this a question of the geological claim that the earth is billions of years old versus the five thousand some odd years claimed by "biblical fundamentalists". I do not think that either one of those views gives us the entire picture. Rather, my point is mostly that it is an illusion to believe that these disciplines have proven the core assumptions of evolution as to the existence of a creator as well as the idea that the Bible cannot be true because evolution relies on "scientific" data. At the same time, I am not denying the more visual aspect that evolution appears to the eye to have some validity. After all, one can easily imagine that human beings are biologically related to apes. But the bottom line is that there are simply too many assumptions that are at the very least doubtful or more likely outright incorrect once we examine them carefully and forget our preconceived notions (in so much as that is possible !).  With this preface we are now ready to examine Darwin's idea itself.


Darwin is perhaps best known for postulating that survival of the fittest was the operating principle behind the natural forces driving life forward. This strikes most of us as reasonable since intuitively we understand that life, whether in nature or human society has a strong component of struggle and competition for resources. Therein lies its widespread appeal. But that is quite different than using it as the basis for explaining how life got started from nothing and how it appears to be so well planned despite according to them, starting as a blank sheet. Those are far more subtle questions requiring knowledge of a wide variety of subjects. But we humans are only too ready to fill in the often huge gaps in conceptual understanding with a sort of  leap of faith which gives us the illusion of completeness or closure. However, even if we are experts, we are almost always oblivious to the myriad of details needed to be considered, and accept the contrived explanation, rather than say, “I don't have enough information to determine the facts ” which is much less satisfying.  But come on, even on a basic level this idea is a deceptive oversimplification. While the most fit may have an advantage in reproduction, who says they are always chosen to survive ? Or that if they do survive their natural advantage will spread throughout the entire population. Luck and fortuitous circumstances may very well have more to do with it.  Besides, this formulation is a classic tautology. If they weren't the fittest, then why would they survive ?


It is perhaps amazingly ironic that Gregor Mendl, a practicing monk, was at least a trained biologist, and had actually come up with the first known study in genetics, which was duly credited by later research. He did not accept Darwin's thesis on the random development of species.  Darwin, on the other hand whose primary academic achievment was completeing a degree in theology was somehow credited with a startling advance based on his own amateur observations with  little or no technical knowledge of genetics !


On his four year voyage around the world, Darwin had plenty of time to observe nature. One of the primary scenarios that encouraged him to feel that he had indeed broken new ground was his conclusions concerning how to explain anatomical differences within one species of animal. He noticed for example, that within the Finch (a type of bird) species there was a striking difference in the shape of the beak. Since the beak shape is critical to the ability to feed and by extension survive, it surely must be that the beak shape changed to enable the Finch to better survive and meet the challenges of a changing food supply. Again this may intuitively strike us as a reasonable proposition. However, it explains nothing ! How does a blind and unintelligent force such as nature (according to evolutionists) manage to randomly change the shape of a beak just because the food supply has changed  ? Well according to Darwin's way of thinking there will evolve  over time by chance an improved finch with the new shape of beak, and that bird will save the species because the change is advantageous and therefore will take over the finch population so they wind up surviving while the original finches perish.


 It didn't take long before it was realized that  Darwinism was not nearly comprehensive enough to answer the questions he set out to explain, How, for example could one seriously talk about inherited characteristics with no knowledge of DNA and the [mechanics of genetics] or even how it came about, to say nothing of cellular biology and biochemistry. Another weak assumption is the very idea that evolution is a lineal sequential phenomena, where every more complex feature and by extension organism, had to have a simpler, less complex antecedent . Then of course we get to the idea of  “irreducible complexity”, which even Darwin himself said would invalidate his theory if it were proven to be correct (more about this soon).  Seen from a more updated angle it seems unbelievably audacious for Darwin to have linked his limited observations to such far reaching conclusions. This only strengthens my thesis that the world as it were, was ready and waiting for this conclusion and it took very little persuasion to push the intelligentsia into this new faith. In other words it was just what they wanted to hear. But inspired guesses based on little empirical knowledge have happened. You may not know that the idea of a black hole, which is a pretty sophisticated cosmological concept developed in the 1960's originated in the 18th century by theologian and philosopher John Mitchell (1724 -1793) . But is that even a fair comparison ? I don't think so given the vast scope of understanding the origins of life as compared to say possible gravitational effects on a dying star. So what gave Darwin such confidence ? It must be said that clearly Darwin or perhaps no one alive at that time could have had the slightest notion of just how audacious his conclusions really were, but what you don't know doesn't hurt you, even if it makes for poor science. After the idea was accepted so enthusiastically, it was hard to find someone who had the courage to oppose it. Not coincidentally scholarship in Biblical criticism followed hard on the heals of Origin of the Species, and we will get to this aspect. However, it is important to understand what has become of Darwin's theory as it was subjected to more rigorous modern standards in light of advancing knowledge. Since about the 1940's Darwin's naturalistic view has become known as Neo-Darwinism. It is still true to the idea that evolution is based on survival of the fittest, but it has had to define itself and try to answer important questions that critics realized could not be assumed away. Such as what exactly is the mechanism which controls the ever changing development of existing and new species ? Evolutionists however, still insist that it is all random changes in the DNA. No plan or preexisting direction of any type is involved.


Yet this did not stop either Darwin or the later neo-darwinists from making very bold claims for their doctrine. As, for example the above mentioned assumption that despite the fact that no plan directed the progress of evolution, even the most minute changes in the organism would tend to be preserved and passed on to future generations for no better reason than they are advantageous or appear to be. It is a testament to Darwin's persuasiveness (he had a reputation as a glib speaker) that he actually convinced enough people to accept this argument. This is simply wishful thinking with absolutely no basis in any known scientific research even today, and of course much more so in his day when so little research of any type existed. In fact quite the opposite is true. These so called "point mutations" (changes in one nucleotide of the DNA molecule) if random are far more likely to be disadvantageous to the organism. Even a positive mutation  is very unlikely to be preserved in the population.  It wasn't until decades later that researchers actually started to do the math and realize how tenuous these arguments really were. Of course evolutionists will beguile us with something similar to "the anthropomorphic principle" which is used by physicists to assuage our nervous apprehension at some of their more weakly supported theories. It basically boils down to "since we are alive and here now, my explanation must have a logical basis no matter how much difficulty you have digesting it, since there is nothing remarkable about how miraculous things may appear to be".


I find their claims amazing from a variety of aspects.  They are not only mathematically fantastic but defy common sense as well as common sense interpretation of observed phenomena. Hence I have come to the conclusion that it is more motivated by human need that any compelling logic or indisputable physical fact. I would go so far as to say it is dishonest. Allow me to explain. Suppose that a group of Asian tourists come to Mt. Rushmore to see the figures of four U.S. presidents carved into the side of the mountain. The tour guide now explains to them that after thousands of years of wind and rain beating against the sides of the mountain, the quite accurate likenesses of four known presidents has randomly appeared . Do you suppose that these tourists would believe this explanation ? They certainly could be forgiven for doubting the veracity of the tourguide. Do you suppose that if you sat several dozen monkeys at word processors and let them randomly type for a million years, that at least one of them would manage to produce one of the sonnets of Shakespeare ? These are situations which have very long odds and one has a feeling that it would extremely difficult but maybe not impossible for it to actually happen. This type of statistical analysis is very germane to the question of evolution by random chance. You may protest that ok, the odds are long, but the odds are long as well on a typical American lottery ticket (say about tens of millions or sometimes hundreds of millions to one) and still someone of  the millions of tickets purchased manages to win on practically a weekly basis ! The difference is that most people simply don't have a feel for just how enormous these odds really are when dealing with evolution. They literally dwarft the lottery odds, not to mention that the conditions of the lottery are more controlled. But this is far from being the only problem with this belief. It is not just a question of long odds which makes me use the word dishonest. I say this because it is possible to say that in a particular circumstance it is unreasonable for an intelligent person to make a claim which he knows no-one could be expected to believe. Say for example a person is walking around in an uninhabited area such as the Australian outback. There is not a living soul for several hundred miles. As he is walking, he sees two lone fist sized rocks perched one on top of the other. It looks to him that someone has come along and placed these rocks one on top of the other (that is, they are not part of a larger pile), but he admits that maybe one could have come on top of the other by chance. He goes somewhat further and then sees three such rocks perched upon each other. Now he thinks, this is surely the work of a previous visitor to the area, but still maybe, maybe its just fortuitous circumstances. Now, someway further he finds a stack of rocks with fifty in the bottom row, forty-nine in the next row, then forty-eight, etc, until it reaches a one stone pinnacle. Now is it reasonable for that person to assume that this was chance and not the work of someone intelligent. I think it safe to say that no-one would honestly think that way, regardless of the fact that they really don't know how these stones came to be positioned in such a way. In other words, that contrarian position would be intellectually dishonest.


While going into all the details of this subject would necessitate writing a good sized book, I am going to recommend an existing work on this subject which I feel does an excellent job of presenting these arguments in a cogent and clear manner. That book is "Not by Chance" by Dr. Lee Spetner. Dr. Spetner is a physicist by training who has obviously done a great deal of research into the neo-darwin position of evolution and feels he must reject it. A physicist would be far more likely than a biologist to question deeply held assumptions, as he will do the math and question the logic instead of fearing to offend his peers and superiors. I will summarize some of the important points.


Speaking for those of us who reject random mutations in genetic material as the primary designing source behind the development of life, I declare the following to be critical issues, which disprove or at the very least cast heavy doubt on random evolution and the neo-darwinian doctrine;


1) We are not arguing here about adaptability. The ability of a species to develop what appears to be a new survival mechanism (such as the beaks of Darwin's finches) is built into the DNA already. Its appearance at some fortuitous point is part of the principle that life is intelligent and sensitive to its environment, for which quite alot of convincing evidence exists. This is diametrically opposed to the evolutionists insistence that there is no determining sensitivity to the environment involved. By design life is able to adapt to a variety of changing circumstances, and not as the product of some random 1 in a trillions upon trillions  chance at a time when the species is need of this to survive. Furthermore, changes due to adaptability do not prove that life from the very beginning was merely a chain of adaptations strung together haphazardly resulting in creatures who in every respect function with systems that display what strikes us as incredible planning. Evolutionists insist that form follows matter and not the reverse. This is clearly opposed to our common sense and experience. Does any rational architect or engineer build something without designing it first ?


2) The lineal sequential order which evolutionists have thus far assumed as basic to the process of evolution is questionable at best, but has been shown to be an illusion by the event known to paleogeologists as the Cambrian explosion. The Cambrian period was a relatively brief geological period (apprx. 10 million years about 500 million years ago, which is equivalent to about 5 minutes of a 24 hour day, according to the scale which mainstream geologists have accepted) at which time the earth seemed to be recovering from an enormous cataclysm which may have wiped out much of the existing life on the planet. Following this event, new species of creatures appeared in the geological record which had no antecedents whatsoever in previously examined layers. They literally appeared out of nowhere, skipping any sequential connection to previously known species. Moreover, this is not the only deviation of sequential development from simple to complex. Many macro molecules, such as proteins, have similar structures but very different genetic sequences. This raises the question: are these similar structures examples of convergent evolution or evidence of common ancestry? Common ancestry being one of the chief concepts which are supposed to prove evolution. Convergent evolution on the other hand, is when similar organs or bodily structures develop in two unrelated branches of the evolutionary tree independently of each other. This of course sheds doubt on the common ancestry and indicates that the process is not as random as evolutionists would like. That is, it will produce the same or similar result in two unrelated species which increases the odds against it by an enormous factor. There are thousands of such cases in the animal kingdom. As an example we can take the ruminant stomach of cows and the Langur monkey  They are not considered to be related on the evolutionary tree. If they had a common ancestor it would be too far back to consider that the ruminant stomach had existed at that time. Therefore we are hard pressed to explain this fact any other way than convergence. The image forming eye of the vertebrates, also exists in mollusks, and even insects who are not descended from each other and therefore are also examples of sophisticated convergence. The list goes on and on !


Add to this another recently discovered observation that microbes such as bacteria and viruses exchange genes among individuals as well as species. This clearly affects our understanding of the evolutionary branchings, turning them from a tree like structure into a multiimensional spider web, thereby also casting doubt on the common ancestor hypothesis. This is the real norm in this sort of open ended research. We invariably misconstrue and underestimate the complexity and real forces at work, mistaking our limited understanding or illusions for hardcore facts. Regardless it doesn't seem to stop those in established academia from swearing by the veracity of evolution by random event.


3) Darwin himself admitted that irreducible complexity would invalidate his theory. What is an example of irreducible complexity ? The structure of the eye consists of numerous parts which all must work together to achieve a common goal. If one part of the structure is damaged or missing, the other parts are rendered useless. So how did each part of the eye know that the other part was going to develop by chance to make the entire structure complete ?  Evolutionists insist we can safely say that the eye evolved piece by piece because we see in nature many of the alleged stages that the eye went through in various creatures that exist today, from mere light detecting nodes to full image forming eyes (see the problem with this in the previous point). There are however, much better examples which demonstrate the same thing. Some species of bacteria (which are among the simplest living creatures since they consist of only one cell) have a flagellum or whip like tail which propels them through the liquid in which they live. This tail like structure actually has a sort of motor mechanism which enables it to spin at a very high speed (thousands of revolutions a minute). Seen under the microscope, this motor consists of multiple parts which actually somewhat resemble a human designed marine outboard motor. It is clear that these parts all function together to one end and if one part were missing it would cease to be of use to the bacteria. We are being asked to believe by Evolutionists, that by chance, all of these parts came into being simultaneously and randomly, while functioning as if they had been designed by a master engineer. Alternatively, we could believe that each part knew the next one was on the way, and just hung around until it was complete, useless as it was at that time. But the point is that here we are dealing with a subsystem which cannot easily be broken down further into simpler parts. Evolutionists might say that it came into being as one unit on the macro level. If so, that's one amazing mutation !


4) The DNA mechanism which is essential to record and store all the myriad of details which go into the creation of even a one celled animal, had to exist before any of actual body parts of the cell (i.e. the remaining organelles) could come into existence. This information storage and reproductive functioning mechanism is a remarkable system in and of itself. How did it come to be, before there was something to record and reproduce, or after the body parts themselves, if the body could not reproduce itself without it ? Did this also depend on survival of the fittest or are we at the root of life which starts out as mindless chemical reactions which given the right environment, transform themselves into a living being which now carries on all the functions we associate with life ? Since this is a root question which precedes most other issues, we would really have to have the answer to this before insisting that evolution is a fact as many evolutionists today do. The existence of self replicating molecules is a precursor to any naturalistic explanation of the development of life, and this in itself requires much speculation without any observable proof. Why do you think that NASA is spending a fortune (of your tax dollars !) on space exploration ? See the next point for a continuation of the issue of DNA.


5)  Evolutionists claim we have absolute proof of evolution from the fact that bacteria can become resistant to antibiotics. This test is crucial for evolution because unlike the vast majority of  supposedly linked mutations which need long spans of time and large populations, this one has the advantage of using a life form which is as simple as possible and reproduces at a fantastic rate, thus cutting down the time factor by an enormous degree. Sounds great, but again smoke and mirrors. Its the same refusal to look closely at whats actually happening. Its the "how" of the resistance which makes the difference. In order to understand this, we must understand how the bacteria actually acquires the resistance. Briefly, the drug molecule is able to attach itself to a place on the reproductive mechanism of the bacteria where it can block the process of reproduction. This determines its effectiveness. A mutation which  disables the ability of the drug molecule to bind to the reproductive site on a molecular level would confer "resistance" on that bacteria. An example of this would be on the ribosome of the cell which plays a crucial role in protein synthesis. Since it is a change in the nucleotide of the DNA, it is heritable to the next generation of bacteria. So whats the problem ? All preserved mutations must add information to the DNA of the organism. In the vast majority of what evolutionists are calling heritable mutations, this information is responsible for making something new which the organism lacked previously. In this case the opposite is actually happening. The DNA is losing information and becoming less specific. The bacteria are not becoming "more powerful" they simply have  made it impossible for the drug to work for the reason explained above. This does not bolster the case for evolution because evolution could not possibly work if it constantly lost information instead of adding it to its genetic catalog.


Bacteria and one celled creatures in general are very important because they are the one case where a genetic changes can be observed in the immediate present. Any changes to the DNA are seemingly on stronger ground, which forces us to treat their declarations more carefully and not tenuously connected speculation and hypothesis where the idea in question has never been observed. Another case is viruses, which are technically not defined as living things because they cannot carry out the minimal functions we associate with an independent living creature (digestion, metabolism, excretion etc) and must have a host. Basically they are RNA structures in protein shells. However, they are critical to evolutionary theory because they seem to be a halfway stage which may demonstrate a link between primitive beginnings with functioning nucleic acids (RNA and DNA)  and later development of more sophisticated stages of complete creatures such as bacteria. It is these life forms which give the evolutionists the confidence that evolution cannot be disproven and is therefore a fact, since we do see mutations in the RNA which have an immediate effect (for example they make us sick with some new variation of illness). However at this level what we have is really not properly called evolution but rather abiogenesis (the start of life) which is not the same thing.  It seems likely that even point mutations (changes in one nucleotide of DNA, which are the smallest changes possible and  appear to be random) stand out on such simple life forms, Does it follow that this is solid evidence that these mutations would amalgamate together over time to produce a totally new species or a variation that has new well engineered features that no previous generation of theirs ever had ? After all, we are seeing the entire process speeded up by a tremendous factor. Surely in all the myriad of generations bacteria have reproduced in labs, we should see new species or a least some sort of sophisticated change. Has this actually happened ?


Regardless of what we call it, the situation is not as simple as it may seem. Rather than genetic changes appearing to be blind,  in the last few decades, researchers have found that sophisticated regulatory mechanisms exist in genes that act to switch them off and on or otherwise control how they are used. In other words, randomness is only how it appears to us. Those familiar with the concept of  "digital logic gates" can understand the model for these processes. Often this involves the very deliberate activity of specific enzymes and protein (polymer) molecules, which are activated in response to a specific situation in the environment of the life form in question. Describing it as "random" is more of a gap in our understanding of the process, rather than any particular reality. One of the research journals which I came across described the state of research in this matter as follows;


"Several classes of nucleic acid analogs have been reported, but no synthetic informational polymer has yet proven responsive to selection pressures under enzyme-free conditions." [researchgate.net/publication/26286982_Self-Assembling_Sequence-Adaptive_Peptide_Nucleic_Acids]


 In other words, some molecules mimicking characteristics of DNA have been synthesized, to the degree that they can build extensions of themselves or interact with their precursor molecules in a similar way to DNA. While this is an impressive feat of chemistry, the ultimate purpose of DNA or anything that attempts to perform its function, is to not just make copies of itself  but to act as a blueprint for storing the vast knowhow needed to build an incredible array of protein structures in the right order, right combination, and errorfree. The intricacies of this process are enormous and dwarft anything that has yet been produced in a lab. Evolutionists however, see the process as strictly a mechanical sleight of hand. If we can just jiggle these chemicals in the right direction we will get a living thing and that will prove it. After all we have isolated DNA and prodded it into producing living sheep and the like, so there is a measure of mechanical procedure involved. Yes fine, DNA is basically a seed and when we plant seeds in the ground, why should we be surprised if they sprout living plants ?


These researchers believe that nucleic acids formed naturally in ancient seas where large concentrations of their precursor molecules are said to have sloshed around.  The formation of DNA and RNA (a separate co-partner in reproduction also of vast complexity) are a critical 'missing link' upon which much of the evolution by random event hangs. But in the meantime this huge and significant gap is not supposed to prevent us from embracing the theory wholeheartedly.


6) As usually happens, new experiments are devised to test deeply held assumptions and reveal that these assumptions are really something different than what we thought. In the 19th century pioneer geneticist Lamarck proposed that species characteristics could be  passed through environmental influence or even the life experience of a particular individual creature. He was mocked or ignored as environmental transfer or influence on the genetic process was held to be completely false. Today doubters are not laughing so hard as recent experiments have strongly demonstrated that even individual experience can be a perfectly valid influence on offspring. A new field of studies called Epigenetics has developed around it.  


7) Evolutionists are always showing us charts where several disparate creatures are pictured one after the other proclaiming that the first creature pictured evolved into the last creature pictured. They insist that "evolution is a fact" rather than what it should be, a hypothesis, while using inferences and assumptions that are largely speculation and conjecture. How can it be otherwise since we really only know the end result rather than the conditions and circumstances at the beginning of the process, and how that process unfolded. This is logically a very weak argument. More often than not, a result can be reached by multiple possibilities or not at all. Yet this does not stop them from proclaiming this as true science. Many of these presentations are doubtful to improbable at best and deceitful at worst. Usually the fossil record spares only a partial set of bones or traceable remains (and rarely any significant DNA that we know of), yet as for example in the case of the supposed evolution of the whale, the entire body of the descendant is extrapolated from a limb, skull or handful of other bones.  In the case of the supposed evolution of the horse, there is at least more complete sets of bones to go by.  But even in this case, if we grant that there are enough fossils to give the appearance of gradual evolution, there is still no way the descendant can be connected to the alleged original progenitor species with absolute certainty.  Evolutionists themselves have been forced by the magnitude of this supposition and its multiple gaps to admit that the process is nowhere as clear as they want us to believe. [Please see the final section of this essay entitled "Evolutionists Speak" for a further discussion of horse evolution.]


Anatomical similarities as well, even if laid out in  in neat geological layers, do not prove that random mutations are the source of this progression. One must read a serious account of what it takes mathematically to sprout a new species from random generation in order to appreciate the difficulties in this approach. Species can adapt and change, because their DNA is sensitive to its environment and adaptable by design. Transmutation into a new species however,  is a different category and remains a conceptual gap. When programs such as NPR or publications such as Scientific American display these charts, they gloss over or fail to mention many of these aspects in order to lead the viewer to believe there is no doubt about what he is seeing, which is totally false. Is it responsible to claim that chickens evolved from Trex's ? Well this claim is currently making the rounds through evolutionists ! Another example of inaccuracies appearing in long accepted concepts was recently revealed by a paleontologist researcher examining a dinosaur fossil supposed to be at least 65 million years old. She prodded the specimen with a tool and was astonished to observe that the fossilized tissue was able to stretch like rubber. This could not be reconciled with the idea that the specimen was so old and all tissues had become inflexible as stone. Could it be that this fossil was not as old as assumed ?


Evolutionists Speak:


 Paraphrasing the well know evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University, Kathleen Hunt on the website talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html says;


"As new fossils were discovered, though, it became clear that the old model of horse evolution was a serious oversimplification. The ancestors of the modern horse   were   roughly what that series showed, and   were   clear evidence that evolution had occurred. But it was misleading to portray horse evolution in that smooth straight line, for two reasons:

1. First, horse evolution   didn't   proceed in a straight line. We now know of many other branches of horse evolution. Our familiar   Equus   (i.e. modern horse) is merely one twig on a once-flourishing bush of equine species. We only have the illusion of straight-line evolution because Equus is the only twig that survived.


2. Second, horse evolution was not smooth and gradual. Different traits evolved at different rates, didn't always evolve together, and occasionally reversed "direction". Also, horse species did not always come into being by gradual transformation ("anagenesis") of their ancestors; instead, sometimes new species "split off" from ancestors ("cladogenesis") and then co-existed with those ancestors for some time. Some species arose gradually, others suddenly."  [end of first quoted section]

Gould became known for his "punctuated equilibrium" theory of evolution, which postulated that evolution is not a slow, gradual process of change. Instead, it consists of long periods of stability alternating with shorter periods of rapid change. If so, then that is clearly a game changing evolution of  evolutionary doctrine, which should require some rethinking of how exactly the alleged evolution proceeds ! Because now according to their random hypothesis, multiple mutations must take place in a shorter period of time to achieve the needed change while preserving the integrity of the process. Evolution is now closer to macro evolution instead of micro evolution ! How else can the entire process be coordinated ? This helps to explain the transition stages where more than one significant change has been observed rather than one after the other in sequence which would be alot harder to find.

This however, does not stop Ms. Hunt from chiding creationists who still have their doubts. She continues;

"A Question for Creationists: Creationists who wish to deny the evidence of horse evolution should careful consider this:   how else can you explain the sequence of horse fossils?   Even if creationists insist on ignoring the transitional fossils (many of which   have   been found), again, how can the unmistakable   sequence   of these fossils be explained? Did God create Hyracotherium [she of course uses the scientific names for all the horse ancestors], then kill off Hyracotherium and create some Hyracotherium-Orohippus intermediates, then kill off the intermediates and create Orohippus, then kill off Orohippus and create Epihippus, then allow Epihippus to "microevolve" into Duchesnehippus, then kill off Duchesnehippus and create Mesohippus, then create some Mesohippus-Miohippus intermediates, then create Miohippus, then kill off Mesohippus, etc.....each species coincidentally similar to the species that came just before and came just after?

Creationism utterly fails to explain the sequence of known horse fossils from the last 50 million years. That is, without invoking the "God Created Everything To   Look   Just Like Evolution Happened" Theory.

Truly persistent and/or desperate creationists are thus forced into illogical, unjustified attacks of fossil dating methods, or irrelevant and usually flat-out wrong proclamations about a supposed lack of transitional forms" [end of Ms. Hunt's words]


The following points are in order;


1) The changes we see are the product of established genetic procedure built into the DNA already and should properly be called "adaptation" rather than evolution.  Thus they do not occur through "random mutation", which is not the same as saying there is no such thing as random mutation, but overall environmental conditions over time put pressure on the genetic structure to develop in this way or that, but not that the random mutation was responsible for designing the spieces without regard to the existing genetic structure. If that were the case shouldn't many unsuccessful mutant forms liter the landscape ? Why do we only find viable and whole end results. This contradicts a random process.


2) She claims that we creationists have unjustified doubts about fossil dating methods and transitional forms. While a variety of dating methods have been developed, they typically depend on the consistency of certain factors in our environment, such as magnetic fields or radioactive half-lives, or the physical position of various earth layers remaining either constant or changing steadily over long periods of time. There is a significant amount of disagreement among scientists on the particulars of this subject and it will not be settled by laymen creationists, or evolutionists, despite the need to bolster our respective  positions. Hence there is no absolute way to claim the matter is already settled. As far as claiming a lack of transitional forms, it to a large degree depends on what is a transitional form, micro or now macro ? The fact that evolutionists appear to have doubts about micro evolution is already a step closer to the creationist or “intelligent design” approach. Now add the concession that these changes are coming in “packages” and our positions are getting even closer ! Aside from this there are serious questions about just how much time has passed between these events and there is evidence that this lineal sequential order that they depend on so much is highly questionable. There could have been much more overlap between these periods and the spieces that existed within them than currently thought.  


3) Actually if we say there were "punctuated" rates of evolution, they probably corresponded to environmental/geological changes over the alleged 50 million year period, further lending support to adaptation over evolution. It should also be noted that all or at least most paleontologists accept the mass extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago which ended the Cretaceous era. Assuming that mammals co-existed with dinosaurs, it is not a stretch to assume that all but the most adaptable mammals perished together with the dinosaurs. So now we only have a period of 15 million years to go from mammalian ancestors to horselike mammals.


4) Her simplified "G-d would have to do this" and "G-d tried to make it look like" reproach is what creationists get when they use a superficial literalist understanding of the text of the Bible. Evolutionists seem to think that if we say there was a designing intelligence, why would their be any variation in life forms over time ? I have no such limitations, because I look to the Oral Traditions as well as the combined larger picture of the written Torah and kabbala for guidance. I see no reason for the creationist argument to go to pieces because the passage of time variable conflicts with our preconceived  notions of time and that creation cannot accomodate adaption to changing conditions which is something we see all the time.  Must we be forced to choose between  an extremely lengthy self-directed-material-only process negating any divine role or a divine-only-extremely-short process totally negating nature ? In addition to this, there is very good reason to understand the six days of creation as an independent chronological framework, being that it is relative only to the creator himself. This theme gets significant attention in Torah where the view is regularly switched from bottom up to top down. In short, what we call nature is really an extremely subtle process that evades our compromised understanding. Why should human biases and half theories dictate our approach to the entire subject ? Since none of us can scientifically understand the working of the creator any more than we can grasp the vastness of the universe, it is arrogant of us to assume that we can clearly and unequivocally explain it.


 For myself the matter more stands or falls on the divine revelation at Mt. Sinai. Because if that is a fact, then what are we creationists worried about ? But even if I did not believe in it, I would not accept the hypothesis of random uncontrolled micro changes' ability to create what we see around us. Like it or not the Creation still remains a mystery which we find tantalizing and challenging and upsetting because we cannot be more privy to its secrets. Regardless, I have no problem believing that the information the Torah gives to us as expressed in the corpus of Jewish traditions, is a perfectly accurate and sufficient guidebook, and tells us much of what we need to know.