The Religion of Darwinism

Erasmus Darwin, grandfather of Charles, was a member of the Lunar Society, one of the many secret societies that are intermingled with each other and connected to Freemasonry and the Illuminati. Erasmus wrote a book to serve their agenda entitled Zoonomia in which he described the theory of natural selection! Josiah Wedgwood was another Lunar Society member, and his daughter married Erasmus Darwin's son Robert. This Lunar Society arranged marriage is what produced Charles Darwin.1 Charles was simply fulfilling the agenda of the secret society when he published his theory, which was basically a rehash of his Grandpa's earlier theory. The reason there is so much bias in the scientific community is because the powers that be want it that way. Pretty simple. They have two main theories for human origins that they want the common people to believe, and they're both false; they promote their religions which were created for the purpose of control through dogmatism in spirituality, and they promote an atheist alternative, evolution, through dogmatism in science. Both theories are incorrect and hold the human species in bondage, living in dogmatic arrogance and ignorance to their true heritage. Scientific scrutiny is so terribly forbidden on this topic as both equally incorrect sides are very biased and slanted. It's really hard to get anything done or learn what's really true with both camps as biased as a children who need their security blankets! I represent the nearly unheard of third camp; the camp of evidence, which makes me a minority of great magnitude, because bias is the norm and most people are simply picking A or B without proper investigation and then clinging to it in illogical and brainwashed fashion. Concerning the scientific facts; I just Googled the other day and saw that there are some 8.7 million species that now inhabit this planet. Even more impressive is that the total number of species that has ever existed is estimated at between 1 and 4 billion. This is very significant and definitely the best place to start concerning this subject, because according to Darwin, all species in world history, all 1 to 4 billion of them, evolved from one common ancestor. Take a minute or two and ponder that idea. What does that mean? If all species are derived from one common ancestor, there should be fossils to document and demonstrate that idea. Why wouldn't there be? We're talking between 1 and 4 billion species here.

“The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on Earth must truly be enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? This is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” - Charles Darwin

Clearly there should be at least some evidence in the fossil record if this theory makes any sense at all, yet when we turn to the fossil record for evidence to back up that idea, what do we find? Nothing! We find no indication whatsoever a single transition (macro-evolution) from one species to the next, we only find small adaptations within the confines of the same species (micro-evolution). We don't find new animal types being created via evolutionary changes. Evidence for that idea is null and void.

“The process of macro-evolution---of change from one genotype to another---has never been observed. No person ever witnessed reptiles changing into birds or nonflowering plants emerging as flowering plants. So to find the missing links between reptile and bird or between a nonflowering plant and one bearing blossoms, scientists have turned to the fossil record. Thus the most extensive scientific effort in history has gone on since Darwin's day. Armies of scientists and weekend Darwinists eager to get dirty for the cause have participated in excavations around the globe in the interest of achieving one goal: to prove that the theory of evolution is valid. This long and massive effort has turned up roughly a quarter of a million fossils that are housed in museums all over the world but has found no intermediate fossils of any significance. If life slowly evolved from simple to complex forms through a series of mutations in response to changing environmental conditions, as Darwinism claims, then there should be a superabundance of intermediate forms. Yet the fossil record does not bear this out. The picture of life as shown by fossils is that new, fully formed species appear out of nowhere, remain the same for long periods of time, and then disappear.” - Will Hart2

Why, if all 1 to 4 billion species sprang from one common ancestor and slowly and gradually evolved into billions of different species and into what we have today, would there be no signs of transition anywhere in the fossil record? You can make all of the excuses that you want to make, but clearly something's wrong with that picture. There should be millions of transitions. Richard Dawkins, the hero of Darwinists and atheists, states in his book The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution that transitional fossils aren't needed and that we're lucky to have any fossils at all. Well, isn't that convenient? That's the same kind of excuse that Christians typically give when asked for evidence for Jesus. They say “I don't need evidence, I have faith in the Lord Jesus” as they totally and completely avoid any and all information that might shed light on things and make excuses for the rest. This musical chairs sidestepping routine isn't science, it's called being biased. Evidence is required, it's not optional.

We have numerous documented samples of soft bodied, single celled organisms that fossilized. If single celled organisms can fossilize then there's no excuse for a totally empty fossil record concerning the intermediate links. Granted there will be some missing intermediate links. As a matter of fact, it's reasonable to say that most of them would be missing, but even so, just as Charles Darwin said himself, there should still be millions of them there if this theory has any merit whatsoever. They've used the excuse that the fossil record is incomplete and that more fossils might yet turn up to back their theory, but...

“...as of now, there are 200 million fossil specimens representing 250,000 fossil species. 42 out of 43 living orders of land vertebrates have been found as fossils (97.7%) — as have 261 out of 329 living families (79.9%). If you exclude birds, which don't fossilize well since their bones are so flimsy, it's 156 out of 178 living families (87.8%). In some regions, such as N. America, the fossil record is virtually complete.” - Dr. Robin Bernhoft, M.D.

Believers in Darwinian theory are every bit as dogmatic, closed minded and biased as believers in religion, and for a good reason – Darwinism is their religion and they make irrational excuses for it as such. They believe that creationism is a joke and they make mockery of it, but then ignore the holes in their own theory. They typically tend to use the creationism is wrong therefore evolution is correct argument which is improper use of logic. If we look back at the Ten Commandments of Logic from chapter one we'll see the following: 6: Thou shalt not reduce the argument down to two possibilities. (False Dichotomy) Just because religion is wrong doesn't make evolution automatically right, and vice versa. It's not all black and white, this or that. It's not a coin toss! Third, fourth, fifth, sixth possibilities and beyond do exist for how life came to be here. Both biased sides are terribly, terribly wrong but at the same time both sides are right about certain things too based upon the verified evidence, which is what this part of the book is all about, showing you that there are other possibilities, not just gradual change vs. creationism. There's a little bit of both involved as you shall soon see. And don't worry, you'll never catch me coming from a biased point of view in this book, ever, for any reason. I'm strictly going where the evidence takes me, as it should be in science. Look at what this Professor of Botany from the University of Texas by the name of Verne Grant had to say in his book entitled The Evolutionary Process:

“Living species would not be expected to cluster in groups within groups if they were products of separate acts of creation.”

“The doctrine of creation provides no explanation for the observed patterns of geographical distribution of supraspecific groups.”

“There is no good explanation for the existence of useless, rudimentary organs in the doctrine of creationism.”

Nitpicking the other side and avoiding your own claim isn't science. Back yourself up! Prove your position! You have to provide evidence for your side's claims as opposed to biased statements and trying to shoot down the other side. Both sides are false dichotomizing each other and avoiding providing evidence for their own claims at the same time! In the world of logic and science only things that are backed up with evidence can be considered true and correct, everything else is just unproven assumptions. So when it comes to this debate, facts and evidence need to be the only thing worth considering. Nothing else is relevant here. Only the straight facts need apply. Mr. Grant from above provides no substantiation for why he believes the theory of evolution to be the automatic winner in his book. It's dogma disguised as science, because when you bring science into the equation Darwinism falls flat on it's ass just like religion. And that's why Darwinists behave like religious zealots who run and hide from evidence and avoid backing up their own claims simultaneously. Isn't it amazing that the atheist side of the fence makes fun of the theist side of the fence for believing in an ancient bronze age text that they have no evidence for, yet in the very same breath these atheists proclaim the same exact kind of belief in a 150 year old, outdated theory which has never been proven true! And when you engage in discussion with these atheists concerning their erroneous and unproven dogmatic belief system they react in precisely the same way that religious people do when pressed about their beliefs. They pull out their bags of excuses, they twist, they distort, they manipulate, they use ad hominem attack methods and they outright lie. Of course, if they had real evidence all they'd have to do is present it. But there is none, and so they use the above mentioned tactics in the defense of their religion of materialist dogmatism. The atheists even have their own holy book, the Origin of Species and their own creation myth, the Primordial Soup Theory. Their book has been proven just as false as the Bible, and so has their entire theory of evolution, yet they keep clinging onto it like children do to their security blankets, in the very same manner that Christians do to their error-filled, dogmatic beliefs. Both camps are like little children, throwing fits and pointing fingers at each other while failing to provide substantiation for their own claims.

Concerning their origin of life theory of the Primordial Soup, they claim that a chemical reaction in the ocean via a strike of lightning, or in “a warm pond somewhere,” as Darwin put it, was the spontaneous way in which life originated on Earth. They claim that certain chemicals combined, and then upon being sparked by lightning magically turned into living organisms. In other words, all life on Earth evolved from pond scum! Ha ha! That's what they believe! The funny thing about this is that there is no evidence that it's true. There was an experiment done in the 1950's called the Miller-Urey Experiment in which they attempted to simulate the atmosphere of the planet Earth at the time, and then they sent a spark through it. It did in fact produce a small number of amino acids, but that's it. No DNA, no RNA, no proteins, nothing but amino acids. And now there are many scientists who firmly believe that they didn't properly simulate the atmosphere of the Earth for that experiment, which makes the entire experiment null and void. But for the sake of argument, let's say that they got it right. And let's give them the amino acids that they produced in their lab experiment. We're still a long way from producing a living cell. Living cells are extremely complex, they're like little computers, little robot life forms, so complex that scientists cannot figure out how to put one back together after they've taken it apart in the lab. They have conducted numerous experiments where they have all of the building blocks of a cell in a test tube and then they try to make a living cell out of it. They've never succeeded. They'll have every ingredient they need put it back together; the amino acids, the proteins, the RNA, the DNA, but they still cannot put Humpty Dumpty back together again. They've tried and done nothing but fail miserably every time.

“Prokaryotic cells, they say, were the earliest and “simplest” forms of bacterial life on Earth, as they have a self-sustaining process built into them...three regions, each with its own components. On the outside, flagella and pili project from the cell's surface. These structures are made of proteins that facilitate movement and communication between cells. Enclosing the cell itself is the cell envelope – which consists of a cell wall covering a plasma membrane and a further covering layer called a capsule. The envelope gives rigidity to the cell and also and also serves as a protective filter and barrier against exterior forces. It also prevents the cell from expanding and bursting from environmental pressures. Finally, inside the cell is the cytoplasm region that contains the complex coded genome. Prokaryotes can also carry extra-chromosomal DNA elements called plasmids, which encode antibiotic resistant genes. The 'randomly formed' original 'simple single cell' comes with its own genome; living computer chips packed with complex DNA coding which transmits during cell reproduction.” - M.S. King3

If scientists with all of the building blocks of a living cell in a test tube cannot produce a living cell in controlled settings in a lab, then what makes us think it's possible that a chemical accident in nature created a living cell spontaneously via sheer coincidence? The idea that life was spontaneously created via a chemical accident is about as probable as a hurricane blowing through a scrapyard and magically producing a 757 jetliner. The odds are trillions to one. Impossible is what that means. If anyone believes that they have conclusive proof that a chemical reaction caused living cells to form spontaneously I'd certainly love to see it, but it doesn't exist. Here's an example of how people who poke holes in theories are treated by the mainstream science establishment. Richard Dawkins, mentioned above, launched a censorship campaign against a newspaper article written by Richard Milton, a British journalist, because it challenged Darwinism:

“The article was commissioned in February 1995 by the British weekly newspaper, Times Higher Education Supplement to appear in March 1995. It has been censored because it challenges, scientifically, the empirical foundations of the neo-Darwinist theory of evolution. The article was “spiked” by the THES following a campaign against it by Richard Dawkins, of Oxford University.”

Dawkins' reaction to Mr. Milton's book Shattering the Myths of Darwinism was purely childish. He called Mr. Milton and his book names such as “loony,” “stupid,” “drivel,” and “harmless fruitcake” who needs “psychiatric help.” He then proceeded to write a review of Mr. Milton's book for New Statesmen magazine where he spent (as quoted from Milton's book):

“two thirds of his review to attacking my British publishers, Fourth Estate, for their irresponsibility in daring to accept a book criticizing Darwinism and the remainder to assassinating my own character in the sort of terms quoted above.”

Instead of attacking the man who wrote the book along with his publisher, Richard Dawkins, if he has so much evidence, could have written a scientific rebuttal instead! But he did not address the science at all! He was too busy engaged in Ad Hominem attacks calling Mr. Milton names and ridiculing.

“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” - Socrates

Why didn't biased Rich just slap that science on the table? All that was required was an intelligent rebuttal! So much for the idea of intellectual debate huh, Mr. Dawkins? I've read Richard Milton's book and several by Richard Dawkins as well. After analyzing the evidence being presented by both sides, I've concluded that Milton is the clear-cut winner. Another proponent of the theory, Bill Nye “the science guy” is every bit as good at making unscientific excuses as Richard Dawkins. In a chapter in his book4 entitled Micro or Macro – It's All Evolution Bill tries to claim religious bias as the reason for anyone who doesn't accept macro-evolution as true. To be clear; Micro = small adaptations that are normal and natural. Macro = the process of evolving over time into entirely new species (ape to human, etc.) which isn't proven scientifically, yet Bill says that me and people like me are biased because I state that I haven't seen any proper evidence for macro-evolution and, of course, he didn't show me any in his book! If Bill wants me to believe in macro-evolution he's going to have to show me some proof! All I've seen is the direct opposite proven true.

“One of the fundamental premises of Darwin's theory is that a species can, if it evolves long enough, turn into another species. Now this central idea is contradicted by every single plant and animal experiment over the last 500 years. Every animal and plant breeder knows that there is a limit to the extent to which an animal or a plant can be changed. Ultimately the line becomes sterile or it simply reverts to the original type to which you've selected. This has even been given a name. Ernst Mayr, Professor of Zoology at Harvard called it genetic homeostasis. And that simply means that there is a barrier which evolution cannot pass. I find it extraordinary that the world's biologists continue to believe in the infinite plasticity of individuals, when they know perfectly well that experiments show that it simply can't happen.” - Richard Milton

Microscopic jumps and adaptations do occur, but as you've seen above, there is an obvious line across which they cannot cross. Empirical evidence is needed to verify a theory before it becomes accepted as a fact and the theory of evolution doesn't hold up under unbiased scrutiny. There is no verifiable scientific basis for the claims made by this theory, it's all based upon erroneous ideas, speculation and wishful thinking. Purveyors of the theory use ridicule and bully tactics, logical fallacies and slanted data. If this theory is true why is there so much dishonesty involved? This theory is overflowing with gaping holes and I find it amusing that the very same people who spread the unproven myth of evolution stress the importance of facts and evidence when they talk about creationism, yet their theory of evolution is completely unproven and they claim it true in uncompromising fashion.

“The famed cosmologist, Dr. Carl Sagan, pointed out how the fossil record reveals a sudden and inexplicable leap in human brain-function that cannot be explained by the claims of Charles Darwin. 'Under the Darwinist timescale it should have taken 200 million years for mammals to first appear, and another five to ten million for them to evolve into humans,' Sagan says. 'Instead, it happened very quickly' in what Sagan describes as a 'major burst of brain evolution.' Stone tools, for example did not develop slowly, but appeared 'in enormous abundance all at once.'”5

I have some things to show you regarding human origins in the next section that relates to Carl Saga's quote here and explains how the major jump that he talks about could have been possible, not by natural means, but by another process altogether. You'll see soon. Don't forget this part, this is important to remember for future points that I'll be making in upcoming chapters! Humans didn't evolve from apes (macro-evolution), but apes did evolve within the confines of their own species (micro-evolution). The gap between the ape and human fossils is so huge that it cannot be substantiated because it's clearly nothing but speculation that these two species are connected to each another. What has been demonstrated in the fossil record is the micro-evolution of apes up to an estimation of about 4 million years ago with a variety known as the Australopithecus (1). After that there is a huge gap to the next variety, which arrived roughly 2 million years ago, known as Homo-Erectus (2). The difference between those two stands out like a sore thumb. See image below:

“It's not a gradual change, it's a complete transformation.” - Lloyd Pye6

The above sequence is also lacking in intermediate varieties. Several would be required to confirm that those two are related to each other, and of course, there are no transitional fossils to verify that, which makes it nothing but more speculation and wishful thinking, which is what Darwinism is entirely, a pseudoscience, yet the general consensus of most mainstream scientists is that evolution is a fact. And my question is; based upon what? I've been looking, but not seeing. I've been reading books galore on the topic, but I'm only seeing evidence that doesn't hold up from the mainstream. It's a half-baked farce. Why then aren't scientists speaking out and saying more to contest it? Michael L. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson, authors of Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race discuss what they term a “knowledge filter”:

“If a finding is slightly anomalous, it may win acceptance after a period of controversy. If it is more anomalous, it may be studied it may be studied for some time by a few scientists, while being rejected by the majority. For example we see today that some scientists, such as Robert Jahn of Princeton University, publish parapsychology studies, while most scientists completely disregard this subject. Finally, there are some observations that so violently contradict accepted theories that they are never accepted by any scientists … This process of rejection does not usually involve careful scrutiny of the evidence by the scientists who reject it … most scientists prefer to focus on positive research goals rather than spend time scrutinizing unpopular items.”

In other words, this isn't science! Our institutions are biased, and only the accepted mainstream theories are allowed funding and receive any support in general, the rest gets put on the scrap heap regardless of how true and correct the science might be! Scientists who point out truths that contradict Big Brother get ostracized from the community. Cremo and Thompson's book is a massive 800+ page volume and highlights numerous bones, crafted stone tools and artifacts showing that humans like us existed on the Earth millions of years ago, but the mainstream science community has yet to even consider the evidence as relevant information. As I was mentioning in the book's introduction, removing evidence from the table in a slanted and biased fashion is not permitted in the world of logic, reason and especially not in science! Their book points out that in the next few decades after Darwin introduced his theory scientists discovered incised and broken animal bones and shells, which to them indicated that tool using humans existed in the Pliocence (2 – 5 million years ago), the Miocence (5 – 25 million years ago), and even earlier. All evidence was analyzed thoroughly to rule out natural events and causes, and they concluded human activity was responsible.

“The objections made to the existence of man in the Pliocene and the Miocene seem to habitually be related to theoretical considerations than direct observation.” - Armand D. Quatrafages

The authors point out a glaring example in a piece that was found by geologist H. Stopes in 1881 and reported to the British Association for the Advancement of Science. A shell was found in the Pliocene Red Crag formation there in Britain, making it over 2 million years old. This shell features a human face carved on the outside of it, in crude yet obvious fashion. In the late 19^th century some interesting eoliths (stone tools) and some more advanced paleoliths were discovered by archaeologist Benjamin Harrison, on the Kent plateau in southwest England. These tools officially dated to the Middle or Late Pliocene, or about 2 – 4 million years ago. Harrison's observations won him the support of Alfred Russel Wallace, who actually assisted Darwin in founding the theory of evolution! He also won the support of Sir John Prestwich, a premier geologist in England at the time, and Ray E. Lankester, the Director of the British Museum of Natural History. Despite receiving support from such high and prominent people, his finds became distant memories thanks to the slant and bias of the mainstream establishment.7

The photo above is a giant human femur that measures 1.3 meters, uncovered in Ohio in 2011 by the American Association for Alternative Archeology. This specimen was presented in federal court against the Smithsonian Institute. It came as a surprise to the Smithsonian lawyers because an insider had taken it home with him from work, had possession of it for many years and then returned it from his deathbed. How do skeptics explain the existence of this giant leg bone, and the countless other giant fossils that have been uncovered, even admitted so by the Smithsonian? This is clear evidence!

“A US Supreme Court ruling has forced the Smithsonian institution to release classified papers dating from the early 1900’s that proves the organization was involved in a major historical cover up of evidence showing giants human remains in the tens of thousands had been uncovered all across America and were ordered to be destroyed by high level administrators to protect the mainstream chronology of human evolution at the time.”8

“Over a 200-year period thousands of newspaper reports, town and county histories, letters, photos, diaries, and scientific journals have documented the existence of an ancient race of giants in North America. Extremely large skeletons ranging from 7 feet up to a staggering 18 feet tall have been reportedly uncovered in prehistoric mounds, burial chambers, caves, geometric earthworks, and ancient battlefields. Strange anatomic anomalies such as double rows of teeth, horned skulls, massive jaws that fit over a modern face, and elongated skulls have also been reported. Many of these discoveries were sent to the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C., seemingly never to be heard about again. The Smithsonian's own records describe at least 17 giant skeletons in annual reports. “9

What does Richard Dawkins have to say about these reports? Nobody knows because he doesn't talk about it. The “Science Guy” conveniently avoids the topic as well. At and around the Serpent Mound of Southern Ohio we have dozens of documented examples of giants and races of giants who averaged at around seven feet tall!

“And indeed, discoveries are frequently made, which lead people interested in the matter of prehistoric America to believe that a race of mankind, superior in size, strength and intelligence to the common red man of the forest, flourished not only along the coasts East and South, but right here in southern Ohio...Some of these skeletons have been measured, and the largest have been found to be nine feet long and over.” - Stevens Point Daily Journal, May 1^st, 1886

And what about the abundance of elongated skulls in the archaeological record? Those have been found all over the world! How do those fit in with Darwinism? No comment Mr. Dawkins? Mr. Nye? The rest of you so-called scientists? I didn't see any acknowledgment of skulls like this in evidence for evolution books or in school textbooks! We're talking about some very significant evidence here that's just been thrown on the scrap heap and written out of all our history and science curriculum as if it doesn't matter! Not one of the peddlers of Darwin's theory has acknowledged this evidence! Apparently they were hoping that they could just toss it aside and nobody would notice! Well guess what! I did! So why is this evidence considered irrelevant? Pardon me but this evidence has to stay on the table, it can't just go ignored!

The other reason knowledge filters out of the mainstream is religious slant and bias. Most scientists are atheists and Darwinism serves as their religion. Anything that contradicts those deeply cherished beliefs is immediately mocked and ridiculed in typical religious fervor demonstrating an emotional bias and attachment to their precious but unproven and dogmatic theory. The following website contains a signed list of 1,000+ scholars from related fields, most having PhDs, who find too many questions and holes in the theory of evolution to believe it to be true.

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism

“During recent decades, new scientific evidence from many scientific disciplines such as cosmology, physics, biology, “artificial intelligence” research, and others have caused scientists to begin questioning Darwinism's central tenet of natural selection and studying the evidence supporting it in greater detail.

Yet public TV programs, educational policy statements, and science textbooks have asserted that Darwin's theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things. The public has been assured that all known evidence supports Darwinism and that virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true.

The scientists on this list dispute the first claim and stand as living testimony in contradiction to the second. Since Discovery Institute launched this list in 2001, hundreds of scientists have courageously stepped forward to sign their names.

The list is growing and includes scientists from the US National Academy of Sciences, Russian, Hungarian and Czech National Academies, as well as from universities such as Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and others.

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. There is scientific dissent from Darwinism. It deserves to be heard.”10

If there are two words that pretty much tear apart the theory of evolution they are “Cambrian Explosion.” All of a sudden, out of seemingly nowhere, here is a vast array of brand new species appearing on the fossil record with no possible ancestors anywhere to be found. Stephen Meyer, author of the book Darwin’s Doubt tells about the heated debate at the University of Oklahoma in 2009 when he was doing a panel discussion after showing of the film Darwin’s Dilemma. Darwinists at the university put out announcements that the event was religiously motivated before it started and made claims that it's a biased film. But at the actual event the university’s professors and museum curators could not produce any fossil as an ancestor to any of the Cambrian animals. So where did all of those new life forms come from? Well, not from evolution! That is claimed but not proven! This turned out to be an excellent book. The bottom line is that Darwin's theory of evolution has been obsolete for many years.

“It is hard for us paleontologists, steeped as we are in a tradition of Darwinian analysis, to admit that neo-Darwinian explanations for the Cambrian Explosion have failed miserably. New data acquired in recent years, instead of solving Darwin’s dilemma, have rather made it worse. Meyer describes the dimensions of the problem with clarity and precision. His book is a game changer for the study of evolution and evolutionary biology. Stephen Meyer points us in the right direction as we seek a new theory for the origin of Cambrian animal phyla.” - Mark McMenamin, paleontologist at Mt. Holyoke College

Given all of the new evidence concerning the computer-like structure of the living cell,11 the protein machines, DNA and RNA, and the fact that gradually evolving those things requires so much precision and blind luck that there's no way it could have happened by chance alone, which is what Darwinism claims, but doesn't prove. The chances are quite literally trillions to one that protein folds or DNA could evolve gradually into new organisms.12 Back in Darwin's day, knowledge of DNA didn't exist. If he'd known about that maybe he'd have changed his mind?

“If it could be demonstrated that that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” - Charles Darwin

The verdict is in, and Darwin's theory of evolution has been debunked. Concerning the fine college institutions in the land of the free, author Jonathan Wells, a Berkeley PhD in Biology, is not a creationist, but his book Icons of Evolution describes many serious errors in facts commonly found in biology textbooks. The book describes ten icons, one chapter each, and shows what's wrong with them in the light of published scientific evidence. It's documented with 71 pages of research notes. The following is a list of the problems that he addresses. They are each followed by a warning to the students (bullshit alert!) concerning the misrepresentation of the evidence by the establishment. Take note of # 4 with the graphic. This blatant fraud is still in college text books to this very day and so is the rest of what's here.

Icon # 1: “The Miller-Urey Experiment”: WARNING: The Miller-Urey Experiment probably did not simulate the Earth's early atmosphere; it does not demonstrate how life's building blocks originated.

Icon # 2: “Darwin's Tree of Life” (The Cambrian Explosion) WARNING: Darwin's Tree of Life does not fit the fossil record of the Cambrian explosion, and molecular evidence does not support a single branching tree pattern.

Icon # 3: “Homology in Vertebrate Limbs”: WARNING: If homology is defined as similarity due to common ancestry, it cannot be used as evidence for common ` ancestry; whatever its cause may be, it is not similar genes.

Icon # 4: “Haeckel's Embryos”: WARNING: These pictures make vertebrate embryos look more similar than they really are; it is not true that vertebrate embryos are most similar in their earliest stages. (Comparison of Haeckel's fraud with the real thing is below.)