What Was Darwin’s Theory Anyway?
According to the definition of evolution provided by the authoritative “Oxford Dictionary of Biology” (1996 edition): “Present day species evolved from simpler ancestral types by the process of natural selection acting on the variability found in populations . . . the only unresolved problem is to explain how the variations in populations arose.”

The Delusion
Notice, right here at the outset, the Darwin delusion, the fatal flaw in his theory – the unwarranted school-boy assumption that since limit-ed variation in the offspring of organisms is an observed fact of life, as exploited by plant and animal breeders for thousands of years, then limit-less variation must also be possible. So that, given enough time, sufficient small variations could be accumulated to turn a fish, for example, into a dog or a man, or even vice versa. This fundamental assumption, as Darwin was forced to admit, was not supported by the fossil record in his day – and is still not supported today, a hundred and fifty years later, as we shall see later.

An Elementary Mistake
Darwin’s assumption that the variation observed and exploited by cattle breeders, for example, over the centuries, might be extrapolated ad infinitum in order to create totally new and different kinds of creatures is as infantile as a child extending a graph of the daily weight of a new puppy over a couple of months to “prove” that in a five years’ time it will be the size of an elephant. Darwin’s fundamental claim is that childish and that foolish -- an elementary “schoolboy” error. Not surprisingly, as we shall see, despite his genius, basic mathematics was not Darwin’s strong suit.

I See No Ships!
Darwin himself, who had no idea of the origins of significant variations observed in the offspring of living things, described the process of evolution as follows: “If, then, animals and plants do vary, let it be ever so slightly, why should not variations or individual differences, which are in any way beneficial, be preserved and accumulated through natural selection?”

Notice the delusion again, the unwarranted assumption that slight variations or differences, as in a litter of pups, for example, can be accumulated ad infinitum, generation by generation, and added together to produce the limit-less variation required for evolution to achieve its end.

Darwin was, I suspect, fully aware of this fatal flaw, this leap from the known into the unknown, when he then boldly added: “What limit can be put to this power, acting during long ages . . . favouring the good and rejecting the bad? I can see no limit”. [Ed: Why does that remind me of the admiral eager for battle who deliberately put the telescope to his blind eye and remarked: “Ships? What ships? I see no ships!”]

Darwin’s Desperation
Accordingly, in blissful ignorance of the complexities of genetics, cell structure, genes, jumping genes, slave genes, DNA, RNA and all the rest, Darwin deluded himself that evolution had simply happened - as the desperate hidden agenda we shall discuss later required. That desperation, incidentally, manifested itself in severe psychosomatic illness for much of his life.

In his heart, I suspect, the tormented Darwin knew he was talking nonsense, which helps explain why he delayed the publication of his book for 20 years, and was fortunate when he did publish it that nobody else yet knew enough about the “complexity within complexity” of the natural world to disprove his deceptive claims – which is perhaps why he was also led to comment: “The more important objections relate to questions on which we are confessedly ignorant – nor do we know how ignorant we are”. [Ed: Ignorance is bliss, G-Man!]

G-Theory
Notice again in the Oxford Dictionary definition of evolution, the phrase that runs: “Present day species evolved from simpler ancestral types . . . “. Readers may be surprised to realize that if we equate the “ancestral types”, plural, to the unspecified number of organisms whose creation is described in the Genesis account, then this definition of evolution would actually be in total harmony with the Bible. However, as we shall see, Darwin was not happy with that possibility at all.

Science allows, for example, that all the dog breeds we now have could have originated from one original pair [Ed: Jewish legend has it that Noah called them Rover and Lassie] – a fact also implied in Genesis when it says that God commanded creatures to reproduce “after their kind”, a carefully constructed phrase that allows dogs to vary massively in shape, colour, size, hair length, etc. and even assume giant proportions, but still remain “dogs”, rather than turning into some other “kind” of animal such as sheep or horses.

That in fact is the thrust of G-Theory teaching, a common sense interpretation of Genesis, fully in accord with the facts of geology, that was promoted over a century and a half ago by Oxford University’s very first professor of geology, William Buckland who was also an ordained Christian minister. [Ed: Wasn’t Will the bloke who analysed the coprolites he discovered at Lyme Regis to prove that some extinct creatures had been carnivores, even eating their own kind like cannibals?]

As a result of his massive practical experience as a fossil hunter, Buckland, who rejected the early evolutionary ideas extant at the time, maintained that living creatures had existed on earth long before man – and that the wording of Genesis allowed for this possibility. His ideas, which we shall discuss in more detail later, were set out in a two-volume work, “Geology and Mineralogy”, commissioned as part of “The Bridgewater Treatises on the Power, Wisdom and Goodness of God as Manifested in Creation”. [Ed: Just remembered something, G-Man. Wasn’t it Buckers who discovered and named the Megalosaurus, that being the first scientifically valid name given to a dinosaur. – but he thought it was a giant, extinct lizard.]

Micro-evolution or Variability
Returning to the definition of evolution again, notice also that the word “simpler” in the phrase “simpler ancestral types” can also be accommodated by the Bible account - because Genesis allows the original “kinds” of plant and animal to have varied by now, again as with dogs, into new varieties and even quite exotic forms. This process of limited change, within the bounds of the original Genesis “kinds”, the variability exploited by breeders, has more recently come to be called “micro-evolution”. [Ed: So Darwin’s elementary and crucial mistake was to extrapolate the “micro-evolution” observed by breeders ad infinitum, way beyond the evidence of the available data? Right, G-Man?]

However, Darwin was not happy with Genesis because he wanted those “ancestral types” to number very few indeed, preferably just one – thereby envisioning them as something far different and more “primitive” than the cats and dogs and cows and other kinds of creatures we are now familiar with. [Ed: A preposition at the end of a sentence, G-Man, is a grammatical no-no, up with which I will not put. No more please.]

Not necessarily Natural Selection!
However, as we shall demonstrate, using the admissions of confirmed evolutionists, Darwin’s theory of evolution is increasingly regarded by thoughtful biologists and mathematicians as simplistic nonsense, and devoid of credible proof.

According to Darwin, Natural Selection favoured the survival of the “fittest” organisms and the destruction of the “un-fit” on the basis of very slight differences in their physiology – the selection actually being the result of environmental pressures such as limited food resources, changes in climate or the impact of predators.

Although there is clearly some truth in the principle of Natural Selection, we shall see that whenever such selection does takes place it is a consequence of significant differences called “mutations”, rather than the insignificant trifling differences Darwin focused on, as between one puppy and another in a litter – and that the origin of those significant differences is still not properly understood or explicable.

[Ed: Just remembered something else, G-Man. I read somewhere that Buckland was a bit of a joker and so amusing as a speaker that the intellectuals of the time gave him the raspberry. Apparently, he used to keep wild furry animals, like badgers, in his chambers at Oxford – and occasionally they killed and ate one another, so that guests would sometimes hear squeals and the crunching of bones under the sofa! ]

Chance, but No Chance
In his latest book, the one in which he says that God “almost certainly” does not exist, Richard Dawkins tries to convince unwary readers that Natural Selection does not depend on chance at all - but that it systematically measures each and every organism against the requirements of their current environment, selecting those with the best fit, and rejecting the rest.

What Dawkins chooses not to mention, however, is the fact that Natural Selection can only act on the basis of the variations offered up to it, all of which he maintains in his previous publications are the result of random DNA copying errors. Clearly, the probability of the zillions of copying errors required to evolve and “improve” rather than disable even the “simplest” organisms being fortuitously generated ad infinitum to create the variety of life as we know it is in fact zero. So it is chance but no chance, Dr. Dawkins.

[Ed: Perhaps we should congratulated Dr. Dawkins on the fact that with the publication of his latest epic, “The God Delusion”, his works now occupy one whole shelf at our local Waterstones book shop. Me thinks my Lord doth protest too much! ]

Lamarck and the Self-developing Genome
As we shall see later, the earlier evolutionary theory of Jean Baptiste de Lamarck, which soon fell out of favour when Darwin came on the scene, actually provided a more accurate description of the workings of nature than that proposed by Darwin, even though it could not explain it.

What Larmarck had theorized, but could not explain, was that rather than populations of organisms being sifted and sorted by a process of Natural Selection in order to fit them to their ecological niche, they seemed to actually sense the needs of their chosen environment and vary or mutate accordingly. As a result, as Darwin himself later concluded, organisms appear to possess some kind of sophisticated “feedback” mechanism designed to bring out useful mutant forms, the genetic patterns of which may have already existed within them in a dormant state since their original creation.

Such a store of potentially useful mutant forms – such as longer hair for cattle in colder climates, or earlier and later fruiting trees, etc.—which Darwin once alluded to as “being written in invisible ink”, might be regarded as comprising a kind of “genetic wardrobe”, which may well prove to be the function of the mass of apparently useless DNA in organisms that science currently dismisses so lightly as “junk”.

Furthermore, some biologists, such as avowed evolutionist Derek Hough, are now beginning to suspect that in addition to a genetic wardrobe, organisms may also contain a “Self-developing Genome”, an incredibly sophisticated mechanism with the power to respond in a creative new and meaningful manner to perceived needs and environmental changes, but still within the bounds of their “kind”.

It seems significant therefore that Lamarck’s theory did not require the trial-and-error creation of the myriad missing “unfit” forms that Darwin’s theory required – the elusive “missing links” that, according to Darwin, should comprise the vast majority of fossil forms ever found. [Ed: Am I correct in thinking, G-Man, that although evolutionists have been looking for the missing missing links for over a hundred years, the missing missing links are still missing?]

A Less Ambitious Theory
Notice also that Darwin’s own theory, as described above, was a whole lot less ambitious than that popularly portrayed and promoted in the media by the likes of Oxford academic Richard Dawkins and his sidekick, co-defender of the faith, Prof. Steve Jones.

Darwin made no claims, for example, that his theory could explain the ultimate origin of life, or mind, or emotion or instinct, nor did he exclude God from the equation, but acknowledged Him as the original creator of “life” -- although in the form of only one or a handful of prototype organisms. . [Ed: You could be wrong there, G-Man, because Darwin did later write in a private notebook that he thought reverence for God was just a chemical reaction in the brain, and that it was arrogant to think otherwise. Naturally, he kept such radical ideas under his hat so we don’t hear much about them.]

Who Dat Knocking?
Very important mistakes can be made by blindly trusting logic and alleged fact over intuition, the reason being that the most convincing argument is frequently limited by ignorance of the full facts, and is often based on unwarranted and unquestioned assumptions – which is why it is well known in political circles that governmental quick-fix solutions to particular problems frequently end up making bad situations worse. [Ed: Remember Dr. Beeching, G-Man? His arguments persuaded the government of the day to rip up half of Britain’s railway tracks -- then everybody wondered why the roads got bottle-necked and polluted by big trucks. My granddad always said he was a wally.]

If someone comes knocking on your door carrying a big Bible and is allowed to engage you in a discussion of the purpose of life, the chances are they will have far more technical knowledge of the good book than you do, and be easily able to tie you up in proverbial knots. Hopefully, however, your intuition will warn you that despite their impressive technical knowledge, and their confident quoting of scriptures, they are actually talking sinister nonsense, and looking to lure you into some kind of fanatical sect intent on taking control of your thinking and your life.

Perhaps you are now ahead of me - in perceiving the parallel between false religion and the modern myth of Evolution, with its confident and smooth Dawkins-speak arguments and glossed-over assumptions that actually reflect a quite superficial understanding of the miraculous complexities of any and all living organisms. As we shall see, for example, despite regular pronouncements in the press regarding the progress of the “human genome project”, science does not actually understand the function of the actual bulk of the DNA found in living organisms, blithely dismissing it as so much “junk”

For anybody who has ever watched puppies at play or a bumble bee at work, or seen a robin perched on the handle of a fork in the garden on a cold frosty morning, intuition alone, without resort to any kind of scientific reasoning, should be sufficient to assure them that evolution is bunk.

That said, however, let us now take a very close look at the supposed “facts” of evolution—and the marketing of the Darwin delusion that has hoodwinked the intellectual elite of most of the western world for the past hundred and fifty years.