It should be clear by now that evolution is a theory in crisis – and the authors of “Lamarck’s Signature” compare the entrenched and desperate position of Darwin’s fundamentalist followers, such as Richard Dawkins, to that of the Roman Catholic bishops in Galileo’s time who even refused to look through the telescope and see with their own eyes that the planet Jupiter did in fact have phases, like those of the moon, which were only explicable by the fact that it too, like the earth, moved around the sun.

However, encouraged by the shameful connivance of the mass media, including the BBC, and the scientific ignorance and the intellectual capitulation of too many religious leaders, the process of peddling evolutionary myth in every biology text, ancient history book and encyclopaedia continues. Consequently, many evolutionists have mistakenly assumed, understandably, that the battle against the Bible and divine creation has finally been won.

Embarrassing Admissions
As a result, some members of the brotherhood have been emboldened to make astonishing admissions in print – in particular that Darwinism is simplistic nonsense, and that a magical new mechanism is urgently required in order to restore its credibility.

In his entertaining book, “Evolution – a case of stating the obvious”, Derek Hough, for example, describes how, after being a true believer for many years, and spreading the Darwin doctrine at every opportunity, it being “the most intellectually seductive idea in scientific thought”, he suddenly had “a gut feeling” on the way to work one morning, on the underground tube ride from Piccadilly Circus to Charing Cross, telling him that the theory was actually totally incapable of explaining the recently discovered complexities of the cell. [Ed: That’s only a 2-minute ride, G-Man! Must have seen the light at the end of the tunnel! ]

Faith
However, Hough avows, he still accepts the reality of evolution with a capital “E” as a matter of faith—so despite this sudden enlightenment, he remains a confirmed believer that the process of macro-evolution did somehow take place – all it needs is a viable mechanism to explain how.

The present situation amongst evolutionists is in fact very much like a man sitting in his favourite armchair, surrounded by travel brochures, planning the details of holiday of a lifetime -- a week in a five star hotel in Paris, a penthouse in Cannes for a few weeks, a cruise around the Med, a flight to the Bahamas for Christmas, then on to Austria for the skiing, etc. The only problem is, he is out of work and bankrupt, and has no money, so it never will happen – just as macro-evolution never did happen!

Confession
Although Hough openly admits that his book “takes for granted that evolution has occurred”, and that: “it is assumed to have occurred”, he does admit in the very first chapter that: “There is in fact no definite proof” – the reason being that: “it is difficult to conduct experiments over millions of years”. As a result, he stresses, we have to: “convince ourselves that the theory is adequate to explain all the complexities of life”.
The problem is, as he then explains in detail later, the theory is not adequate to explain that complexity at all. [Ed: I really must improve my shorthand, G-Man – “takes for granted”, “assumed” , “no proof”. Got the gist of it. ]

Astonishingly, he states that the main evidence of evolution is the fact that “organisms of all types appear to be well adapted to their environments” – an observation that would surely serve equally well as major evidence of intelligent or divine design.

Adding to the confusion in evolutionary circles is the fact that, as a result of the incredible complexity of living things, and the expansion of biochemistry and geology, more and more scientists work in isolated, specialist disciplines – with the result that virtually none has a complete overview of the whole field, each worker relying on the assumed expertise of others, each trusting that the others know about what they are talking. [Ed: Excellent grammar, G-Man!]

Dogma
It is strange how circumstances can sometimes change, so that what was the “under dogma” can sometimes become the “top dogma”. It seems significant, for example, that words such as “faith” and “dogma” even appear in scientific literature, as an increasing number of believers start to question the growing power of evolutionary orthodoxy, comparing it, as we have just seen, to that exercised by the Roman Catholic Church in earlier centuries -- even pointing out that those who do foolishly dare to publish heretical views put their academic careers at risk, and may find it difficult to obtain research grants. [Ed: Did you know, G-Man, that the Discovery Institute actually has lists of scientists who have been sacked for speaking out against the great Lord Darwin? ]

Earlier “orthodox” authorities, the same ones that dealt with Galileo and his alleged unscriptural astronomical theories in the Middle Ages, also did a good job of holding back the development of the infant science of geology at that time.

The study of fossils apparently began with Greek thinkers such as Eratosthenes, and also Strabo, who puzzled over the vast quantities of fossil sea shells found inland in Egypt. However, for a long time, perhaps because most fossils are no more than stone patterns and nobody had any idea how they could have been formed, there was some doubt as to whether they had any real link to once-living organisms at all. [Ed: Wasn’t Eratosthenes the clever chap who used measurements of shadow lengths at noon in two different places in Egypt to calculate the radius of the round earth to be about 4,000 miles and the circumference as 24,000 miles? I wonder why Columbus never knew that?]

In subsequent centuries, as the power of the religious authorities in Europe grew, the orthodox teaching about Genesis was the same as that of today’s “Young Earth” creationists – and any suggestion that thick fossils beds and even sedimentary rock strata thousands of feet deep might have resulted from anything other than Noah’s Flood, “the Deluge”, attracted unwanted attention and the risk of being severely proceeded against as a heretic. [Ed: It could be a mite painful when those kindly religious gents got their hands on you in order to purify your thinking!] As a result, those who did teach the orthodox explanation, the “diluvalists”, held sway until the late 1700’s.

Orthodoxy has therefore been turned on its head – so that geological ideas that were once heresy are now mainstream belief, and Biblical belief has become sidelined.

An Ancient Idea
Evolution was, of course, a very ancient idea, and in the first few pages of “The Origin of Species”, Darwin explains how he found his famous principle of Natural Selection foreshadowed in the writings of the Greek philosopher Aristotle, who claimed that no matter how well-designed or adapted to purpose things in nature appeared to be, such as our chisel-shaped front teeth for cutting and the flat-topped molars for chewing and grinding, all had come about by accident -- by “spontaneity”, with the result that things not well fitted to purpose would in time naturally perish, having proved “unfit” for purpose.

Getting Rid of God
Aristotle, one of a band of Greek philosophers whose aim was the deliberate elimination the idea of divine interference in man’s affairs, even devised a “ladder of nature”, similar to “tree of life” or “descent” charts found in modern biology textbooks, in which he attempted to demonstrate that so-called “higher” and “more complex” organisms had evolved from supposedly “simpler” or more “primitive” ones.

Notice that the use of adjectives such as “higher” and “more complex” assumes that evolution is a fact, a demonstrated reality, a foregone conclusion, when honest evolutionists will readily admit, as we shall see, that is no real proof of the theory at all.

Was Man Once a Fish?
Equally “modern” in his thinking was Aristotle’s fellow philosopher Anaximander who is on record as saying that: “Living creatures arose from the moist element (water) as it was evaporated by the sun” and that, in the beginning, man “was like another animal, namely the fish”. However, Darwin’s secret agenda, as we saw earlier, was totally different to that of these atheistic philosophers.

Are Animals Mere Machines?
The French philosopher and mathematician Renee Descartes (1596-1650), like the Greeks much earlier, also taught that all organisms, no matter how complex, had arisen from inert matter, claiming that animals are no more than mechanical devices, or, in more modern parlance, mere chemical combinations of atoms and molecules.

Like Aristotle, Descartes was also seduced by the simplistic notion that similarities in the structures of organisms demonstrated and “proved” development from a common ancestor, an approach that became more systematized after Karl Linnaeus (1707-78) developed the taxonomy system, still used today, for classifying all know organisms according to similarities of structure – extending the existing system by adding the categories of class, order, genus and species.

The Reductionists
Most dog, cat and horse owners, I suspect, would strongly disagree with atheistic “reductionists” such as Descartes, and their modern counterparts, men such as Watson and Crick, who claimed they had discovered the “secret of life” when they worked out the chemical structure of DNA

[Ed: Isn’t Crick the guy who claimed in that article in Icarus Magazine in 1973 that because life on earth is too complex to have made itself, space aliens must have sent some “spores” here by rocket? That’s as screwy as a chromosome, G-Man!]

Incidentally, it was Crick who claimed in that article in Icarus Magazine in 1973 that because life on earth is too complex to have made itself, space aliens must have sent some “spores” here by rocket.

Pet owners know better, intuitively understanding that there is more to the objects of their affections than mere atoms and molecules – as did Solomon, the wisest man who ever lived, who taught that, like man, some animals at least have a non-physical element, a “spirit” (Ecclesiastes 3:21 & 12:7). If Solomon was correct, then even if by some miracle of transplant surgery a rabbit could be turned into a dog, it would still want to dig burrows to live in, and eat a lot of lettuce.

Rupert Sheldrake’s Morphic Field
Recognising the total inability of evolution to explain the complexity of living things, let alone mysteries such as bird migration and animal instinct, thoughtful evolutionist Rupert Sheldrake now suggests that all organisms possess an invisible “morphic (i.e. shaping) field”, which somehow directs their growth and development into adulthood in the same way the invisible field around a magnet guides sprinkled iron filings into the well-known patterns most of us played with in school science lessons. Ever the evolutionist, however, Sheldrake now maintains that it is the morphic field that evolves, not the DNA. What the “field” actually is, or how it could possibly evolve, he does of course have no idea.

As Sheldrake points out, despite all we claim to know about DNA (which is actually just the tip of an iceberg of unknowing), we still do not understand how the cells of a developing embryo “know” how to coordinate their activities in order to form and shape a nose or an arm or a liver, for example. They therefore need the help of the morphic field which acts as invisible mould.

[Ed: An interesting point, G-Man. I wonder how the DNA chappies making the skin know when and where to chuck in a few hair follicles and pain sensors and sweat glands and then couple them up to the right blood capillaries and nerve fibres and other gubbins? I wonder how they drill the little holes to fit ‘em in? Probably use specialist subcontractors.]

A Crumbling Theory
Avowed evolutionist Gordon Rattray Taylor admitted some years ago that Darwinism was “crumbling under attack” – and that not just from creationists, but from high powered university mathematicians who saw that the chance of scores of accidental miniscule mutations fortuitously combining in even one aspect of one organism’s physiology was insanely unlikely. Scientists are just human beings, inside those white lab coats, and Taylor speaks of meetings between evolutionists and mathematicians where tempers often “ran high” – meetings having been called to discuss problems with Darwin’s theory that biologists themselves had become aware of decades earlier, but had quietly ignored.

As we have seen, evolutionist Derek Hough also admits that the idea of innumerable random copying errors in the DNA of a “primitive” organism ever leading to something much more complex is simply “inconceivable on the grounds of improbability”. Hough also assumes, of course, that all organisms are nothing more than a clever combinations of atoms and molecules.

Using similar language to Taylor, Professor Frazzetta of the University of Illinois is reported as saying: “With each passing year, the once rather simplistic views on evolution continue to crumble”.

A True Believer
Amazingly, despite the openly admitted inability of evolution to cope with the complexities of any and all living things, Taylor, still a true believer, asserts: “The fact that an evolutionary process has taken place is not in doubt”, adding “It is only the mechanism which brought it about which is being questioned

Like Hough, who is still desperately searching for that elusive mechanism, Taylor was also unwilling to accept the obvious “mystical” alternative i.e. God or even little green men from Mars – and therefore hoped for some kind of “third way” to emerge, but in his book he never found it. [Ed: G-Theory is that third way.]

Have I Won a Prize Then?
Reading what we have seen about the derisive state of evolution, it is a marvel that any thinking person can continue to give it serious consideration – but some still do.
The situation seems reminiscent of a lady who phoned in to a radio programme I was listening to where she was asked to identify a mystery voice. After she had failed abysmally, the DJ said words to the effect of: “Sorry Mrs Bloggs, that’s wrong”, but got no response. Then, after a long pause, he continued: “It’s not correct …You failed to name the person … You didn’t get it right … The names you gave were wrong … Time is up … We have to move to the next contestant . . . “ to which the woman finally replied: “You mean I didn’t win the prize then?”

So let’s be very clear before we proceed any further: Evolution is bunk. It’s wrong. It is incorrect. Darwin and Dawkins have been rumbled The theory is infantile and stupid. It has hit the buffers. It’s kaput. It cannot cope with the complexity of any single organism on the face of the earth. It is nonsense. It does not explain the origins of life, mind, emotion or instinct. The game is up. It don’t work. It never happened and never will. [Ed: If we have not the point clear, please look up the words “wrong” and “stupid” in any good dictionary of synonyms.]

Swept Under the Carpet!
On the very last page of Taylor’s treatise, just before the massive technical bibliography, a number of other interesting and telling comments appear. For example: “Most of the unexplained phenomena of macro-evolution were first minimised, then swept under the carpet” – “Many facts remain inexplicable” – “The attempt to present Darwinism as an established dogma, immune from criticism, is disintegrating” – “Evolution has been blinkered by a too narrowly materialist and reductionist approach”. And perhaps most telling of all, confirmation of the fact that scientists who wish to criticise the faith have been “in fear of having their careers damaged by the awful charge of unorthodoxy”

Eating Hats
Such is the internal dissent among the faithful, according to evolutionists Steele, Lindley and Blanden, in “Lamarck’s Signature”, that the current high priest of Darwinian orthodoxy, Richard Dawkins has now offered to eat his hat if what he terms “the Larmarckian scare” proves to be correct

Incidentally, Steele et al candidly admit that error sometimes becomes scientific orthodoxy, so that, at times, large numbers of scientists become “held in thrall by erroneous concepts”. [Ed: Eeeh bah gum, there’s trouble at mill, G-Man]