 
Cosmic Delusions

Book I

How Darwin and Huxley Changed Science

### by

### Balfour Christian

SMASHWORDS EDITION

*****

Published on Smashwords by:

Balfour Christian

www.cosmicdelusions.com

Cosmic Delusions: How Darwin and Huxley Changed Science (Book I)

Copyright 2013 by Balfour Christian

ISBN: 978-1-30157-616-6

Smashwords Edition, License Notes

Thank you for downloading this free ebook. Although this is a free book, it remains the copyrighted property of the author, and may not be reproduced, copied and distributed for commercial or non-commercial purposes. If you enjoyed this book, please encourage your friends to download their own copy at Smashwords.com. Thank you for your support.

### Table of Contents

Preface

Chapter 1

Charles Darwin's Dilemma

Dwindling Belief in the Bible

Logic May be Error

Chapter 2

Thomas Henry Huxley

Creating a Chasm

The Rise of Agnosticism

Chapter 3

The Scientific Method

Chapter 4

Abiogenesis and the Origin of Life

Billions and Billions of Imaginary Planets

DNA and Protein Synthesis

Chapter 5

A Fully Functioning Cell Required for Life

Evolution Needs Unstable DNA

Natural Selection

Chapter 6

Modern Information Theory

Scientific Hoaxes and Fossils

The Geologic Column and Radiometric Dating

CONCLUSION

Endnotes
Preface

Recent scientific data acquired from Earth and the far reaches of space are causing many scientists to rethink their assumptions about the universe. A close examination of Earth's biodiversity and ecosystems reveals that evolutionary theory is a dubious and questionable explanation of how life started. Astronomers have discovered immense light structures and huge reservoirs of water in the early universe. This new empirical data, from NASA and other sources, not only supports the Genesis model of creation, but also derails many of the tenets of evolution and cosmology.

Charles Darwin's original intent was to discover the laws of Creation that were "impressed on matter by the Creator." Ironically, Darwin rejected the Bible as fiction early in life, which was a somewhat questionable approach since the Bible is a major source of information about God the Creator. Rejecting the Bible as truth is tantamount to rejecting the Creator as Architect of the universe. As he grew older, he became more skeptical of the existence of God. At the end of his career, he expressed regret using the terms create and Creator in his works, stating that these were not biblical terms but referred only to natural processes. Coupled with Thomas Henry Huxley, the pair essentially challenged the existence of a Creator and publicized the theory of naturalistic evolution. Their efforts resulted in an increasing firewall between science and any mention of the Creator, helping to validate agnosticism and atheism in the scientific arena.

Huxley saw that it was necessary to cast doubt on the Bible, particularly miracles, in order to promote the theory of evolution. However, his application of the scientific method in this instance was erroneous. It is improper to evaluate miracles from the distant past using this method, primarily because no physical data is available and there is no one to reenact them. Huxley was extremely critical of the invisible world mentioned by Jesus. However, scientists have now developed a theoretical framework for invisibility in a physical world and have been able to manufacture "invisibility cloak" prototypes.

In order to make way for the theory of evolution, scientists concluded that they had to attack and demolish the Creator God of the Bible. In the process, they created smaller gods that still act mysteriously and miraculously. These gods, such as abiogenesis and natural selection, act outside the known laws of nature. Instead of accomplishing their objectives in six days, like the Creator God of the Bible, they require millions and millions of years to create fully functioning animals with wings, eyes, and ears that work properly. This relatively new pseudo-scientific religion, initiated by Darwin and Huxley, comes complete with its gods and high priests. Its main goal is to ridicule and denounce the Creator, something that the world's greatest scientists, Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton, would no doubt find appalling. In fact, both of these brilliant scientists saw God as being the sole creator of the universe.

Casting doubt on a Creator God and the Bible has spawned numerous mythologies or pitfalls in the field of science. Generally, these myths are usually founded on nothing more than speculation. Scientists must manipulate the laws of nature and basic mathematics, ignoring conflicting evidence, in order to produce a universe from nothingness and randomness. The quantity of antimatter derived from the alleged big bang should be abundant. However, NASA can only find negligible quantities in colliding stellar bodies. Unknown to the average person, current scientific data and empirical studies falsify the major claims of evolutionary thinking. In reality, evolutionary predictions usually run contrary, awry or opposite to actual observations in nature. If this were true in other scientific fields, abandonment of such a field would be the only option.

A proper understanding of the DNA of all living things suggests that life is far too complex to have evolved spontaneously from chaos or randomness. DNA is complex biological information. For complex information to exist in nature there must have been an intelligent source for this information, according to modern information theory, which is a sound scientific principle. Complex information simply does not arise extemporaneously from random, undirected events, irrespective of time or so-called "deep time." If this was not the case, any attempt at discovery in the universe would be pointless and a nightmare.

Essentially, evolution is an unofficial religion, technically speaking. While supporters try to shore up evolutionary theory by criticizing God beliefs and all religious activities, their criticisms and denouncements are fraught with error. Critic Richard Dawkins misdirects the scientific method in The God Delusion when using it to denounce the so-called "God Hypothesis." Victor Stenger's intensive use of logic and philosophy in God: The Failed Hypothesis to prove that God does not exist is deeply flawed. He assumes that natural, physical laws alone are relevant in all dimensions and activities of the universe, which is highly speculative. Christopher Hitchens' conclusion that the Ten Commandments are irrelevant to modern society in God is not Great is based on a misunderstanding of their purpose and benefits.

However, these criticisms generally fall into the illogical trap of denouncing God as frumpy, violent and mean-spirited and then concluding that He is nothing more than a myth or fairy tale. A fictional, non-entity does not possess bona fide dispositions or characteristics worthy of denouncement. This is the inconsistent equivalent of arguing that a bad God does exist but He is not a reality.

Many of the criticisms of God beliefs stem from the performance of religion, which is, rightly speaking, nothing more than human attitudes and behaviour that can be irreverent, erratic and nonsensical at times. The God of the Bible and religion are two very different entities. Not all religions claim to know God or obey His rules. God does not claim to be a religion or harbinger of all religions; and not all clergy claim or turn out to be true followers of God. Cosmic Delusions examines the many fallacies surrounding modern science, particularly the claims of naturalistic evolutionary philosophy, and religion in general.

~~~

#  Chapter 1

" _The question is...whether there exists a Creator and Ruler of the universe; and this has been answered in the affirmative by some of the highest intellects that have ever existed."_  Charles Darwin, English Naturalist (1809-1882)

Rev. Dr. Malcolm Brown, Director of Mission and Public Affairs of the Church of England, wrote an article in 2008 praising natural selection, insisting that the church owed Darwin an apology.

Charles Darwin: 200 years from your birth, the Church of England owes you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still. We try to practice the old virtues of 'faith seeking understanding' and hope that makes some amends. But the struggle for your reputation is not over yet, and the problem is not just your religious opponents but those who falsely claim you in support of their own interests. Good religion needs to work constructively with good science – and I dare to suggest that the opposite may be true as well.

Dr. Brown, a theological consultant, proclaimed that Darwin was a "model of good scientific method." In his view, "Darwin's meticulous application of the principles of evidence-based research was not the problem." The real problem, according to Brown, was that Darwin's theory "challenged the view that God had created human beings as an entirely different kind of creation to the rest of the animal world." Darwin's critics were being emotional, not intellectual, when they rejected his proposed ascent of humans from apes through natural selection, insisted Brown.

If good science is the study of the universe that God created, and good religion is about the Creator of the universe, then good religion and good science are compatible. However, a problem arises with Brown's assessment when science does not see God as the Creator of the universe. In reality, the theory of evolution introduced by Charles Darwin eventually dismissed God as the Creator of the Universe, causing a formal separation between science and religion.

Charles Darwin's Dilemma

A limited, shallow reading of Darwin's work will no doubt give the impression that he was certain about the God of this Universe being the initiator, beginner, or planner of all life on this planet, as presented in the Bible. At one point, he did seem confident that a Creator ruled over the universe, which, according to him, was definitely a fact established by "some of the highest intellects that have ever existed" in his thinking. Here is one view, which is the very closing statement of The Origin of Species:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

'Originally breathed by the Creator' is a term reminiscent of a process recorded in the Bible, particularly the first chapter of the book called Genesis, which essentially simplifies the creation of the physical universe, as we know it, into six days. The expression "by the Creator" does not appear in the first edition (1859) of The Origin of Species, while it appears in subsequent editions.

It appears as though Darwin's original position in the majority of his scientific writings is that life came into existence because there is a universal Creator. Apparently, he was initially convinced that "an omnipotent and omniscient Creator ordains everything and foresees everything." However, in a letter to J. D. Hooker he poignantly reveals his true thoughts concerning this matter.

It will be some time before we see "slime, protoplasm, &c." generating a new animal. But I have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion, and used the Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant "appeared" by some wholly unknown process. It is mere rubbish, thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter.

Obviously, the term _creation_ in his writings had little to do with the concept of a biblical God creating the universe.

Darwin seems to have had strong God beliefs in his early childhood days. He positively reminisces in his autobiography that at age sixteen he experienced the power of God in his life as he prayed. There are no other references to the power of prayer or belief in God in his autobiography, although he admitted to being fond of "inventing falsehoods" during his boyhood days in order to create excitement.

It is not crystal clear why any religion that believes in God as the Creator of the universe would make a formal apology to Darwin. Clearly, Darwin's views about the Bible, God and creation seemed to have evolved with time, emerging contrary to the religious beliefs of his contemporaries.

Dwindling Belief in the Bible

It is uncertain how much Darwin's 'penchant for fiction' may have influenced his scientific work, but the evidence is there. His belief in God seems to have dwindled, as he got older, becoming more ill-defined and contradictory. Although he originally intended to become a clergyman, he found the Bible to be "unintelligible". It is doubtful that he made any concerted endeavor to understand it, similar to the efforts made by the famous Sir Isaac Newton who studied the Bible on a daily basis. Darwin also found Mathematics, particularly Algebra, to be "repugnant", refusing to expend extra time, patience and energy in learning basic mathematical principles, which he later deeply regretted.

While sailing around the world on the Beagle (December 27, 1831 to October 2, 1836), Darwin states that he gave up belief in the Bible completely, which was after he insisted to crewmembers that it was the only valid guide for morals. This persistence of quoting the Bible caused the crew to ridicule him. Later he claimed that he had credibility problems with such a "false history of the world", referring to the Genesis creation story, The Tower of Babel, the rainbow as a sign, etc. He was troubled by the doctrine of everlasting punishment where all non-believers will be punished everlastingly, calling it a "damnable doctrine". Disbelief in a Creator did not come overnight, according to Darwin, but it "crept upon him slowly" and finally took control.

At one point in his life, he believed that he deserved "to be called a Theist" because there must be "a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to man". This idea seemed strongest while writing The Origin of Species but it weakened over time. He finally states in his autobiography that he was uncertain about a God as Creator: Declaring, "...the beginning of all things is insoluble" by human beings, therefore, he was "an Agnostic", a term coined by Thomas Huxley, the promulgator of his evolutionary thinking.  This is somewhat ironic, considering he also shared his experience of praying to God as a child and never changed the wording about the existence of a Creator as the source of life in the final edition of The Origin of Species.

Strangely enough, at one point, Darwin was extremely sensitive to the criticism that his life's work bordered on atheism and found it hurtful. He defended his works by stating that he could not find a logical explanation why a loving God would create animals that ate each other, so he concluded that other factors were at play apart from the actual creation. He concluded that nature, as we know it today, was the result of "...designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of chance." He believed that these "...laws may have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator, who foresaw every future event and consequence."

Darwin's final denial of the existence of God as creator seems to have had more to do with rejecting the erroneous theology of his contemporaries, rather than any understanding of biblical facts about God. He wrote, "At the present day the most usual argument for the existence of an intelligent God is drawn from the deep inward conviction and feelings which are experienced by most persons."

Darwin suspected this argument was false from his observations of various cultures while travelling around the world, and the testimony of men while living with "savages". Many of these primitive tribes that he encountered during his worldwide travels did not have a name for God, much less any innate knowledge of such a concept, tending to believe more in the existence of evil spirits. He was convinced that there "was no evidence that man was aboriginally endowed with the ennobling belief in the existence of an Omnipotent God."

If his knowledge of scripture were complete, Darwin would have realized that his conclusion about the absence of aboriginal God thoughts in humanity was correct and in line with teachings of the Bible. Unfortunately, this lack of Bible knowledge caused him to doubt the existence of God rather than question the accuracy of this unsupported religious doctrine, which is also prevalent today.

As human beings, we are not born with an innate or natural knowledge of God. Learning about the existence of God is a conversion process for each individual, whether it occurs during early childhood or later in life. Atheism and agnosticism are also socially acquired beliefs. Children are generally not born knowing, doubting, or denying the existence of God.

According to the Bible, after God introduced himself to the children of Israel on Mount Horeb, Moses was very concerned that they would forget about Him. To prevent this from happening, they were to _teach_ their children and their grandchildren about God, His commandments, and their experiences. Jesus made it plain that the purpose of his mission was "not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." A sinner is someone who has no prior knowledge of God, or has forgotten God. Someone has to educate, or remind, a sinner about God since he or she were not born with this knowledge.

Jesus' final message to his disciples was "to teach all nations" the very same things that they had been taught. It would be unnecessary to teach anyone about God if all human beings were borne with an instinctive or aboriginal knowledge of God. Indeed, missionaries and publishing ministries would be redundant and a waste of resources if such aboriginal knowledge was true.

Darwin was also correct in rejecting the theological idea that the punishment of non-believers will continue everlastingly. This teaching concocts the idea that evil people—people who have not turned from sin—will burn in hell forever with much pain and suffering. Individuals who dream or envision they died and went to hell, reinforce this tall, sordid tale. They 'return' deeply shaken from their nocturnal, or diurnal, subconscious ventures with vivid stories of people tortured by Satan and his angels in some subterranean cavity with volcanic heat, screaming, moaning and groaning perpetually.

Obviously, a doctrine of everlasting torture does not reflect well on the personality of a deity who is supposed to be a loving Creator and in charge of the universe, who admonishes believers to love their enemies. It tarnishes God's character and speaks more of a super sadist, someone who delights in an excessive, superfluous infliction of pain and suffering, and it magnifies Satan's powers.

Will God give Satan power to torture millions or billions of people forever? Does God have a plan to torment Satan and his followers forever? Human dreams of an ongoing, perpetual hell are not proof of anything. According to the Bible, Satan's existence will be ending very soon. He knows that he has but a "short time left", so he is making as much trouble in the world as possible. Obviously, if he has a "short time left", this must indicate that he will not be involved in any perpetual torture arrangement with God. It also implies that God will not torture him and his angels perpetually.

The Bible explicitly teaches that the consequence of sinning is permanent death, not everlasting punishment or torture; therefore, one day in the near future, the righteous will inherit a new earth, but the wicked will not exist anymore. According to the Bible, the passing of the wicked will be like that of a whirlwind, with a roar they will be gone and will exist no more. Only the righteous will live forever. On the contrary, the years of the wicked will be shortened, having no infinite life of torture in a burning 'hell' on this planet or elsewhere in the universe.

Unfortunately, some versions of the Bible, particularly the Authorized King James Version—the version Darwin's contemporaries would no doubt have been familiar with—does give the impression in certain scriptures that 'hell' is a real place where wicked people live and are being tortured or punished everlastingly by God. This is particularly evident in the New Testament. However, these conflicting ideas do not exist in the original Hebrew and Greek texts, having more to do with translators evoking the underworld of Greek mythology rather than the original intent.

The seemingly perpetual 'hell' scriptures that contradict other scriptural teachings on the punishment of the wicked are the result of erroneous translation, not the result of any inherent weaknesses in the Bible per se. If you do a search for the word 'hell' in the Old Testament (KJV) and you will discover that it is mentioned thirty-one times. Consult a concordance and you will discover that that the original OT Hebrew word for 'hell' is Sheol, which means grave or abode of the dead. The term 'abode of the dead' is more open to manipulation and embellishment although it simply means grave. The prophet Daniel made it clear that dead people remain in their graves until the resurrection; they are not in heaven or perpetually roasting in hell.

"And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." (Daniel 12:2)

The consistent biblical teaching about the dead is that they do not know anything, and they do not participate in any activities. They are asleep in their graves. It does not teach that they are screaming or yelling in pain, confined to some subterranean, volcanic cauldron, running around as ghosts in graveyards, or rejoicing in Heaven. In fact, it consistently teaches the dead do not know anything that is happening in the world.

The term 'hell' occurs in the New Testament 12 times and is translation for the Greek word Gehenna (or geenna). This was the original name for the valley of Hinnom south of Jerusalem where they burned human refuse and dead animals. According to the Bible, fire will ultimately destroy the wicked, plus Satan and his angels, in a similar fashion as the burning of rubbish at Gehenna. However, this fire will not burn 'everlastingly' or infinitely, as suggested by some interpretations:

"Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:" (Matthew 25:41)

The Greek word for 'everlasting' in this verse is aionios, which means perpetual. However, this same word appears in another text in the Bible, translated as 'eternal' and referring to another fiery event that was recorded in the Old Testament:

"Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about...are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." (Jude 1:22)

Sodom and Gomorrah were wicked cities destroyed by fire and never rebuilt. The fire that destroyed those cities is no longer burning today. Therefore, aionios is referring more to the consequences of the fire, rather than any inherent nature or quality. An 'everlasting' or 'eternal' fire is a conflagration that will have a permanent consequence for the participants—their destruction will be complete and final, for all eternity.

Unfortunately, Darwin was unable to discern the difference between sound biblical principles and errant theology. He did not question the accuracy of the "damnable doctrine" of perpetual torture, rejecting the whole Bible instead. He rejected completely the Genesis story of creation, substituting a scientific explanation that is somewhat logical but unsupportable by objective, scientific data. This may create dissonance in the mind of the reader, but that which seems logical may not necessarily be scientific or truthful. Logical conclusions without supporting data can be faulty, incorrect, and one-hundred percent wrong.

Logic May Be Error

Consider a wacky laboratory assistant holding a bowl of liquid in one hand and a dripping sponge in the other. You approach and the individual asks you a series of apparently dumb questions, "What happened to my sponge? Why is it dripping wet?" You look closely. Both liquids appear to be analogous, clear and translucent in nature. The explanation appears logical and obvious. You retort, "Why, you simply dipped the sponge in the bowl and it is wet!" You are convinced there is no other possible explanation. It is a logical conclusion. He smiles and deftly squeezes the sponge into the bowl. You immediately notice a white precipitate forming. The liquids are reacting to form a white, milky looking solution.

It is now obvious that the sponge was soaked with a chemical different from the one in the bowl. This eliminates any possibility that your logical conclusion about the origin of the liquid in the sponge was the correct answer. Sheepishly, you watch as he displays two small containers containing the original liquids. Your conclusion about the dipping the wet sponge into the bowl firstly was rational but also erroneous. This simple illustration illustrates the major scientific pitfall of over-relying on logic.

Darwin's prime contention with the concept of creation, originally, seems to have been with the scientific teaching of his time that "each species [of animal or plant] has been independently created". Apparently, as mentioned previously, he was not initially concerned with obliterating the idea of a divine Creator, which modern science has essentially done. To simplify this "independent creation" teaching for the layperson, it would be the equivalent of saying that God had separate creations for each species of horse, dog, or cat, which are numerous.

All humans, despite differences in their appearances, are descended from the same biological ancestors, which is a scientifically and biblically supported fact. Consequently, the idea of an "independent creation" of each "race", when referring to human beings, may make some of us somewhat uncomfortable, particularly if we are not indebted to the concept of race characteristics as a source of superiority feelings.

This concept of "independent creation" of species made Darwin very uncomfortable. He saw the many varieties of pigeons as having a common ancestor or progenitor; each species could not have been original "independent creations" in his mind but must have all descended from the rock pigeon (Columbia livia). Accordingly, the same must have held true for other animals and plants, including wild and domesticated members of the horse-genus, ducks and rabbits. The idea of all living things originating from progenitors, or original parents, is a parallel concept found in the Bible: Adam and Eve are the progenitors of the human race; all human beings are described as descendants of these two original, created human beings. The plant and animal species created during Creation Week are the initiators, progenitors, or original parents of all life on planet earth. The human beings and animals sequestered in the Ark of Noah, used to replenish the earth after the Flood, are examples of secondary progenitors.

According to Darwin, he was initially interested in discovering the laws of Creation "impressed on matter by the Creator." He wanted a scientific explanation for the origin and diversity of species, and was not out to "shock the religious feelings of any one"—which his theory of natural selection and modification by descent seemed to have accomplished from the outset. Responding to disapproval of his theories by contemporaries, he reminded readers that new discoveries are always met with criticism. He recalled how Isaac Newton's discovery of the laws of gravitation was attacked by Gottfried Leibnitz, "as subversive of natural, and inferentially of revealed, religion." He recalled that Leibnitz also accused Newton of introducing "occult qualities and miracles into philosophy" by simply trying to understand the building blocks of gravitational attraction.

The major problem with Darwin's approach is that rejection of the Bible as truth is exclusive and diametrically opposed to fully understanding the Creator and His creation. Separating the Bible from the Creator is like trying to separate the stickiness from honey, or the sweetness from table sugar. Newton, the world's greatest scientist, fully accepted the Bible as truth and God as the Creator of all things. He found no conflicts between biblical principles and genuine science. Darwin seems to have been more preoccupied with the origin of the creatures than with their Creator, concluding that the Bible conflicted with science and reality without relying on due process.

Darwin argued that the abrupt appearance of complete life forms in the geological record, with fully formed wings and legs, etc., is an illusion. He was convinced that the geological record was imperfect; therefore, such an appearance of "new and distinct forms of life" could not be a valid observation or conclusion.

According to Darwin, life forms had to have gradually evolved from a single progenitor (maybe no more than five) and the fossil record would show "intermediate links" to all other life forms. He could not find these "intermediate links", which should have been plentiful, and concluded that the imperfection of the fossil record was again the problem, not his theory.

Despite his lack of confidence in the fossil record, he relies on it to bolster his theory of natural selection and descent, better known as evolution. The newly discovered _Archaeopteryx_ , which appeared to be a fossilized bird having a tail somewhat like a lizard, and claws on each wing, was viewed as support for his theory, possibly an "intermediate link". However, he spoke candidly on the matter, declaring that the _Archaeopteryx_ fossil was proof of "how little we as yet know of the former inhabitants of the world".

Despite knowing little or nothing about extinct or former species, Darwin was ready to give the exact appearance and dimensions of the progenitors of all life on Earth. He was convinced that all members of the vertebrate kingdom descended from a fish-like creature. In addition, he was able to give a detailed, highly speculative description of the biological origins of humanity:

_The early progenitors of man must have been once covered with hair, both sexes having beards; their ears were probably pointed, and capable of movement; and their bodies were provided with a tail, having the proper muscles_.

These bizarre biological details are from a man who admitted we know little or nothing about early life forms, much less their defining moment of Creation.

Darwin admits to having a vivid imagination, a penchant for fiction, as a child and this may be a defining example in his works. Obviously, his colorful descriptions of early life are in the arena of overt speculation, unsupported by the geological record or any other form of non-conjectural science. However, Darwin was not satisfied with pushing speculation to this limit. He goes on to suggest that all plants and animals may have come from one prototype by the use of analogy: All living things have a similar composition and cellular structure, follow the laws of growth; therefore, they must be equivalent in nature. Correctly, he admits that analogy may be a "deceitful guide."

This conclusion is consistent with the lesson in logic from our parable of the man with two liquids, a sponge and a bowl. There is no doubt that Darwin understood deep down that this assumption about one primordial form for all life was indeed irreverent speculation. In the end, he concluded, "it is immaterial whether or not it be accepted".

Another major problem with Darwin's animal progenitors is that they are all inferior entities, struggling to become living things: Their eyesight is extremely poor or non-existent and must progress through cumulative stages of development in their descendants over millions of years. Their limbs are not really limbs, but some type of watery tissue that will eventually have to evolve into muscle and bones; therefore, they are weak and almost non-functioning from the start. Their brains (?) operate minimally so there is little or no processing of outside information; a skull and skin must evolve in order to protect their bodies. In addition, they reproduce or replicate themselves; somehow, creating additional weak, inefficient progenitors just like themselves—if the law of heredity is relevant.

Logical thinking is extremely important in analyzing data. However, the problem with investigating natural data from the distant past is that no one was around to document the process or processes that formed that data. We can speculate all we like about these original creative processes, but the result is still speculation at best. The suggestion of one primordial form for all life on Earth comes burdened down with more questions than answers.

It is amazing, and requires an incredible leap in faith, to believe that five (or one?) frail, bizarre-looking, progenitors living on a vast desolate planet could actually survive in a hostile environment and produce an amazing variety of life (according to current evolutionary thinking). Yet, these suppositions, as improbable as they sound, grew into acceptable science, helping to destroy the once strong and vibrant fetter between science and a belief in the God of the Bible.

~~~

# Chapter 2

Thomas Henry Huxley

Huxley, sixteen years younger than Darwin, was born on March 4, 1825. He started his career in 1846 as a scientific assistant surgeon aboard Her Majesty's Ship _Rattlesnake_ , a small, refurbished 500-ton obsolete frigate having a crew of 180 officers and men. Under the guidance of Captain Owen Stanley, the main purpose of the voyage was Huxley, sixteen to survey the Torres Strait, a treacherous passageway between Northern Australia and New Guinea, therefore making the area safe for navigation by British sailors and ultimately British settlement.

Huxley's role, at age 20, in addition to caring for the health of the crew as an apprentice in the Royal Navy—having several years of medical apprenticeships and outstanding exam results, but no final medical degree—was to collect, examine, and record scientific specimens. This he accomplished with a flourish, specializing in netting and dissecting the bodies of jellyfishes and their relatives. His scientific research on board H.M.S. _Rattlesnake_ led him to discover "anatomical unity" among the _Ascidians_ (sea squirts) and _Cephalopods_ (squids and snails). Most notably, he discovered physical similarities between adult jellyfish and embryonic invertebrates. This "unity of diversity" principle was revealed as he later studied diverse mammals, particularly apes and human beings, and music.

During his first stop in Sydney, Australia, Huxley met Henrietta Anne Heathorne. It was practically love at first sight. However, Nettie, as he fondly called her, found his lack of appreciation for religious matters, particularly belief in God, distressful from the start. Her first letter to Huxley carried these sentiments:

_'There is but one thing in our short acquaintance that I look upon with pain. It is our conversation last Sunday Afternoon. I cannot review it without sadness. I have thought over all you said and though in your presence unable to reply I may say almost without the power of reflection I have since weighed all your arguments yet cannot think you right. Do not I beseech you let years role by and still find you unfixed. Give much of your thought to this important subject, and oh whatever your ultimate convictions God grant they may be right, not alone in your eyes but in His.'_

The text of Huxley's response to Henrietta's letter is insightful since it reflects an early skepticism, which framed his later scientific and agnostic views.  Huxley's mother, Rachel, did not ignore her son's skepticism and lack of interest in spiritual matters. She also wrote to him, hoping that his trip would change his way of thinking. She hoped:

_that whilst your mind is young & free to judge of the God of Nature by his Works and Providences, you may also find an inward witness to strengthen those same convictions e're you return to the Land of your Birth, and mix again, as you 'must do,' with the Scoffer and the Unbeliever. I say 'must do,' because they seem to me to stalk about more arrogantly than ever._

Unlike Darwin, who seemed to have had some knowledge and appreciation of spiritual matters in his early life, Huxley exhibited no inkling of exposure to such matters. His anti-Catholic stance, also shared by Nettie after three clergymen abandoned her church, seems reactionary at best to the foibles of clergymen. Huxley found it amusing that a certain Father Angelo had lived among the Australian aborigines, learning their tongue and teaching them Latin prayers. His religious prejudices were reinforced when he learnt that the priest had no 'religious feelings', was nothing more than a 'soldier of his church', and blasphemously denied God as he lay dying. Nettie constantly worried about Huxley's lack of religious sentiments and it troubled her deeply.

However, Nettie's internal emotional turmoil over Huxley's lack of spirituality did not seriously affect their love for each other. In 1850, he returned to England to pursue his career, and they continued to correspond with each other until Huxley felt that he was financially sound for marriage. Huxley's scientific career blossomed after a short drought, becoming Professor of Natural History at the Royal School of Mines in July 1854. They were married on July 21, 1855 in England, and that same year he became Naturalist to the Geological Survey.

Other impressive positions achieved by Huxley included: Fullerian Professor at the Royal Institution (1855–1858 and 1865–1867); Hunterian Professor at the Royal College of Surgeons (1863–1869); President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (1869–1870); and, later, President of the Royal Society (1883–1885); and Inspector of Fisheries (1881–1885).

Creating a Chasm

Huxley's first apparent public venture into the field of evolutionary science came with his 1854 review of an anonymous bestseller, Vestiges of the Natural History of Evolution. This popular book presented, for the first time in the history of the world, an evolutionary panorama of life, showing—according to the unnamed author—the progression of animal life on planet earth. Huxley's review was scathing, declaring that the book was full of mistakes and there was no evidence in the fossil record or embryology that life progressed from simple into more complex forms. In fact, Huxley labeled Vestiges as a "pseudo-scientific production."

After the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species in 1859, Huxley gave several lectures and reviews defending it. The uproar caused by this new theory was deafening. In one response, Professor Richard Owen, a stalwart critic of Darwin, gave a scathing, mostly non-scientific reply in the Edinburgh Review (1860): "We gazed in amazement at the audacity of the hour's latest intellectual amusement."

At a meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science at Oxford in June 1860, Bishop Samuel Wilberforce, under the direction of Professor Owen, criticized The Origin of Species, declaring that it was unscientific and blasphemous. Apparently, there was concern during the debate about the moral responsibility of human beings if they were indeed descendants of apes. Huxley stated that that he saw no reason why his moral responsibility would change if he had "had an ape for a grandfather". It is believed that Wilberforce then asked Huxley (the record is not clear on this point) if his descent from a monkey was through his grandfather or his grandmother.

Peeved by this chiding remark, Huxley later retorted in the debate that if he had to choose between a "miserable ape" for a grandfather and a man of great means who used his intellect to "introduce ridicule into a grave scientific discussion", referring obliquely to Wilberforce, then he would choose the ape. Some erroneously reported that Huxley had said that he preferred to be an ape than a bishop. This debate, poorly handled by Owen and Wilberforce, has been widely viewed as the turning point when evolution became acceptable to science and the public. This is no doubt the defining moment in history when a firewall erupted between the study of nature and all things representative of God and the Bible.

Although Darwin and Huxley were usually on friendly terms, they had many personal arguments on the topic of natural selection. Huxley's main concern about natural selection was the lack of experimental proof or verification. While he was convinced that evolution occurred, he did not accept natural selection as valid support for this theory.

He disagreed with Darwin on the pace of evolution, the analogy between artificial selection and natural selection, hybridism, the Pangenesis hypothesis, and the passing of developed features to offspring. He was also critical of the reconstruction of entire animals from small fragments of bones by paleontologists. Nevertheless, he vehemently defended evolution, even writing a letter to convince Darwin that he fully supported natural selection, which may have been somewhat disingenuous, but understandable. Darwin was his hero.

Ironically, Darwin's 'alleged search for the laws of Creation "impressed on matter by the Creator"' culminated in a theory that expels and maligns God the Creator. While vigorously promoting evolution, Darwin's self-styled Bulldog also spent time robustly promoting disbelief, caricaturing the Bible as a source of untruth. As far as Huxley was concerned, any proof of evidence of the existence of a spiritual world, including matters about existence, was in the province of scientific reasoning. In his mind, natural laws did not allow for the existence of a spiritual world, therefore such a concept was false. He was particularly concerned about the "miracles" recorded in the Bible, being influenced by the writings of David Hume, Scottish philosopher and atheist.

_Judged by the canons either of common sense, or of science, which are indeed one and the same, all "miracles" are centaurs [Greek mythical creatures that were part horse, part man] or they would not be miracles; and men of sense and science will deal with them on the same principles. No one who wishes to keep well within the limits of that which he has a right to assert will affirm that it is impossible that the sun and moon should ever have been made to appear to stand still in the valley of Ajalon; or that the walls of a city should have fallen down at a trumpet blast; or that water was turned into wine; because such events are contrary to uniform experience and violate laws of nature_.

Huxley's reasoning excludes the following possibility: When an observer concludes that an occurrence is a "miracle", it may be that that observer is not familiar with all the forces influencing or governing that event. For example, visit a group of Indians in the Amazon jungle that had no prior exposure to outsiders or any device beyond the Stone Age. Show them a movie on the latest television screen, something contrary to their uniform experience. There is no doubt that they would be amazed and immediately ask—if it is possible to communicate with them precisely—for an explanation why the laws of nature appear violated. Why are the people so small? How can they live and breathe in such a small, thin magical box? Why do they appear and disappear so frequently? Some may even want to participate in the action, using their bow and arrows to puncture your precious plasma screen. In short, you may have convinced them that they were witnessing a "miracle". Consequently, concluding that the movie seen on a television set is a "miracle" may be a logical expression if you are not familiar with such activity.

Undoubtedly, if Generals Grant and Lee of the American Civil War were alive today, they would consider modern weaponry to be outrageously phenomenal. Modern weapons with GPS technology and heat seeking capabilities behave miraculously when compared to the military equipment of the 1800s.

The fact that an event is contrary to our uniform experience should not relegate it to the realms of magic, mythology or the impossible. Both Huxley and Hume would have no doubt voiced skepticism about the ability of human beings to render physical objects invisible to the naked eye. Today, this scenario is in the realm of actuality and the science is explainable.

In 2006, Sir John Pendry of London's Imperial College reported that he had developed the theoretical framework for an invisibility device. He theorized that it was possible to get light to flow around an object using nanostructured meta-materials, causing the object to appear invisible. In 2008, researchers at the University of California-Berkeley, headed by Xiang Zhang, were able to confirm this theory and manufacture "invisibility cloak" prototypes. One of these devices is a "carpet cloak." Created from nano-structured silicon, this cloak can conceal objects placed below it on a carpet. While the carpet is visible to the naked eyes, the object and cloak become invisible. Shine a light on it and the carpet will appear normal with no bulge showing of the object below the cloak.

While nano-structured meta-materials are unnatural, existing only if manufactured, they may not be the only materials that can create invisibility, just as energy for propulsion is available from many different sources such as solar, steam, gasoline, and rocket fuel. Our knowledge in this area of invisibility is very limited but growing.

Huxley was skeptical of Jesus' "knowledge of the unseen world", stating that if the Gadarene story in the Gospels (Matthew 8:28-31; Mark 5:1-16; and Luke 8:27-35) was true, then "the medieval theory of the invisible world may be and probably is, quite correct; and the witchfinders, from Sprenger to Hopkins and Mather, are much-maligned men." Undoubtedly, we are fast approaching an era where invisibility will be commonplace; a world Huxley may have suggested was also in the realm of the centaurs. Undoubtedly, this leaves open the "scientific possibility" that entities may indeed exist in our universe that are invisible to humans, operating under laws that we are not familiar with but are valid and may be discovered in the future or not.

The Rise of Agnosticism

Both Darwin and Huxley seem to have understood that the greatest threat to the theory of evolution, their life work, was the belief in the extraordinary acts of a Creator, better known as miracles. If people were to accept evolution as scientifically sound, then the extraordinary acts of the Creator had to be vilified and proved false. Huxley's tenacity helped accomplish this feat in scientific circles. He was certain that "scientific criticism" would destroy any belief in the super-naturalistic acts or miracles of a Creator. Huxley in fact originated the term agnostic.

Some twenty years ago, or thereabouts, I invented the word "Agnostic" to denote people who, like myself, confess themselves to be hopelessly ignorant concerning a variety of matters, about which metaphysicians and theologians, both orthodox and heterodox, dogmatise with the utmost confidence; and it has been a source of some amusement to me to watch the gradual acceptance of the term and its correlate, "Agnosticism" (I think the Spectator first adopted and popularised both), until now Agnostics are assuming the position of a recognised sect, and Agnosticism is honoured by especial obloquy on the part of the orthodox. Thus it will be seen that I have a sort of patent right in "Agnostic" (it is my trade mark); and I am entitled to say that I can state authentically what was originally meant by Agnosticism.

As far as Huxley was concerned, agnosticism was "of the essence of science" and simply meant, "...a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing or believing." Agnosticism, per Huxley, was in opposition to major tenets of popular theology, but it also opposed the tenets of anti-theology, which considered nature to be a "...'dirt-pie' made by two blind children, Law and Force."

Interestingly, Huxley conceded the very point that is being argued here. The point is that miracles recorded in the Bible may simply be the operation of laws that we are not familiar with and not ridiculous impossibilities. This he candidly admitted, apparently unknowingly.

_But true Agnosticism will not forget that existence, motion, and law-abiding operation in nature are more stupendous miracles than any recounted by the mythologies, and that there may be things, not only in the heavens and earth, but beyond the intelligible universe, which "are not dreamt of in our philosophy."_ 53

Undoubtedly, Huxley understood, to a limited degree, that our knowledge of the universe is incomplete and growing. When we first observe the "things" which "are not dreamt in our philosophy", we may have no other choice but to declare them as unexplainable phenomenon, as miracles perhaps, until fully understood. The scientific method does not put forward the proposition that we have absolute knowledge of our universe; neither does it insist that every unexplained event observed or recorded, that is outside of our sphere of knowledge, is "Not-Proven" and consequently unscientific. It does not require us to doubt the existence of any supernatural entity or activity, concluding that such phenomenon is in the sphere of impossibility simply because it is "supernatural" in our thinking. In addition, the scientific method does not make a claim of final proof for all time. It requires that all claims be refined as new evidence emerges.

~~~

# Chapter 3

The Scientific Method

The main purpose of the scientific method is to "provide a means of checking the accuracy of validity of assertions against factual evidence." It is important to realize that this method is limited; most suited to the physical world around us, and cannot solve all problems. This is particularly true for matters involving value judgment, as expressed by Enoch Sawin.

Even though the scientific method seems to have great potential for answering educational questions, there is no intent to imply that all educational problems can be solved scientifically. For example, decisions on the goals for an educational program are matters of judgment; they cannot be made by conducting a scientific inquiry.

Apart from matters of judgment, it should be obvious that scientific enquiry cannot provide solutions for understanding and ending such age-old problems like hatred, divorce, crime, and unhappiness (not organic depression, which is treatable with medications) in society. Indeed, many other areas of nature are beyond investigation by the scientific method, such as energy processes within black holes, undocumented past events, future events, and the existence of other unnatural dimensions, particularly the spiritual dimension mentioned often in the Bible. We cannot properly evaluate past miracles using this method, primarily because no physical data is available and no one can mimic the forces involved.

Unfortunately, scientists have a long history of misusing the scientific method, as summarized by Tim Larkin.

_One of the best examples of both the proper and improper use of the scientific method involved an attempt to settle, once and for all, the question of whether living things could spring up from nonliving matter--spontaneous generation. Belief in spontaneous generation was founded on observation--inaccurate observation. People saw that certain lower forms of life appeared in water, soil and decaying organic substances of many kinds. Soon it was accepted as truth that worms and caterpillars came from dew on cabbage leaves, houseflies from wet wood, moths from woolen garments, anchovies from sea foam, and mice from river mud. Certain substances seemed to be potent producers of life, such as rotting wood, animal hair, stagnant water, paper, and the carcasses of animals._ 55

The invention of the microscope in the 1800's, which lead to the discovery of bacteria, caused skepticism about spontaneous generation. Lois Pasteur, a God believer, was one of the chief skeptics that emerged in the middle of the 19th century. F. A. Pouchet, another eminent scientist, challenged Pasteur and they both proceeded to use scientific methods and scientific apparatus to solve this problem.

Pouchet concluded that life did arise spontaneously from the various objects that he tested; Pasteur came to the opposite conclusion. Why did this happen? Pouchet's apparatus allowed microorganisms in the air to reach the test subject because of improper sealing. Pasteur was more diligent in using apparatus that prevented airborne particles from contaminating the experimental substance. Both scientists—attempting to use the scientific method of experimentation, observation, and logic—should have come to the same conclusion. However, only one applied the scientific method correctly.

There is a high degree of certainty that Huxley misapplied and misused the scientific method to evaluate the miracles recorded in the Bible. Here is a list of reasons that seem to support this conclusion:

1. Fundamentally, from their very nature, miracles recorded in the Bible cannot be reenacted and do not occur on a regular basis; therefore, no data in the form of measurements or observations can be collected for analysis. This fact alone suggests that the scientific method is not valid for evaluating biblical miracles.

2. Intellectual honesty is essential for all scientific enquiries. A scientific investigator must be open-minded, unbiased, and objective, willing to go wherever the evidence may lead. Huxley made it clear from the start that his goal was to use science to discredit the Bible, not to discover truth in an unbiased fashion. His correspondence with Nettie, his mother and other individuals make it clear that he was not open-minded, unbiased, and objective when considering biblical matters. In fact, he had a very negative opinion about the Bible and religion from his early childhood days. Consequently, he was not intellectually open to the possibility that miracles may be truth in a form that exists outside of known natural laws.

3. The scientific method requires the investigator to identify and classify the phenomena under scrutiny. We cannot identify and classify miracles in natural terms. By definition, they are unnatural events. Consequently, it is almost impossible to conduct proper systematic studies of the phenomena.

4. Huxley jumped to the conclusion that all the evidence negating or supporting the existence of miracles is in, therefore they are "Not-proven." The scientific method requires that one should not jump to a conclusion until the evidence is in. Using the scientific method, the investigator must make every effort to gather evidence from the farthest ends of the universe, if necessary, before jumping to a conclusion of "Not-proven."

5. Huxley's claim that miracles are proved false for all time is unscientific. The scientific method requires the revision of all conclusions as fresh evidence surfaces. The current Theory of Invisibility, now proven, adds weight to this reason. Scientists dismissed invisibility for many years as mythology and now there is evidence that it is a physical reality.

6. All scientific knowledge is cumulative. If there is a large gap of knowledge between an observed phenomena and known natural laws, the scientific method may not be the appropriate tool for investigation. Many scientists may have long ignored the UFO phenomenon for this reason. The larger the gap of knowledge, the more outlandish the phenomenon will appear, approaching the miraculous zone. Consequently, we can reasonably view events that are distant of established scientific knowledge as miracles or ridiculous. Movie producers often use this knowledge gap effectively, particularly in the science fiction genre when time travel is involved. Transporting an individual from a past century to a modern world filled with seemingly miraculous gadgets is a popular theme for comedy productions.

While Huxley may have left open the possibility of believing that God existed, Richard Dawkins, atheist and evolutionary biologist, a Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, made it clear in The God Delusion that his purpose was to investigate the possible existence of God in a sound, scientific manner. However, his approach was to denounce and ridicule the possibility of the existence of God.

I am not attacking any particular version of God or gods. I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented.

This statement is in violation of the very intent of the scientific method. He has formulated a plan of attack to denounce the God Hypothesis, which implies that he is not open-minded, unbiased, and objective. The outcome of the investigation was predetermined—there was no such thing as God the Creator. The discovery of truth—the ultimate purpose of the scientific method—was not the purpose of this enquiry. He was not seeking or evaluating evidence on the possible existence of God, however minute or diminutive.

Nevertheless, Dawkins, like Huxley, makes the claim that he was relying on the scientific method to achieve his objective, stating, "God's existence or non-existence is a scientific fact about the universe, discoverable in principle if not in practice." Discover Magazine ceremoniously dubbed Dawkins in 2005 as 'Darwin's Rottweiler' for his fierce defense of evolution. Real scientists do not jump to conclusions until evidence is collected and evaluated. In fact, if they are real scientists, they do not have biased or predetermined opinions about research subjects. They go wherever the evidence leads.

Dawkins' analysis in The God Delusion does not make it clear why God's existence or non-existence is a scientific fact, since science has no physical measurements for a God-like character. In general, a phenomenon does not become a scientific fact until discovery and confirmation by other scientists occurs using the scientific method, therefore becoming a part of our accumulated scientific knowledge. Theoretically there are, no doubt, numerous realities awaiting discovery. There are also realities observed by several scientific researchers, such as the reduced speed of light over time, which mainstream scientists reject as non-scientific.

Christopher Columbus put forward the hypothesis that Asia was directly west of Europe and accessible by crossing the Atlantic. To prove this hypothesis, he set out with three small sailing vessels, La Nina, La Pinta, and the Santa Maria, plus an open mind to make observations and collect evidence. While his hypothesis was not proven correct, aggravated by the fact that his calculation of Earth's circumference was incorrect, he did discover the American Continents using the scientific method, establishing them as a fact for Europeans. Other adventurers were able to confirm his findings. Prior, to this experiment, there is little or no evidence that the Europeans regarded the American Continents as a scientific fact, even though they existed. It is doubtful that Columbus would have discovered anything useful if he had proceeded to do nothing more than denounce and trash the Asian hypothesis with a less than objective mind.

Dawkins' refuting data included the Great Prayer Experiment where several individuals, particularly Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, physicist Russell Stannard and Dr. Herbert Benson, attempted to determine scientifically if prayer for sick people worked. The general result in all of the experiments was that prayer was ineffective, implying there is no God to answer prayers. These so-called "scientific experiments" seem to have completely missed the fact that more than one rule governs prayer itself. Simply having people repeat written pleas for sick people cannot and does not work. A prayer is not a prayer simply because it sounds like a prayer. For prayer to work effectively, according to the Bible, at least three basic conditions are required:

(1) The individual offering the prayer must not cherish sin, which is something that we cannot measure scientifically. "If I regard iniquity in my heart the Lord will not hear me." Psalm 66:18

(2) The individual praying for the sick person must believe that the prayer will be answered. Faith is an essential part of praying and it is a non-quantifiable, non-scientific concept. Faith cannot be measured in degrees or kilograms. "But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. For let not that man think he shall receive anything of the Lord." (James 1:6, 7)

(3) In addition, the sick person or recipient of the miracle must also be a believer, at least not a doubter, in the existence and power of God. This is also outside of the realm of scientific investigation. People can publicly proclaim to be believers yet inwardly doubt the power of God.

Having people "pray" for sick people in a controlled scientific experiment, repeating the same words over and over, without considering the basic elements of Cherished Sin, Doubt, and Faith in God—which are non-scientific concepts and cannot be measured naturally—is an exercise in futility and a gross misapplication of the scientific method. Furthermore, starting such an experiment with the conclusion that the answerer of prays does not exist is scientific folly. Such so-called "scientific experimentation" will simply yield nonsensical, meaningless results.

~~~

# Chapter 4

Currently, there is no consensus among scientists about the exact meaning of the term "evolution", whether it involves Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, microevolution or macroevolution. Keith Wanser, Professor of Physics, California State University, stated, "...there is not one theory of evolution, but a body of opinions, speculations, and methods for interpretation of observational facts so that they fit into the philosophy of naturalism." Evolution can mean different things to different people. Some see the natural workings of DNA as evolution, while others see the adaption of animals to a change in environment as evolution. However, the term generally refers to what the majority of scientists view as _naturalistic evolution_. Francis J. Beckwith gives a straightforward explanation of this term:

... _Naturalistic evolution is] the view that the entire universe and all the entities in it can be accounted for by strictly material processes without resorting to any designer, creator, or non-material entity or agent as an explanation for either any aspect of the natural universe or the universe as a whole._[ 65

The material processes in naturalistic evolution, if scientific, must adhere to the known laws of science, complying with the findings of empirical science, which is non-speculative knowledge derived from the scientific method of investigation. Under the scientific method, a hypothesis is either accepted or rejected based on evaluating empirical data, which is data measured by experiment or observation. If the claims of naturalistic evolution comply with empirical science then it is true science. However, if empirical science does not support these claims then naturalistic evolution is nothing more than pseudoscience.

The first major question that confronts a thinking person about our origins is, "How did life arise on this planet?" Evolution puts forward the answer that life arose from non-life without the aid of a Creator or designer. Unfortunately, evolutionary thinking cannot get around certain detestable concepts. It tries to squash the individualistic Creator concept found in the Bible, but replaces it with the notion of several improbable gods involved in the miraculous. Unfortunately, these new gods also contradict basic scientific laws.

Abiogenesis and the Origin of Life

In order to give a somewhat rational answer to this origin-of-life question within the worldview of naturalism, it is necessary for evolutionists to postulate the "scientific idea" of _abiogenesis_. Now, _biogenesis_ is an established scientific law. The Law of Biogenesis states that life does not, and cannot, arise from non-living matter; or essentially, living matter can only generate living matter. Abiogenesis contravenes this natural law, suggesting that life initially arose from inanimate molecules through sheer luck or randomness, having no purpose whatsoever.

Apparently, this extraordinary, non-scientific law functioned for a period in the distant past, when simple life miraculously emerged from non-living, inorganic molecules. Incredibly, by some miracle, this law is no longer in operation today because "conditions have changed on earth." Currently, no empirical scientific evidence has emerged giving credence to the postulate that simple cellular life has arisen from lifeless, non-living material in the past or present, even from within the most sterile, diligent and sophisticated laboratories.

Aristotle, the great philosopher, erroneously believed in spontaneous generation, the precursor of abiogenesis. Spontaneous generation is a belief that living things can spring to life from dead matter. Aristotle and others throughout history saw aphids arising from dew, mice from hay, flies and bees from dead carcasses, and so on. It was not until the middle of the 19th Century that Louis Pasteur (1822-1895), one of the founders of modern microbiology, conducted experiments disproving spontaneous generation and establishing biogenesis. Despite this discovery by Pasteur, who did use the scientific method and sterile scientific apparatus in his experiments, Charles Darwin wrote in 1871—without relying on one scientific experiment—about the possibility of life arising in a "warm little pond" from non-living matter, perpetuating the idea of spontaneous generation, therefore giving scientific authority to the teaching of abiogenesis.

_It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, &c., present, that a proteine compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed._

Darwin's "warm little pond"—a fuzzy wish to find some scientific evidence to support the origin of life under the evolution framework—soon evolved into a vast bowl of "primordial soup." Supposedly, a veritable concoction of flammable gases in Earth's early atmosphere and the action of lightning gave rise to a "soup" of "life-generating" chemicals.

In 1953, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago conducted an experiment where water (H2O), hydrogen (H2), methane (CH4), and ammonia (NH3) were placed in a sterile apparatus; then they were subjected to sparks fired between electrodes, which supposedly simulated ancient Earth's lightning, for a week. At the end of the experiment, he discovered the formation of chemicals such as amino acids, sugars and lipids, all vital for life, but no simple life forms had sprung up.

However, there was no mention of the parallel formation of chemicals that are toxic to life under the same experimental conditions, such as carbon monoxide (CO), the cyanide ion (CN-), and nitric acid (HNO3), which readily degrade many other chemicals, living and non-living. Ammonia used in the experiment was also life degrading, highly rated as a toxic chemical. Theoretically, it seems impossible to eliminate the formation of toxic, life-degrading chemicals from any randomly formed primordial soup originating from hydrogen (H), oxygen (O), carbon (C), and nitrogen (N) molecules. A solution of amino acids, sugars, lipids, and life-degrading chemicals, particularly nitric acid, which inhibit the formation of life molecules such as proteins, would no doubt eventually result in nothing more than a sticky, smelly mess, regardless of atmospheric conditions.

Undoubtedly, the degradation of any protein molecule essential for life, if generated under such hostile conditions, would occur in the range of seconds or minutes, not thousands or millions of years. From a chemical perspective, the Primordial Soup Theory is a self-defeating mechanism for generating life from non-living material. The Miller-Urey experiment provided no valid evidence why the earth's early atmosphere would have had such high concentrations of toxic and flammable gases, or vast lightning strikes, as suggested by the scale of the experiment. However, this experiment is still used today in support of our alleged evolutionary beginnings.

Evolutionary theorists later added ultraviolet (UV) light originating from sunlight as another source of energy, apart from lightning, that could trigger the formation of life-based molecules in earth's atmosphere. Unfortunately, the region of sun light called UV-C, or the invisible "C" band, is extremely life degrading. It sanitizes our environment, destroying harmful viruses and bacteria. The absorption of UV radiation is so unique for biological molecules—occurring only at specific wavelengths—that scientists actually use this phenomenon at a low level to test for the presence and concentration of these molecules. Biological molecules can readily absorb large quantities of this radiation to their detriment. Unfortunately, the threat that UV radiation poses to all life at the molecular level is basic scientific knowledge.

_It is well known that ultraviolet (UV) radiation may reduce or even abolish the biological activity of proteins and enzymes. UV light, as a component of sunlight, is illuminating all light-exposed parts of living organisms, partly composed of proteins and enzymes._ 70

UV radiation does not directly nurture life in any form. It degrades simple organic material and disrupts the functioning of DNA, the code of life, which the pre-biotic molecules are supposed to form ultimately. Deadly skin cancer is one of the toxic effects of UV radiation. High levels of this radiation can also cause eye damage, resulting in cataracts. Other forms of life, particularly marine plankton, are extremely sensitive to UV radiation and it threatens their existence.

Nevertheless, in spite of the abundant, empirical scientific evidence that UV radiation degrades life, some scientists gave their own hopeful spin to the matter.

_When simple organic molecules are held together in a fairly concentrated area, such as stuck to a dust or ice grain, the UV light actually enhances the formation of more complex molecules by breaking some bonds and allowing the molecules to recombine (Bernstein et al. 1999; Cooper et al. 2001). DNA and RNA are relatively resistant to UV light, because some parts of the molecules shelter others and damage to the bases can provide the materials to repair the backbone. UV light gives nucleic acids a selective advantage and may in fact have been an essential ingredient for abiogenesis (Mulkidjanian et al. 2003; Mullen 2003)... The molecules need not all have stayed exposed to UV for long. Some would have dissolved in oceans and lakes. In one proposed scenario, the complex organic molecules form in the deep ocean around geothermal vents, well away from ultraviolet light._ 73

Apart from the trumped up scenario of "stuck to a dust or ice grain," the idea of DNA and RNA molecules repairing themselves is somewhat misleading. This biological activity of "repairing" only occurs within fully functioning, live cell tissue, not in newly formed, supposedly simple pre-biotic molecules such as amino acids, proteins, and sugars, which are technically still non-living chemicals. No known biological molecule, such as DNA or RNA, existing outside of a living cell can repair itself.

Somehow, the proponents of abiogenesis have a way of jumping from inanimate molecules to complex, fully functioning, living cells without cuing the reader to this miraculous transition. Nucleic acids magically appear in the discussion of the formation of simple molecules without the simple explanation that these complicated molecules exist only in nature within living cells.

The DNA molecule, when outside of its cellular structure, rapidly degrades in water, which was obviously abundant in "the deep ocean around thermal vents." Water is essential for all life, but it is capable of quickly destroying any non-cellular, complex organic molecule required for life. Undoubtedly, the high temperatures of geothermal vents, which are around 380° C, would also aid in the destruction of any amino acid or newly formed protein molecule. Temperatures above 50° C destroy most proteins and amino acids instead of nurturing them.

Apart from the hazards of heat, water and UV-C, there are other possible chemical interactions in any "warm little pond" or "primordial soup" that would instantly degrade any newly formed protein. One would hardly expect chemically sterile conditions to exist in such a proposed environment for the alleged spontaneous generation of life. The presence of any heavy metal toxin, such as aluminum, arsenic, cadmium, lead or mercury, would pose a risk to newly formed protein molecules, even those within a living cell.

_The heavy metal ions form complexes with proteins, in which_ _carboxylic acid_ _(–COOH), amine (–NH_ 2 _), and thiol (–SH) groups are involved. These modified biological molecules lose their ability to function properly and result in the malfunction or death of the cells. When_ _metals_ _bind to these groups, they inactivate important enzyme systems, or affect protein structure, which is linked to the_ _catalytic_ _properties of enzymes. This type of_ _toxin_ _may also cause the formation of radicals, dangerous chemicals that cause the_ _oxidation_ _of biological molecules._ 77

Calcium Carbonate is a popular chemical on planet Earth and occurs naturally as calcite, chalk, limestone, and marble. It reacts with natural hydrochloric and carbonic acids in water to form hydrated calcium ions. Calcium ions (Ca2+) would no doubt be available in abundance in any "primordial soup" or "warm little pond" of chemicals. These ions, along with other naturally occurring elements, such as sodium (Na+), potassium (K+), chlorine (Cl-), and magnesium ions (Mg2+), give natural water, particularly ocean water, its proverbial saltiness and "hardness." (There is strong scientific evidence that the ionic chemical composition of earth's ocean, ignoring synthetic pollution of the last century, has remained constant since its inception.)

The presence of these ionic salts, which degrade amino acids and proteins, cause the "hardness" of natural water. Macromolecules cannot survive intact very long in such an environment. Scientists have known from the nineteenth century that salts in high concentrations react readily with bio-molecules in a non-cellular environment, causing them to precipitate. Known as the "salting-out effect," this phenomenon is widely used in laboratories to separate and crystallize proteins. The electrostatic charges of salt ions tend to disrupt the solubility of proteins and amino acids, making them inactive. However, many protein-salt interactions are indeed essential for life itself, but they only occur beneficially _within_ a living cell or body. Protein interactions with calcium, chlorine, sodium, and potassium ions are essential for proper blood clotting, heart and nerve function, healthy bones, teeth, nails, muscle tissue, and many other cellular functions.

Apart from the difficulties of being able to generate viable bio-molecules in a hot "primordial soup" from lightning and UV radiation, proponents of evolution cannot demonstrate that life can be generated by simply combining essential life chemicals—water, ionic salts, amino acids, sugars, proteins, enzymes, DNA, RNA, etc.—together in the same solution, even at some presumed correct acidity or alkalinity, concentration, temperature and pressure. These chemicals generally interact with and destroy each other in such an unnatural configuration, regardless of external environmental conditions.

Some evolutionary scientists are perceptive enough to understand that natural laws do not support abiogenesis. Sir Fred Hoyle (1915-2001), evolutionist, English astronomer, and an atheist turned agnostic, forcefully expressed his views on this subject.

There is not a shred of objective evidence to support the hypothesis that life began in an organic soup here on earth....So why do biologists indulge in unsubstantiated fantasies in order to deny what is so patently obvious, that the 200,000 amino acid chains, and hence life, did not appear by chance?

The answer lies in a theory developed over a century ago, which sought to explain the development of life as an inevitable product of the purely local natural processes. Its author, Charles Darwin, hesitated to challenge the church's doctrine on the creation, and publicly at least did not trace the implications of his ideas back to the bearing on the origin of life. However, he privately suggested that life itself may have been produced in "some warm little pond," and to this day, his followers have sought to explain the origin of terrestrial life in terms of a process of chemical evolution from the primordial soup. However, as we have seen, this simply does not fit the facts.

Hoyle—remember, he is an evolutionist—calculated that the chance of a protein evolving and having a functional sequence of amino acids as being the same magnitude as a hurricane sweeping through a junkyard and instantaneously assembling a Boeing 747 jet [which is zero, for all practical purposes]. Ian Musgrave contended that Hoyle's calculation was off and many errors were committed in his statistical analysis. In addition, he asserted that Hoyle's basic understanding of abiogenesis was incorrect and involved the conversion of simple chemicals directly to bacteria. Hoyle's version, according to Musgrave was incorrect: **Simple Chemicals→Bacteria.**

(Note that Hoyle's calculation referred mainly to the formation of functional proteins {polymers} from amino acids {supposedly, simple chemicals}.) Here is Musgrave's _corrected version_ of the _Real Theory of Abiogenesis_ _(Simplified)_ :

SimpleChemicals→Polymers→Replicating Polymers→Hypercycle→Protobiont→Bacteria

His explanation is that the real theory of abiogenesis is more complex, having a number of small steps, and "each step is associated with a small increase in organization and complexity, and the chemicals slowly climb towards organism-hood, rather than making one big leap."

Unfortunately, an increase in the complexity of any system only increases its risk of failure. More steps increases the chances of more failures. Hoyle's analysis and conclusion were more than generous. Dean Overman, a lawyer who taught at the University of Virginia and a member of President Ford's administration, pushes the point further.

_Actually, the odds of life forming by random processes are even worse, for several reasons. First, scientists are discovering many reasons to think that conditions on Earth were not as the prebiotic soup experiments assume. Second, there is absolutely no physical evidence for the existence of either the prebiotic soup or many of the substances the experiments produced. In fact, evidence of prebiotic soup that should have been left behind in geological records does not exist. Third, even if amino acids did form in an ancient prebiotic soup, there are still astronomical odds against those amino acids joining together to form even very short proteins, much less the DNA found in all life._ 82

Statistical analysis does not change the insurmountable problems of moving from simple chemicals to active polymers in an open, hostile environment with no cell walls. Small steps still need to obey the laws of nature, regardless of how small they are.

If a human baby one hour old cannot make its first tiny step toward a goal post, which is several steps away, how can it possibly make its final step unaided? Unfortunately, one can cleverly use statistics to show that it is possible that at least one newly born baby in a million (or trillion?) will be able to make the tiny steps necessary to achieve this goal—since normal babies do have tiny legs that are for walking, maybe even climbing, and some are more vigorous than others. However, empirical observations will tell us that newly born human babies are not capable of making any tiny steps on their own, except maybe when flat on their backs, and even then in an uncoordinated fashion.

Musgrave stated, "Firstly, the formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these are decidedly _not_ random." Unfortunately for Musgrave, we cannot abrogate these laws to convert monomers to biological polymers by resorting to statistics or hype. First, amino acids must be available in the correct form. Then, the conversion of amino acids to protein, called _protein synthesis_ , is the second tiny step for abiogenesis to make and it is a giant one in terms of getting it to obey the established laws of nature. In conditions proposed by evolutionists for life to take root, it may be equivalent to getting a newborn baby to make tiny steps and climb into its crib, do the tango, do back flips, then call emergency services for bodily repairs, all on its own. In the thinking of Musgrave, Dawkins, and many other evolutionists, the only thing that really matters in the _formation_ of life is small evolutionary steps, regardless of how implausible, improbable and far-fetched those tiny steps deviate from real science.

Undoubtedly, Abiogenesis is one of the gods of evolutionary thinkers, worshipped, and protected with great fervor. Richard Dawkins, a protector and high priest of Darwinian evolutionary thinking, asserts that Hoyle's analysis is a fallacy, using it as a mainstay in his books, _The Blind Watchmaker_ , _Climbing Mount Improbable_ , and _The God Delusion_. He reverently refers to natural selection, another term for naturalistic evolution, as a spiritual consciousness-raiser: "What is it that makes natural selection succeed as a solution to the problem of improbability, where chance and design both fail at the starting gate? The answer is that natural selection is a cumulative process, which breaks the problem of improbability up into small pieces. Each of the small pieces is slightly improbable, but not prohibitively so." It is difficult to understand why any reasonable scientist would use statistics to support this type of argument, especially when the odds are clearly not in your favor.

Dawkins invoked a parable, which has religious overtones in itself: Somehow, evolutionary processes were able to avoid the sheer cliff of impossibility, go around the back of the mountain and creep "up the gentle slope to the summit." Obviously, something, somewhere or somehow, must be (blindly?) guiding this process to the "back of the mountain." Did the now extinct god Abiogenesis, the weak god who makes small, improbable, mysteriously guided steps, somehow miraculously and mysteriously suspend the laws of nature to achieve this gentle slope?

Ian Wilmut and Keith Campbell were the scientists who cloned Dolly the sheep in 1996. These scientific experts, who were also evolutionists, familiar with life at the molecular level, gave a succinct rendition about the laws of science that govern life at the molecular level.

_In short, as Francis Crick put the matter in what he called 'the central dogma' of molecular biology, 'DNA makes RNA makes protein!' DNA, RNA, and protein are indeed the trinity on which all life on Earth is based._ 86

Obviously, the terms 'central dogma' and 'trinity' were meant to either portray the religious aspects of naturalistic evolution or belittle the idea of a Creator, or maybe both. However, this fact of _DNA making RNA making protein_ , a natural law confirmed by evolutionists using the scientific method of investigation, has serious ramifications for evolutionary thinking.

Firstly, it establishes the fact that numerous, highly complex molecules are required to make protein in nature; the actual manufacturing progression goes from complex to simpler molecules, not vice versa. Secondly, protein is only produced in nature by living cells. Thirdly, sophisticated information is required in order to create a protein. Fourthly, the process of protein synthesis within a cell is highly controlled from beginning to end, it is purposeful, and there is no evidence that it begins or ends as a random, meaningless process. In short, this principle discovered by Crick adds validity to the claim that only living cells can generate living cells. At the molecular level, according to the established laws of nature, _life can only beget life_.

Francis Crick (1916-2004), an evolutionist who attempted to show how life evolved from the non-living to the living, described himself as "a skeptic, an agnostic with a strong inclination toward atheism." It was Crick's initial view that the key to the origin of life could be found by combining Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, Mendel's law of genetics, and knowledge of molecular biology. As a disciple of Darwin, he was determined to discover the molecular basis for evolution. He was convinced that Darwin's beliefs alone, unsupported by experimentation, were enough to "shatter" the logical arguments of opponents. In step with the younger Dawkins, and an ardent admirer of his statistical approach to natural selection, Crick was a strong believer in the evolutionary process known as abiogenesis.

Crick obtained a B.Sc. degree in 1937 from University College, London after studying Physics. In 1947 he was not a trained biologist and knew very little chemistry or crystallography, but he spent several years learning the basics of these subjects. In 1953 Crick, along with his research partner, James Watson, officially proposed the double-helical structure of DNA, originally isolated by Friedrich Miescher in 1869, and its replication process. Due to having his career interrupted by war, he did not obtain his Ph.D. until 1954 from Caius College, Cambridge. His thesis was entitled, "X-ray diffraction: polypeptides and proteins." In 1962, the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine was jointly awarded to Francis Crick, James Watson, and Maurice Wilkins _"for their discoveries concerning the molecular structure of nucleic acids and its significance for information transfer in living material."_ 91

If you are speed-reading, it is important to slow down, stop, and reread the last three lines in the last paragraph, carefully. Note the reason why the Nobel Foundation awarded Francis Crick its top prize for Physiology or Medicine in 1962. Notice that it has to do with "discoveries concerning the molecular structure of nucleic acids and its significance for _information transfer in living material_." Carefully note that he was NOT awarded the Nobel Prize for _discovering how life emerged from non-living material or proving evolution_ , which was his primary goal in life. There is not even a fine distinction between "information transfer in living material" and "life emerging from non-living material," being two completely different topics. This somewhat bombastic comment is important because many misguided individuals blatantly tout DNA processes discovered by Crick as evidentiary material for naturalistic evolution, although it is a discovery that fundamentally contradicts abiogenesis. Conceivably, one can argue that "the molecular structure of nucleic acids" is non-living matter. However, this would be circular, non-logical reasoning.

Nevertheless, it is a _fact_ , supported by evidence, that Francis Crick, et al., _did not_ receive the Nobel Prize in 1962 for establishing that abiogenesis hence evolution is valid science. It seems that Crick clearly understood that his findings about DNA did not support his search for the origin of life from non-living matter on earth. Along with L. E. Orgel, he later suggested in 1973 that another god, called Directed Panspermia, was actually involved in bringing life to Earth.

_It now seems unlikely that extraterrestrial living organisms could have reached the earth either as spores driven by the radiation pressure from another star or as living organisms imbedded in a meteorite. As an alternative to these nineteenth-century mechanisms, we have considered Directed Panspermia, the theory that organisms were deliberately transmitted to the earth by intelligent beings on another planet. We conclude that it is possible that life reached the earth in this way, but that the scientific evidence is inadequate at the present time to say anything about the probability. We draw attention to the kinds of evidence that might throw additional light on the topic._ 92

Unknown or unrecognized by most evolutionists, this is a subtle but sophisticated and well-camouflaged admission by Francis Crick that the origin-of-life-theory suggested by Charles Darwin was dead wrong.

Obviously, if Crick felt his DNA findings had supported abiogenesis in any manner, it would not have been necessary for him to suggest another mechanism for the origin of life on earth. It is important to notice that the god Directed Panspermia is an alleged intelligent being from outer space. Hoyle and his partner, Chandra Wickramasinghe, suggested that life forms from outer space are continually entering Earth's atmosphere, being responsible for epidemics and new diseases, and primarily life itself. However, regardless of how wildly imaginative they are, these theories add weight to the idea that life forms can only arise from other life forms.

Regardless of Crick's findings, many evolutionary scientists remain adamant that life started around deep-sea hydrothermal vents, despite the overwhelming odds. According to a hypothesis paper published in the journal _Cell_ in 2012, the bio-energetics of all living cells can be traced back to rocks, water and carbon dioxide in a coherent pathway. Apparently, the energy from these undersea vents was sufficient to create proto-cells from the natural proton gradients that assimilated organic carbon with relative ease.

While the chemistry of deep-sea hydrothermal vents may be similar to how all living membranes conserve energy by using ion gradients across cell membranes, it does not solve the problems of any _First Cell_ or proto-cell originating in water. Where does the information come from to program this cell to start multiplying and form more sophisticated cells?

Billions and Billions of Imaginary Planets

Wickramasinghe has continued to work on this theory of Directed Panspermia, claiming that life on earth began in a comet, using data from two NASA missions. In 2005, the Deep Impact mission examined a comet called Temple 1. A mixture of organic and clay particles were found inside the comet. A mission in 2004 to a comet called Wild 2 discovered complex hydrocarbon molecules. In 2007, Professor Wickramasinghe claimed that his team in Cardiff, Wales now had a clear idea of how it all happened.

"The odds of life starting on Earth rather than on a comet are now calculated as around one trillion trillion (10 to the power of 24) to one against.

"We now have a clear idea of how it all happened, all the necessary elements - clay, organic molecules and water - are there.

"Given the conditions inside the comet they can act as perfect incubators for early life.

"Life is like an infection that spread out across the galaxy. Solar systems are built up of 100 billion comets and there are 100 billion solar systems, so we know there are many planets like Earth outside of our solar system..."

_"Hopefully by the end of the decade these types of planets will be being discovered in their thousands."_ 94

It is not understandable what corner of the universe or galaxy these alleged 'comets of life' came from originally. What is the mechanism for one planet with life producing a comet and transferring life to another planet? Unfortunately, the claim that "we know there are many planets like Earth outside of our solar system" is unfortunate for a man who is a trained scientist. He confirms this blunder by stating, "Hopefully, by the end of the decade these types of planets will be discovered in their thousands." It is impossible to know that something is a fact, unless it is a fact. Why wish for the discovery of new planets if it is already a fact?

Obviously, _we do not know_ that there are many planets like Earth outside of our solar system. It is sheer conjecture, of course. However, it is comforting to see that Professor Wickramasinghe is attempted to rely on the collection of empirical evidence to prove this theory, despite the odds. Nevertheless, it is important to note that the followers of this atheistic religion called Evolution also rely on hope and faith, just like other religions.

To date, there is no concrete biological evidence that life emerged on this planet from bacteria 3 billion years ago. Programming a super computer with speculation and nebulous assumptions about how life started on Earth cannot be rated as high quality science. There is a world of difference between "a statement of fact" and an "educated guess." Making factual claims about speculative, undiscovered worlds is a low point for science. Evolutionists have placed a tremendous amount of pressure on themselves to prove that life on Earth is a chance event, occurring throughout the Universe in a similar fashion. This may help explain the lack of scientific precision and contradictions that accompany these strange promulgations.

Nevertheless, traditional science has established that the DNA found in the nuclei of living cells is the source of information transfer in living material, as per Crick et al. This important discovery establishes the fact that life begins with intelligent information, not random nonsense, such as that generated by having an untrained ape pound away at a keyboard. A DNA molecule is the _Blueprint_ of life, a fact recognized by all expert bio-molecular scientists. Blueprints contain information. As blueprints go, a lousy randomized blueprint will only result in a lousy randomized structure, regardless of the expertise of the builders; and, an accurate, well-thought-out blueprint will no doubt result in a nice, well-balanced structure, if properly executed.

The idea that is so repulsive to naturalistic evolutionists is that behind every blueprint, behind every detailed plan or program of action, there must be an architect, programmer, or master planner. Darwin originally referred to this originator or programmer of life's blueprint as "the Creator," a logical conclusion, but he later conceded that this was nothing more than pandering. Having an intelligent, master planner involved in the origin of life is heresy for any modern disciple of Darwin.

Obviously, if a planner is a major prerequisite for every blueprint ever produced on planet Earth by human beings, the statistical odds favoring such a process in the natural (or unnatural) world seems extremely high. However, this logical analogy of having a planner for the initiation of something as complex as life is a laughing matter among evolutionists.

Regardless of the implications of empirical science, the religious dogma called Darwinism pervades all intellectualism with the gods called Abiogenesis and Panspermia. There is no blueprint, or architect, or programmer, or master planner required, just sheer unplanned, uncontrolled random molecular interactions, taking tiny unguided steps with a large head of improbability hovering over it, resulting in the production of this wonderful, complex thing called life. Apparently, a trumped up god is more desirable than clear thinking in the realms of naturalistic evolution. Dawkins gives a very weak, non-scientific based alternative to the Creator concept, called the _anthropic principle_. Life apparently emerged from water as a hereditary molecule, DNA or RNA, was formed by chance.

While this nothing more than relabeling abiogenesis, this type of reasoning is highly speculative, and not based on evaluating any type of valid scientific experimentation or practical data. The idea that "life still _has_ to originate in the water" is open to litigation, and is not based on any established scientific discovery, law or principle. Even the "hairy half-fish" envisioned by Darwin that apparently evolved into other animals is a naturalistic conundrum. There is a continuum of life existing on this planet from the driest to the wettest areas.

Water is indeed necessary for the sustenance of life, and so are many "solid chemicals" (such as carbon and calcium carbonate, for example). Most living things also need oxygen. However, does that mean that life may have originated in the atmosphere or a charcoal pit? Liquid water is necessary for life but it is very hostile to DNA and RNA molecules in an open environment without a functioning cell wall, degrading them quickly, as discussed previously. If the "some kind of genetic molecule" formed itself by random molecular interactions, it had to occur instantaneously to be viable, behind the protective walls of a cell.

The contention that "life may have been a highly improbable occurrence" does not aid naturalistic arguments. Unfortunately, this statement of improbability essentially weakens and contradicts the argument made by Dawkins. He contends that his ' _anthropic_ ' hypothesis is scientific and superior to the design approach (and the 'blueprint requires planner' methodology), making the unsubstantiated claim, giving no references or supporting documentation whatsoever, that " _The design approach postulates a God who wrought a deliberate miracle, struck the prebiotic soup with divine fire and launched DNA, or something equivalent, on its momentous career_." Ironically, this comment seems to be referring to the Miller-Urey experiment in comic book form. Undoubtedly, the concept of a 'prebiotic soup' is a fabrication of naturalistic evolution, a derivative of Darwin's "warm little pond" and Miller's "primordial soup."

With no scientific references, no supporting documentation, just hype and bravado, more like wishful thinking, Dawkins resorts to improbable statistics to show the possible "merry progression" of life under this 'scientific' _anthropic alternative,_ declaring "It has been estimated that there are between 1 billion and 30 billion planets in our galaxy, and about 100 billion galaxies in the universe. Knocking a few noughts off for reasons of ordinary prudence, a billion billion is a conservative estimate of the number of available planets in the universe." Wait a second. Where do these numbers come from? Who is doing the estimating and how accurate is it? What is the scientific basis for these estimates? Not a single, substantive clue has been presented to establish their validity.

Speculating that the Milky Way, our galaxy, may have "billions of Earth-like planets" is still a favorite pastime for evolutionary scientists. Alan Boss, astronomer with the Carnegie Institution, asserted that there may be "100 billion Earth-like planets" in the Milky Way. Not necessarily having animal and plant life like Earth, but inhabited with "bacteria or some of the multi-cellular creatures that populated our Earth for the first 3 billion years of its existence," according to Boss. Using a computer model to simulate a synthetic galaxy with billions of stars and planets, researchers at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland claim that 361 "intelligent civilizations" have emerged in the Milky Way galaxy and 38,000 may be in the process of formation. The leader of this research team, Duncan Forgan, made the audacious claim that "he was surprised by the hardiness of life on these other worlds" but added the caveat that the results were "an educated guess at best." Most evolutionary claims seem to be guesses at best, having little or no supporting scientific evidence.

Geoffrey W. Marcy, American astronomer, and John A. Johnson, National Science Foundation astronomy and astrophysics fellow working at the University of Hawaii Institute for Astronomy (IfA), were some of the world's top planet hunters. Here are some of their research findings available up until the end of 2008. Note the number of planets discovered and their implied ability to support life as known on earth.

_A large fraction of the 303 planets discovered so far are "hot Jupiters" or "hot Neptunes," large gaseous planets that orbit very close to their stars. These are relatively easy to detect because they have the largest Doppler shifts. The first exoplanet discovered orbits its star, 51 Pegasi, in about 4 days, has a mass about half of Jupiter's, and is 1,800 degrees C (about 3,300 degrees F). None of the planets discovered so far is as small as Earth, and although some are in the "habitable zone," the distance from a star where liquid water can exist, all of these are gas giants. Although 25 solar systems--stars with more than one planet--have been discovered, very few of them resemble the architecture of our solar system, in which the planets are in well-spaced, nearly circular orbits in the same plane_.

At the end of 2009, astronomers had discovered over 400 exoplanets, totally unlike Earth. The European Southern Observatory (ESO) announced the incredible discovery of 32 of these exoplanets at one conference. Three years later, by the end of 2012, there were more than 800 alleged discoveries of planets all larger than Earth. So far, only one of these findings in 2012 approximated the mass of our planet. Using the 3.6-metre telescope at ESO's La Silla Observatory in Chile, astronomers discovered a planet orbiting a star in the Alpha Centauri system with a mass similar to that of Earth's. Unfortunately, this planet—called Alpha Centauri Bb—has a surface temperature of 2,240 degrees Fahrenheit (1,227 degrees Celsius) and probably has a molten, rocky surface incapable of supporting life.

Obviously, there is an enormous gap between the number of planets discovered to date and the number surmised by Wickramasinghe, Dawkins, Boss, and others. The number 800 plus is very different from the billions of planets surmised and they seem to be a rare occurrence rather than the norm. It is also important to note that not one of the planets discovered so far has the exact ambience and orientation as Earth has to its own star, the Sun. This suggests that if life on Earth were transferred to any of these planets it would probably be extinguished immediately. Consequently, this entire sample of 800 plus planets discovered to date does not support the extraordinary claims of billions of earthlike planets made by Dawkins and others. An American Astronomer, Carl Sagan, who was also an avid evolutionist, allegedly stated, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." No extraordinary evidence is forthcoming on this subject matter.

Dawkins claimed that even though the probability of life occurring was "one in a billion planets," it has arisen on a billion planets. He notes that this argument is spelled out more fully in _The Blind Watchmaker_. However, there is really no need to refer to that book for any additional detail. It is obvious that unsubstantiated data and circular reasoning are at the crux of this non-scientific argument. Dawkins has revealed a secret that no other intellectually honest scientist, relying on empirical data, can confirm: _Life, similar to that which exists on Earth, has arisen on a billion planets despite the odds._ This fallacious conclusion, based on reasoning alone, is in the realm of science fiction. There is no factual, objective evidence whatsoever that life itself or DNA has been found on another planet—much less a billion, even if they exist—outside of our solar system. In fact, a vast fortune is being expended to discover if there are any signs of life on one small planet called Mars in our relatively small solar system. To date, there has not been one positive confirmation of life processes involving DNA outside of Earth's atmosphere. Well, just a few. Remember the trips to the Moon, Skylab, and the International Space Station; however, the majority of these amazing humans returned with their DNA intact to the shelter of Earth's atmosphere. Those that perished did so honorably.

Undoubtedly, the main 'scientific evidence' for the _anthropic postulate_ is unconcealed speculation about the existence of life on 'billions of planets.' This postulate is further supported by untested and unproved postulates. Circular, illogical reasoning exists at its very core: _Life was improbable but the improbable has occurred. Therefore, my proposal of life arising from the improbable is correct_. Unfortunately, circular reasoning is not a proper scientific tool. According to Dawkins, "It [natural selection] needs some luck to get started, and the 'billions of planets' anthropic principle grants it that luck." Sounds like good science, but crumbles when examined. Apparently, a lot of faith has been placed in 'against the odds' dumb luck, in ideas unproved and unsubstantiated. Who is operating this cosmic lottery of blind chance?

Timothy Standish, Ph.D., M.S, formerly an Associate Professor of biology at Andrews University in Berrien Springs, Michigan, a well-qualified scientist, explained that Dawkins' _anthropic postulate_ or 'cosmic lottery' hypothesis is outside the arena of authentic science.

While it appears to be counterproductive to use fiction as reference in this instance, scientific truth is scientific truth, regardless of the form it appears in. The logic of fictional character Sherlock Holmes, created by writer Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, gives a parallel, supporting scientific explanation why theories about our universe must not precede the data, as espoused by Dawkins, et al. According to Mr. Holmes, fictional super sleuth in _The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes_ ,

" _It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."_

This is sound, valid advice in any field where real science, not wishful thinking, is the rule. Unfortunately, evolutionists tend to establish theories and create laws before any empirical data is available on the subject. Ironically, Sir Doyle was also an evolutionist.

Concluding that there are billions of earthlike planets in our Universe with no supporting evidence is a humongous gaffe for any scientist, to say the very least on this subject. Like much of evolutionary teachings, it involves the creation of facts to suit theories. The average person understands that making conclusions about elephants or mosquitoes, or any other earth critter, without examining these creatures and obtaining valid data is pointless and nonsensical. Unfortunately, this appreciation of data driven conclusions seems to break down when it comes to examining our distant past or the unfamiliar regions of our exotic universe. Many people become mystified and awestruck by pseudoscientific proclamations such as the existence of "billions and billions of planets" that were seeded with life forms without questioning such outlandish claims.

Certainly, there may be many other earthlike planets in our universe. That possibility is not in dispute. However, until scientists find some valid empirical evidence to support this idea of life spreading to billions and billions of planets, this claim remains an unlikely hypothesis, nothing more than a trivial proposition. It cannot be used as scientific validation of any theory, particularly evolutionary promulgations.

Extrapolation is a valid scientific process where we make conclusions about a set of data points (such as water samples from a lake) and apply it to a larger area (the lake itself). If a small number of properly procured water samples taken from a lake contain large amounts of lead and other contaminants, then we can logically conclude that the much larger lake itself is also polluted with lead.

However, extrapolation must be used judiciously. Let's imagine that aliens flying space ships do exist. A group of young, inexperienced aliens are exploring the universe. On their way between galaxies something horribly goes wrong with their ship, causing them to temporarily lose power. They are forced to make an emergency landing on planet Earth in the middle of the night. The next morning they discover that their craft is surrounded by strange, ferocious creatures that we call lions, tigers, cheetah, and hyena, all waiting to devour them if they venture from their craft. They have landed in the wild Serengeti of Africa. Hurriedly, without making any further explorations of Earth, they make their repairs and blast off into space, concluding that this planet is a hot, savage place, and the inhabitants are growling wild animals that walk on four legs.

Obviously, our alien friends relied on one data point to draw an erroneous conclusion or extrapolation about Earth. If they had taken a small tour of our planet, visiting other data points such as the Cayman Islands, Monaco, Las Vegas, Utah, New York, Tokyo, and the suburbs of Los Angeles, their view of our planet may have been substantially different.

Technically, our solar system with its living earth is one data point in a vast universe. If we can prove scientifically that at least another similar data point (Earth II) existed within our vast galaxy, the Milky Way, this would add some minute credibility to the claim of maybe three or more similar planets existing in our universe. Extrapolating one data point into "billions and billions" of other unknown data points is an extraordinary claim that is outside the space of reality. Critical thinking will allow any reasonable individual to conclude that there is no empirical, scientific data supporting the idea that "the seeds of life" have spread throughout the universe, creating "billions and billions" of earthlike planets. Directed Panspermia, like abiogenesis, is simply an unverified, non-scientific, sacred atheistic belief.

DNA and Protein Synthesis

It is important to take a closer look at how life actually operates at the molecular level when examining the claims of naturalistic evolution. The nucleus of each living cell consists of nucleic acid, which is primarily deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and ribonucleic acid (RNA). DNA is an extremely complex molecule. It has the shape of a ladder that has been right-twisted into a three-dimensional spiral consisting of two strands, running in opposite directions to each other, called a double helix. Each rung of the ladder is made up of two paired bases linked together by hydrogen bonding, A-T, adenine (A) and thymine (T), or C-G, cytosine (C) and guanine (G). These bases are also found in RNA, which has the base called uracil (U) instead of thymine. The pairing of bases is highly restricted: Adenine always pairs with Thymine (or Uracil, in the case of RNA), and Cytosine with Guanine.

The sides of the ladder consist of sugar and phosphate molecules. When viewed three-dimensionally, the outside of the DNA molecule has a sugar-phosphate backbone and the inside consists of the four bases. A nucleotide consists of a base, a sugar, and one or more phosphate groups. In DNA, the nucleotide has deoxyribose sugar and the bases are adenine, guanine, thymine and cytosine. In RNA, the nucleotide has ribose sugar and the bases are adenine, guanine, uracil, and cytosine. Most RNA molecules carry out their functions as single strands, but can also occur in the double helix formation.

Biological instructions, or genetic information, contained in the DNA molecule is determined by the order or sequence of the bases: For example, the sequence ATCGTT may instruct for blue eyes; while the sequence ATCGCT made code for brown eyes. The DNA sequence required to make a protein is called a gene and it may vary from 1,000 to 1 million bases in human beings. The complete instructional manual for a human being is called a genome, which consists of approximately 20,000 genes on 23 pairs of chromosomes.

Protein synthesis in a normal cell is a two-step process requiring other supporting proteins. This process is highly complicated, tightly controlled from start to finish, and is energy-intensive. Here is a brief synopsis of the procedure. First, enzymes cause the DNA molecule to unwind and information is copied to an intermediate strand of messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA), which encodes the order of amino acids in one or more proteins specified by a gene or set of genes. Secondly, the mRNA travels from the nucleus to a ribosome in the cell's cytoplasm. A ribosome is the complex machinery that synthesizes the protein, consisting largely of ribosomal RNA (rRNA). A Transfer RNA (tRNA) molecule deciphers the information encoded in the mRNA and then positions the appropriate amino acid at the correct location in a growing protein chain (polypeptide) that emerges from the ribosome. At least 75 different supporting protein molecules are required to convert the DNA information into one protein molecule.

DNA replication, a requirement for cells to flourish and reproduce, is not a simple matter either. An E. coli bacterium, which is a simple cell, requires 20 or more different enzymes and proteins to accomplish this process. Each enzyme and protein has a specific task to perform. The chemical energy required for replication comes from adenosine triphosphate (ATP), which has to be synthesized by the cell. Without the presence of multiple prefabricated enzymes, proteins, and ATP, it would be impossible for a so-called simple cell to replicate itself with only a DNA molecule.

Here are some other interesting facts about DNA in the human body. A copy of our DNA exists in every cell of our body, with the exception of red blood cells. Scientists estimate that our entire DNA sequence or genome consists of 3 billion DNA bases. One million bases of DNA are roughly equal to 1 Megabyte of data stored on a computer. Our genome could fill two hundred 1,000 page New York sized telephone directories. A 3 Gigabyte sized hard drive on a computer would be required to store the entire genome of one individual. If all the strands of DNA in one cell were unwound and tied together, they would be about six feet long and 50 trillionths of an inch wide. If the entire DNA in our cells were unwrapped, the total length would be 6,000 times the distance to the moon.

Over 99% of our DNA sequence is identical to that of other human beings. DNA can automatically replicate itself, using cellular machinery of proteins. The complete human genome was not documented until 2003. It would take a typist 50 years to type the entire human genome, assuming they were able to type 60 words per minute, eight hours per day. Stacking all three billion letters in the human genome one millimeter apart would result in a pile 7,000 times the height of the Empire State Building. A DNA mutation or variation may be associated with a higher risk of a number of diseases, including breast cancer.

David Mills, author of _Atheist Universe_ , was convinced that it is an error to consider the inner workings of 'modern' cells when discussing evolution. He was certain that "ancient cellular life did not contain the complex nucleic acids and organelles found within modern cells...The first cells contained no nucleus at all, and were bare structures consisting mainly of an exterior membrane. Biological membranes form easily and spontaneously from a mixture of water and lipids." He referred to the Miller-Urey experiment as the discovery proving "that the molecules of life naturally assemble themselves from a few basic, easily available ingredients."

This would be a superb argument if supported in some way by empirical data, something of knowledge and substance. There is no scientific evidence that 'ancient cells' are significantly different from so-called 'modern cells'. There is no scientific evidence that alleged 'First Cells' could possibly live and replicate without having DNA or RNA. There is also no scientific evidence that suggests 'molecules of life naturally assemble themselves from a few basic, easily available ingredients.'

In fact, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that a living cell, with or without nucleus, has ever been assembled from a few basic ingredients. Any researcher creating a living, functional cell in the laboratory from non-living material, and many are pursuing this subject, would undoubtedly receive multiple Nobel Prizes and redundant accolades from every known scientific institute supporting naturalistic evolution. At least Dawkins, a trained biologist, was acute enough to realize that some sort of replication mechanism involving the chemicals DNA or RNA or some type of genetic molecule was required for life to supposedly "progress merrily" to the cellular mode. Nevertheless, empirical scientific data contradicts many of the evolutionary predictions and claims regarding the behavior of proteins at the cellular level.

The scientific evidence, based on empirical research, indicates that the simplest cells found in nature, called prokaryotes, are extremely complex. The cells of these organisms have no nucleus and seem simple enough to represent a minimal cell. Teams of scientists from the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL) in Heidelberg, Germany and the Centre de Regulacio Genòmica (CRG) in Barcelona, Spain have completed an extensive quantitative study of the bacterium that causes atypical pneumonia, _Mycoplasma pneumoniae_. The teams examined this simple bacterium at three different levels, identifying all RNA molecules, all metabolic reactions and every multi-protein complex produced. Luis Serrano, who co-initiated the project at EMBL said, "At all three levels, we found _M. pneumoniae_ was more complex than expected."

When studying both its proteome and its metabolome, the scientists found many molecules were multifunctional, with metabolic enzymes catalyzing multiple reactions, and other proteins each taking part in more than one protein complex. They also found that that _M. pneumoniae_ doesn't always transcribe all the genes in a group together, but can selectively express or repress individual genes within each group. Surprisingly, the researchers discovered that the regulation of this bacterium's transcriptome was almost identical to eukaryotes, which are more sophisticated cells having a nucleus.

The traditional evolutionary viewpoint is that the motion of proteins in a cell is random and unpredictable. Real life data contradicts this claim. Researcher Robert Jernigan and his team at the University of Iowa have discovered that the motions of proteins are highly restricted and controlled, which form part of their function. Experimenting with a protein from the HIV virus, Jernigan is certain that "the structures have been designed to exert very strong control of their motions. These motions correspond closely to the motions needed for their function." The HIV protein structures studied opened and closed in a deliberate, non-random manner, allowing access to other sites.

A group of researchers at North Carolina State University has discovered that bacterial proteins with identical shapes have different movements. According to Dr. John Cavanagh, William Neal Reynolds Distinguished Professor of Molecular and Structural Biochemistry, the research at NC State has shown that "proteins with identical shapes have different movements, and these movements allow proteins to select proper DNA targets that lead to tens or hundreds of processes...Motion is really important. If the proteins didn't move, they wouldn't be able to bind to DNA and therefore function." Both studies on the movement of proteins were published in the journal Structure.

Do artificial proteins function like natural proteins? Researchers at Arizona State University are attempting to answer this question. Exposing _Escherichia coli_ bacterial cells to a synthetic protein called DX has yielded unusual results. The _E. coli_ bacteria, normally spherical in shape, responded to the imitation protein by developing abnormally elongated filaments compartmentalized with dense lipid structures. The exposed bacterial cells exhibited severe ATP depletion, having a much reduced metabolic activity with restricted cell division. This research, published in the journal _ACS Chemical Biology_ , suggests that artificial proteins created in a laboratory do not function like the proteins found in nature. This may also be a major hint that artificial, inanimate proteins, even if they were accidentally formed in some ionic pond or deep-sea thermal vent, cannot initiate or support life forms.

Life at the cellular level is more complex than evolutionists are willing to admit. When cells produce proteins in nature they need numerous other supporting proteins to complete this complex process. Any proposed First Cell requiring previously made proteins to produce one new protein is a hurdle that defies evolutionary thinking. The idea of the existence of a "simple cell" in nature, whether in the fossil record or living cells, is an artificial biological invention. The fact that life at the cellular level depends upon the manufacture and motion of proteins that is designed, deliberate, and non-random, strongly suggests that life itself at the molecular level is not a progression contrived by natural processes acting accidentally or aimlessly.

~~~

# Chapter 5

A Fully Functioning Cell Required For Life

Let us assume that the gods Abiogenesis or Panspermia, against all odds, are indeed able to create some type of genetic molecule that can replicate itself. First, it will need to acquire information from somewhere on how to rapidly generate functional proteins and form a cell membrane to protect itself from a hostile environment. This protection is vital within its first few seconds of existence. In essence, this genetic molecule needs to come pre-programmed with minimum, accurate information on forming the perfect cell wall. Leaky or overly restrictive cell walls will not work. Anything less than a perfect cell wall will result in its early demise. _First Cell_ must immediately set up a system to regulate the passage of specific ions and molecules across this membrane.

Secondly, all nutrients required for life support, such as sugars, proteins, amino acids, enzymes, phosphates, etc., must be in place with the necessary mechanisms to process them within the newly emerged cell.

Thirdly, _First Cell_ will also need an inherent ability to learn and acquire more information on how to accurately replicate itself and produce offspring cells that are more complex. It will need to be injected, from somewhere, with an inordinate amount of genetic information on producing cells that will eventually turn themselves into acorns, sequoias, humans, fleas, pigs, or elephants. (According to naturalistic evolution, the progression of life goes from simple to complex, so there is no doubt that this injection of genetic information is essential.) _First Cells_ that evolve into human cells will need to have been injected somehow with 3 Gigabytes of accurate information on forming everything from hair, skin, brain cells, skull, eyes, nose, teeth, bones, blood, lungs, to stomach, liver, pancreas, intestines, arms, fingers, legs, toes, etc.

When blueprints and pre-programmed information are involved in a newly formed entity, it should be obvious that such phenomenon cannot be generated by guesswork. Precise, purposeful, meaningful information suggests that there is an intelligent source for this information. Science cannot give a valid, naturalistic explanation for such information existing in nature.

A cell capable of replication requires, at the very minimum, DNA or RNA that is enclosed and protected by a fully functional membrane. Which came first, the functional membrane or the genetic molecule? According to one respected biochemistry textbook that espouses the evolutionary model, "The first cell probably came into being when a membrane formed, enclosing a small volume of aqueous solution and separating it from the rest of the universe."

Now, large genetic molecules simply cannot move across these membranes without disrupting them. Obviously, by another lucky event in the cosmic lottery, the _First Cell_ must have also encapsulated a newly formed genetic molecule during this enclosing process, plus the minimal but necessary metabolites, such as the complex ATP molecule that energizes all life, coenzymes, and ribosomes. In addition, supporting, previously formed proteins must also be present if this cell is to perform minimally. There is no knowing what the odds of such an occurrence happening randomly, but as usual, the statistical odds favoring these naturalistic 'per-chance-events' tend to hover around zero. It is doubtful that a genetic molecule with a foreign membrane, a membrane it has no protein coding for, would be able to replicate itself, regardless of the amount of time available to complete this feat.

Dawkins argues in _The Blind Watchmaker_ that the information input required by simple, primitive cells to give rise to complicated living things—such as acorns, sequoias, humans, fleas, pigs, and elephants—came about by a trial and error method. Using an analogy of a monkey typing on a typewriter with 27 keys, he concluded that meaningful genetic information could be produced randomly for protein production. Professor Standish gives a studied, scientific-based analysis of this conjecture.

_What Dawkins is suggesting is that a very large group of proteins, none of which is functional, can be acted on by natural selection to select out a few that, while they do not quite do the job yet, with some modifications via mutation, can do the job in the future. This suggests that natural selection has some direction or goal in mind, a great heresy to those who believe evolutionary theory. This idea of natural selection fixing amino acids as it constructs functional protein is also unsupported by the data._ 118

Modern biochemistry makes some strong observations about the unchanging chemistry of life, particularly the contents of cells. Unfortunately, this honest conclusion does not aid the cause of evolutionary science.

_Perhaps the most remarkable property of living cells and organisms is their ability to reproduce themselves for countless generations with nearly perfect fidelity. The continuity of inherited traits implies constancy, over millions of years, in the structure of the molecules that contain the genetic information. Very few historical records of civilization, even those etched in copper or carved in stone, have survived for a thousand years. But there is good evidence that the genetic instructions in living organisms have remained nearly unchanged over very much longer periods; many bacteria have nearly the same size, shape, and internal structure and contain the same kinds of precursor molecules and enzymes that lived nearly four billion years ago._ 119

The concept, much less the proof, of stable, unchanging cell contents is not beneficial to the claims of evolutionary science. Cells need to progress, constantly increase their contents and become more sophisticated under this model. If the chemistry of life, which is the chemistry of cells, did not change over million or billions of years, how could chemical evolution possibly occur? How were 3 Gigabytes of information injected into a human cell by random, unguided, naturalistic processes to form the human genome?

Evolution Needs Unstable DNA

Experimental science has documented that DNA is extremely resistant to changes in its configuration of bases, hence informational content. The human genome is under constant threat from many toxic chemicals, ionizing radiation, and even the byproducts of normal metabolism called mutagens. Each cell has a built in system that monitors the DNA for damages and executes repairs when needed. Even if the double helix is chopped in two, which could result in catastrophic damage to the cell, a group of proteins that fixes double stranded DNA breaks is mobilized to correct the problem. Genomic stability does not support the idea of cellular evolution. It is counterproductive to this proposition. However, naturalistic evolution ignores genomic stability and grasps at another straw called genetic mutations, which are usually rare and irreversible.

_Despite the near-perfect fidelity of genetic replication, infrequent, unrepaired mistakes in the DNA replication, infrequent, unrepaired mistakes in the DNA replication process lead to changes in the nucleotide sequence of DNA, producing a genetic mutation and changing the instructions for some cellular component._ 121

The problem with mutations is that they are random, non-directed events and have a tendency to be permanent. The evolutionary idea is that "chance genetic variations" and natural selection have "resulted in the evolution of an enormous variety of organisms, each adapted to life in its particular ecological niche." Again, this is conjectural and not supported by any valid, research data.

Since genetic mutations are random and the rates of mutations are uncontrolled, there should be no decrease in the evolution of new species over time. In fact, if mutations are the driving force behind evolution it should occur ad infinitum, producing a continuum of species not easily differentiated. Theoretically, if the evolutionary model is correct about mutations, there should be a bizarre, undefined range of organisms existing throughout nature with little or no species differentiation.

A mutation is generally a loss or corruption of original, genetic information. Generally, there is little or no evidence of the existence of any mutation that better equips an organism; in fact, the evidence is to the contrary, particularly in the human genome.

Some genetic changes are very rare; others are common in the population. Genetic changes that occur in more than 1 percent of the population are called polymorphisms. They are common enough to be considered a normal variation in the DNA. Polymorphisms are responsible for many of the normal differences between people such as eye color, hair color, and blood type. Although many polymorphisms have no negative effects on a person's health, some of these variations may influence the risk of developing certain disorders.

Human diseases such as Tay-Sachs disease, cystic fibrosis, Klinefelter syndrome, Down syndrome, sickle cell anemia, maple syrup urine disease, and triple X syndrome are the consequences of genetic mutations. Their symptoms include a loss in motor skills, abnormal mucous production, abnormal male or female sexual development, intellectual disability, and low red blood cell count.

The examples of beneficial mutations given to support evolution are usually very weak, having no correlation with the actual genetic changes involved if any. Adaptation to high and low temperatures by _E. coli_ cannot be classified as a mutation if there is no proof of which gene mutated. In addition, there is no reason why normal bacteria cannot readapt to a new temperature. Antibiotic resistance example does not aid evolution since it does not create a new species apart from bacteria. Bacteria are able to protect themselves from antibiotics through "drug efflux pumps." Even if it is possible to induce beneficial mutations into in an organism, no evidence that these mutations can lead to new, previously unknown species, which is the crux of the issue.

Researchers at the University of Michigan are conducting an ongoing experiment in the laboratory with _E. coli_ that started in 1988 to prove that natural selection works. In 2009, they published an analysis of 40,000 generations of the bacteria in the journal _Nature_. At the 20,000-generation midpoint, the researchers discovered 45 mutations in surviving cells that apparently conferred some advantage on the organisms. Around the 26,000 generation, a mutation in DNA metabolism arose, which caused the mutation rate to increase significantly. By generation 40,000, the number of mutations had jumped to 653. The researchers admitted that most of the late mutations were not helpful to the alleged 'evolving' bacteria. There is no hint from the researchers as to what new species will emerge in the laboratory from these mutating bacteria, which is the logical conclusion of the matter. The guess is that they will remain as bacteria, regardless of the mutations, if they are healthy enough to replicate themselves in the end. Unfortunately, the definition of evolution seems to vary from researcher to researcher. In this instance, the term evolution is not even referring to the emergence of a new species.

Pierre-Paul Grasse (former president of the French Academy of Sciences) stated, "Mutations have a very limited 'constructive capacity' ... No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."

It is unfortunate that great minds like Stephen Hawking, former Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge, comment favorably on the alleged evolution of DNA without any consideration of the ramifications of the biochemical reactions that are involved. In _The Universe in a Nutshell_ , Hawking claims that, "As [DNA] makes copies of itself, there are occasional errors in the proportion or order of the bases along the spiral. In most cases, the mistakes in copying make the DNA either unable or less likely to reproduce itself, meaning that such genetic errors, or mutations, as they are called, will die out. But in a few cases, the error or mutation will increase the chances of the DNA surviving and reproducing." According to Hawking, while continuing to awkwardly pirouette outside of his field of study, "This is how the information contained in the sequence of the DNA gradually evolves in complexity."

These comments are highly speculative, presented as fact with no supporting evidence. In fact, they are contrary to empirical science. His analysis starts with DNA in a normal cell, which is able to replicate itself normally. He ignores the profound difficulty of starting DNA from scratch without pre-existing instructions and supporting proteins. He disregards the complex biochemical reactions that are involved in a stable, stubborn DNA molecule, making it highly resistant to change. Hawking also makes the claim that there is a link between the evolution of our DNA complexity, our written language, and our intelligence.

Because biological evolution is basically a random walk in the space of all genetic possibilities, it has been very slow. The complexity or number of bits of information that is coded in DNA is roughly the number of bases in the molecule. For the first two billion years or so, the rate of increase in complexity must have been of the order of one bit of information every hundred years. The rate of increase of DNA complexity gradually rose to about one bit a year over the last few million years. But then, about six or eight thousand years ago, a major new development occurred. We developed written language. This meant that information could be passed from one generation to the next without having to wait for the very slow process of random mutations and natural selection to code it into DNA sequence. The amount of complexity increased enormously. A single paperback romance could hold as much information as the difference in DNA between apes and humans, and a thirty-volume encyclopedia could describe the entire sequence of human DNA...

_There has been no significant change in human DNA in the last ten thousand years, but it is likely that we will be able to completely redesign it in the next thousand._ 130

The reasoning presented by Hawking seems logical and compelling, but is it sound science? It is somewhat difficult to comment on these allegations made by Hawking because they same to be a mixture of fact and mostly invention, originating from a man who is highly esteemed. (He, among others, received the Presidential Medal of Freedom award in 2009, the highest civilian honor in the United States.)

The allegation that oral information, passed on from generation to generation by word of mouth, somehow passes into our DNA and depends on mutations lacks certainty and clarity. It is doubtful that remembering facts through oral communication affects our DNA composition or results in mutations. If this were true, no information would be lost from our world as long as human beings were alive, had the ability to talk and remember and their DNA was intact. There would be no need to record information in computer hard drives, books, scrolls, clay tablets or any other form of data preservation. No kid would need to attend medical school if one of his parents were involved in the field. Moreover, oral information can easily be lost if some descendant is a mute or decides that he or she is not interested in the oral process, even if there is a hundred primary offspring, all identical in genetic composition to their parents. Information written in books can also be lost. Linking actual changes in oral and written information with alleged changes in genetic information is like comparing oranges to apples and grapes.

Adding bases linearly to a DNA molecule, base by base, to increase its informational content, seems to be a contrived mathematical process by Hawking rather than any consideration of the complex biochemical events that actually occur within a cell. It seems logical, from mathematical and evolutionary perspectives, but highly improbable in the realm of how nature operates.

Unfortunately, a cumulative change in the informational content of DNA is not a mathematical problem. Any unbalance in a DNA molecule of humans, such as an increase in a base, will generally result in disruptive processes. Natural DNA molecules come programmed to maintain their integrity, not to continue adding bases or genes ad infinitum. True science predicts that such an addition could give rise to troublesome, nonsensical proteins. No known DNA molecule or cell has a biochemical mechanism to increase its complexity smoothly and efficiently, or operate efficiently with an added extra base. This missing additive mechanism from living cells gouges at the very heart of evolutionary thinking. In fact, any cell starting with zero bases remains with zero bases. A zero-base cell is no doubt a non-living entity, incapable of duplicating itself.

There is insufficient evidence to conclude that human intelligence is proportional to the complexity of our genome; i.e., more genes equal more intelligence, less genes equal less intelligence. Most of the top geniuses in history, such as Albert Einstein, Galileo Galilee, Isaac Newton, Blasé Pascal, Leonardo Da Vinci, and Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, did not have close ancestors, siblings or descendants—people who would have had similar genetic traits—that preceded or followed their example. As far as known, individuals with high intelligent quotients do not have deformed, abnormal, or supernormal DNA with extra bases that they pass on to their progeny. Hawking unwittingly contradicts his conclusion by stating that, "There has been no significant change in human DNA in the last ten thousand years." Paradoxically, he is convinced that human intelligence can be improved in the future by increasing the complexity of our DNA through engineering. There is no empirical evidence linking natural selection or DNA complexity with increasing intelligence.

Natural Selection

Under the evolutionary model of progression, Natural Selection is the next god who takes control of evolution once Abiogenesis or Directed Panspermia has completed their seeding part. This god is also slow moving and mindless, needing millions and millions of years to perform its functions. Somehow, it is able to either manipulate pre-programmed information (which, as we have seen, was beyond the scope or control of Abiogenesis) or generate and intelligently arrange new genetic information using random, non-directed events, thus producing a large variety of well-organized entities. Naturalistic evolution is probably the only ideology, religious dogma or pseudoscience that considers noise or random, undirected events, to be beneficial, can conjure up the only processes on earth that miraculously convert trivial, random, meaningless clatter into consequential data.

Natural selection, if properly understood, simply involves the survival of certain organisms when their population is under stress, whether plants or animals—popularly known as 'survival of the fittest' in evolutionary circles. The weaker members perish, and those that are better equipped to handle the environmental stress survive and reproduce. This is a common occurrence in nature and it can be mimicked through the selective breeding of traits. "Descent with modification" through natural selection is an un-provable extrapolation. The natural survival process does not increase genetic diversity or fitness of the surviving members of the stressed species, as claimed by Darwinism. Such events, called genetic _bottlenecks,_ result in decreased diversity among the surviving members of the species who can become an endangered group, according to the National Biological Information Infrastructure.

_There is a delicate interdependence between biological and genetic diversity; changes in biodiversity result in changes in the environment, requiring subsequent adaptation of the remaining species. Changes in genetic diversity, particularly loss of diversity through loss of species, results in a loss of biological diversity._ 133

According to a study of sticklebacks by the University of British Columbia, mutations in these fishes "helps strengthen Darwin's theory of natural selection." Apparently, ocean going stickleback fish lost their armor "over 20,000 years ago" as they moved into the freshwater environs of streams and lakes. The study concluded that a mutant form of a gene or allele that prevents the growth of bony lateral plates, or "armor", is now popular in the freshwater populations. These freshwater "armor-less" fishes are now significantly larger than their oceanic counterparts are, allegedly supporting the "survival of the fittest" doctrine.

In reality, this study does little more than add weight to the scientific fact that it is possible to turn off or on certain genetic switches, depending on environmental factors such as salinity, pH, or temperature. Will the "armor-less" sticklebacks convert to their original form if they are moved to an oceanic environment? Maybe they will, but it is certain that their descendants will remain sticklebacks. There is no evidence that a new, improved version or species of fish is emerging. It is essential to understand that sticklebacks remain sticklebacks, regardless of the salinity of their environment and their armor. They are not evolving into any different type of creature, as implied by the study.

Most animals were created with genes that allow them to adapt to changes in their environment. Marine animals can adapt to lesser saline environs if the changes in salinity are gradual. Cobia and Pompano, popular edible saltwater fishes, can be reared in water having a salinity of only five parts per thousand. Oceans generally have a salinity of 35 parts per thousand. Tilapia fish can move rapidly from saltwater to freshwater with no apparent difficulty. Researchers at the University of California (Davis) have discovered that genetic switches in this fish are turned on and off in the gills as the salinity of their environment changes, allowing them to cope with the stress.

Frequently, scientists present fishes adapting to a new environment as proof positive for evolution. Researchers from the University of California (Riverside) studied guppies in the Yarra River, Trinidad, and concluded that evolution can occur in less than ten years. Introducing guppies into the nearby Damier River, they noticed eight years later "guppies in the low-predation environment above the barrier waterfall had adapted to their new environment by producing larger and fewer offspring with each reproductive cycle. No such adaptation was seen in the guppies that colonized the high-predation environment below the barrier waterfall." Are the guppies simply adapting to their new environment, or, are they evolving into a new type of animal? The implication is that they are evolving into a new species simply because they are bigger and smaller in number. The truth of the matter is that big guppies and small guppies are still guppies, not frogs or sharks that look like guppies.

Variations in the species of animals inhabiting the Galapagos Islands are also presented as absolute proof of evolution. Giant tortoises, wingless cormorants, marine iguanas, and beaked finches are nothing more than forms of tortoises, cormorants, iguanas and finches that migrated from other areas of the planet. There is no evidence that they are evolving into other types of animals. Where are the marine iguanas with fish scales, dorsal or caudal fins? Where are the tortoises with emerging wings? The genomes of these animals are complex enough to allow for numerous adaptations and variations.

The fact that tortoises from each island in the Galapagos have their own shell pattern has more to do with diet, inbreeding and the complexity of DNA than implications of the non-existence of a Creator God. Variation in species does not prove in any way that God was not capable of creating an animal that could give rise to other forms of that animal, depending upon external biological factors such as diet and population. In fact, this complexity of the genome of species to produce variations mitigates the claims of evolution. The Galapagos would be a more efficient model for evolution if intermediate species existed, such as half-fish half-iguanas.

Claims of proven evolution among mammals, such as that of the skinks called _Lerista_ in Australia, are made without regards to the basic understanding of the rules of genetics, it seems. Researchers from the University of Adelaide claim that these skinks have gone legless in just 3.6 million years.

_There are 75 species of these fast-evolving skinks called_ _Lerista_ _. These skinks have been crawling and slithering around Earth for about 13.4 million years, and even today, some have five fingers, some have four and some have none, or tiny stubs for legs._ 138

According to the researchers, "the evolution of a snake-like body form in _Lerista_ skinks has occurred not only repeatedly but without any evidence of reversals (that is, fingers or limbs being added back)."

Firstly, it is good to notice that the _Lerista_ skinks, regardless of the condition of their limbs, are still _Lerista_ skinks, even after 13.4 million years of supposedly evolving, which is to be expected. Secondly, a loss of information in the genome of a skink, if that is the case in this instance, hardly seems reason to suggest that a new, superior species of skinks is in the process of formation. Of course, the divine progress of naturalistic evolution is for organisms to increase in genetic complexity, unless the researchers were operating under a different definition. The loss of limbs of an organism, which hints at a loss in genetic information or gene suppression, seems to be a move in the opposite direction; maybe a more appropriate term in this case would be _un-evolution_. Creationists would have a problem if new, more sophisticated limbs, such as flippers, wings or bat ears, were showing up in _Lerista_ skinks, suggesting an increase in its genomic complexity. Such activities, if discovered, would greatly assist naturalistic evolutionists in their search for some quantum of compelling evidence.

Certainly, a genome is not static and we do have variations in the offspring of individuals for a particular species. However, dogs remain dogs, lizards remain lizards, and pigeons remain pigeons, regardless of their varied physical characteristics. The same is true for all living organisms. This phenomenon of variety within a species has been dubbed _microevolution_ , which is unfortunate since it mostly involves the expression or suppression of gene activity within a genome, not the acquisition of new information or genes by random events that lead to superior organisms.

Today most scientists patronizingly use the term evolution as a byword without realizing that it is an ideology that is not grounded in empirical science. They do not understand that it is primarily a philosophy; it is also a part of atheistic religion, parading as science, attempting to destroy the concept of a Creator. Charles Darwin, with help from Thomas H. Huxley, his "bull dog," understood that Creator demolition was necessary for this philosophy to take root. According to Sir Julian Huxley, grandson of T. H. Huxley, "Darwin's real achievement was to remove the whole idea of God as the Creator of organisms from rational discussion." This act has resulted in the formation of another religion, one of massive atheistic proportions with mysterious gods that disobey the rules of nature.

Paul E. Wald, author of Plague Time, contends that evolutionary theory is "the software that unifies knowledge about the biochemical processes", which implicates infectious agents, such as viruses, bacteria, and other parasites, as the primary causation of diseases rather than just "bad genes or bad environments." He gives vigor, intelligence, and purpose to the god-like concept of naturalistic evolution, yet invoking its name.

Natural selection assesses the strengths and weaknesses of competing pathogens much as judges of a decathlon assess the strengths and weaknesses of competitors in different arenas.

Here natural selection is acting in an intelligent manner, acting much like a creator. Darwin also presented natural selection acting in a god-like manner, which may have been paraphrased by Wald.

_It may metaphorically be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, the slightest variations; rejecting those that are bad, preserving and adding up all that are good; silently and insensibly working,_ _whenever and wherever opportunity offers_ _, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life._ 141

Ironically, in order to destroy the concept of a one-creator religion, it is necessary for evolutionists to create another religion with multiple gods that reject universal law and order. However, the basics of worship—"adoration, devotion, and respect for an entity"—and faith—"a firm belief in something for which there is no physical proof"— are maintained in this new religion. Its founder, Darwin, is adored and highly respected, treated like a prophet and god, as though his pronouncements about the origin of species were unquestionable and infallible.

With the real Creator gone from the picture, the mysteries of the origin of life remain. Darwin and his disciples realize that they need to hire replacements to solve these mysteries so they invented smaller improbable gods, creators that make small steps over long periods and are capable of converting chaotic data into vast libraries of precise information, without any direction to achieve this accomplishment by any intelligent means whatsoever. These new gods, Abiogenesis, Directed Panspermia, and Natural Selection, are presented as having premeditation and intelligence, are not capable of adhering to the laws of nature, operate in the arena of pseudoscience, and are products of intellectual fantasy, circular reasoning and conjecture.

~~~

# Chapter 6

Modern Information Theory

Modern information theory, introduced by Claude Shannon in 1948, asserts that random events, or noise, inhibit the flow of information in the communication process. This mathematical theory has proved beneficial in many scientific areas, such as communications, physiology, linguistics and physics. The first component of this simple abstract model is the message source. Meaningful information—such as the genetic information contained in DNA—does not exist without a _source_ , someone or something that creates a message. This message or signal, created by the source, is then _encoded_ and delivered through a _channel_ that transmits it. Anything that interferes with the transmission of the signal is called _noise_. A _decoder_ then converts the message into a form that can be understood by the _subject_ receiver.142

Nature is filled with highly complex information. Francis Crick, James Watson, and Maurice Wilkins received the Nobel Prize in Medicine for their discoveries concerning the molecular structure of nucleic acids and its significance for information transfer in living material. The inherited 'Bow-wow' of a dog or the 'Meow' of a cat is the result of complex genetic information that no one can currently explain.

It is important to reiterate that the _First Cell_ of evolutionary processes must be simple and void of meaningful information. If _First Cell_ comes pre-programmed with any meaningful, useful information then it violates the basic tenet of naturalistic evolution—no designer, no programmer, no architect, no creator, and no intelligent source of information. Unfortunately, as we have noted, this creates a dilemma for _First Cell_. It cannot survive or even replicate itself without having some type of meaningful genetic information that was in existence _prior_ to its formation and first replication.

Information theory, a sound scientific tool, predicts that if meaningful information exists in nature then there must be a source, someone or something, that created that information. The proponents of naturalistic evolutionary dogma cringe and revolt at such an unbearable concept. However, this prediction is in line with Darwin's initial idea of a Creator. Regrettably (for evolutionists), information theory also predicts that meaningful information cannot be created by noise, nullifying the mysterious god called Natural Selection, which apparently relies on the conversion of random events called mutations into vast amounts of highly organized genetic data over extraordinarily long periods. Mutagens, which are agents that cause mutations, are essentially a form of noise, interfering with the accurate transmission of genetic information from parent to offspring.

Naturalistic evolution makes the important point that all living organisms share the same chemicals. This is an indisputable scientific fact. The same kinds of cells with large molecules, such as DNA, RNA, proteins, appear in bacteria, plants, dogs, horses, apes, and human beings. However, evolution irreverently extrapolates that, due to these genetic similarities, all life evolved from the same evolutionary ancestor, a _First Cell_ or progenitor. Maybe there is a different explanation; an explanation that is not fallacious and filled with so many improbabilities, religious incongruities, and non-science.

Visit an old-fashioned library and you will notice that all of the books in the shelves have something in common—generally, they consist of paper. They all share the same physical characteristics: a front and back cover, maybe some a little thicker than others, a little more colorful than others, maybe some images, and pages that are printed with some type of darker ink, which varies in color and intensity. These pages are usually coded with alphanumeric characters throughout. However, the similarities stop there. The information contained in the pages of a book about the Amazon rainforest is substantially different from that of a book on human reproduction. Informational content is the defining factor of every single book in a library, despite the fact that all books have similar or almost identical physical characteristics.

Evolutionary science joins in the fallacy of an illiterate, uninformed observer stumbling into the library and concluding that a book is a book is a book, regardless of its informational content; and, regrettably, concluding there is no author for these books! It erroneously concludes that a human being is not different from an ape, which is not different from a bacterium or a tree, and that they all came from the same book. One can hardly argue logically, with a straight face, that a book on mathematics is no different from one about art, biochemistry or geology. It is extremely doubtful that blind, chaotic forces were once at work creating volumes of meaningful information.

Life, as we know it on Earth, comes in a vast library of sophisticated genetic information written on reams of DNA and RNA molecules. Each organism on planet earth comes with its own book of information, its own genome, written with five letters or bases (A, G, T or U, and C). The fact that the genome of each species is controlled by sophisticated, redundant systems to protect from random, induced genetic changes, diminishes the possibility that one species will propagate or evolve into another species that is significantly different. These mechanisms, if properly understood, prevent a book about photography from evolving into a book on metaphysics on a random basis.

It is erroneous to conclude that just because two or more genomes from different species are almost identical in wording the organisms must all be descendants. This absurdity becomes evident when comparing the genome of a small kangaroo, a Tamar wallaby named Matilda, with that of human beings, mice and chimps. Australian researchers working with the government-funded Centre of Excellence for Kangaroo Genomics determined that Matilda's genome was almost identical to that of human beings. Therefore, the conclusion was that the kangaroo shared a common ancestor 150 million years ago. Furthermore, since the genome of humans, mice, and chimps are somewhat similar, the evolutionary conclusion is that they all came from the same ancestor.143

The physical appearance and behavior of human beings, kangaroos, mice, and chimps are profoundly different. This alone seems sufficient evidence to conclude that small variations in genetic information between distinct species can result in tremendous physical differences. There is no actual fossil or other physical evidence linking humans, mice, chimps, and kangaroos to one common ancestor. Scientific research has shown that there is significantly more genetic difference between mice and humans than first thought. Now that the analysis of the mouse genome is complete, up to 25% of its genes are completely different from human genes.144

A group of American and Canadian researchers examined how trauma stimulated the genes of humans and mice. They discovered that mice are not humans.145

People's immune systems reacted in predictable ways, cranking up activity in genes that cause inflammation and quieting other immune system genes... When the researchers compared the gene activity changes in people with burns versus people with trauma, they found 97 percent similarity. For injuries and endotoxin exposure, 88 percent of genes responses were similar.

But mouse responses were more varied, says study coauthor Wenzhong Xiao, a genome scientist at Harvard University and Stanford University. Compared with what goes on in humans, 47 to 63 percent of mouse genes changed activity in the same way. The result was not far from what researchers would expect from random chance.

The results indicate that humans and mice react differently to traumas that often land people in intensive care units. "We need to take those differences into serious consideration, which people currently do not," Xiao says.

While scientists have sequenced the human genome over a decade ago in 2000, they are having difficulty deciphering the complex language of DNA and applying it to medical use. This is because, among other reasons, they have so far only been able to read 1% of the genome that code for protein. However, Professor Jussi Taipale of the Karolinska Institutet in Sweden led in a study that identified the DNA sequences that bind to over four hundred proteins that control expression of genes. His scientific viewpoint almost makes it crystal clear why it is ridiculous to compare mice as the relatives of humans, simply because genetic similarities exist between their genomes.

_"The genome is like a book written in a foreign language, we know the letters but cannot understand why a human genome makes a human or the mouse genome a mouse... Why some individuals have higher risk to develop common diseases such as heart disease or cancer has been even less understood."_ 146

Comparing mice to people can be risky. In addition, the transplant of tissue between human beings having almost 100% genetic similarity is also risky. Human tissue cannot simply be transplanted to other humans _ad hoc_ and they survive, much less between kangaroos, mice and chimps. A healthy human immune system will attack any foreign protein, known as an antigen. Interestingly, no two human beings have identical tissue antigens, except identical twins. Therefore, human tissue must be diligently "typed" for antigen similarity before transplant, and immunosuppressive drugs are required to prevent tissue rejection, which does not always guarantee success.147 This suggests that minor differences in DNA can indicate significant biological differences, such as considerable tissue differences between humans, kangaroos, mice, and chimps. Consequently, the idea of using "evolutionary considerations" to find appropriate tissue transplants between species is almost meaningless.

Several attempts have been made to transplant organs between other species, called _xenotransplantation_ , but they have all ended in failure. In 1964, Dr. James D. Hardy at the University of Mississippi attempted to transplant a chimpanzee heart to a dying patient. The heart stopped beating after a little more than an hour. Between 1963 and 1964, Dr. Keith Reemtsma (1925-2000) at Tulane University in New Orleans transplanted several chimpanzee kidneys to humans. These patients all died of major infection from eight to sixty-three days after receiving the foreign kidneys. Dr. Leonard Bailey of Loma Linda University, California, transplanted a baboon's heart to Baby Fae in 1984, which was probably the most famous case of cross-species transplantation, spawning ethical debates on this procedure. Baby Fae lived for 20 days with the heart of a baboon.148

Forensic science has capitalized on the molecular or informational differences between the DNA of humans and animals. Relying on 13 DNA regions that vary from person to person, scientists can create a DNA profile or biological fingerprint of a specific individual.149 Animal tissue can easily be differentiated from that of humans using DNA testing. Animal forensics using DNA can identify dogs that have attacked human beings or other animals. A West Australian man was the first convicted in an animal cruelty case using canine DNA.150

Our informational content is so precisely engineered that is difficult to conclude that there is a so-called past "evolutionary link" between other animals, particularly fishes, and man. However, researchers at the CSIC-Universidad Pablo de Olavide-Junta de Andalucía in Spain did something special that seems to prove that this link once existed on a biological level. They introduced an extra gene called Hoxd13 into the embryo of a zebra-fish. The result was that the embryo developed a deformed limb that resembled a leg more than a fin. However, there was no definitive biological proof that a new leg came into existence, just that the malformed embryonic fin "looked" like a leg. According to the researchers, "Changes in HoxD13 production likely contributed to the transition from fin to leg development, during animal evolution."151

By introducing an extra gene into the embryo of the zebra-fish, the researchers were artificially inserting additional genetic information, which is usually problematic since excess genetic material generally causes deformities. There is no evidence to suggest that such a scenario would have occurred naturally. In reality, the DNA control element for the Hoxd13 gene is absent from fish. It is only present in the embryonic limbs of mouse.152 This experimental attempt to show how fish turned into man is not persuasive.

The Genesis account of creation is consistent with modern information theory. God created plants and animals, mice and men; therefore, He is the _source_ of their complex genetic information. In reverse, modern information theory predicts that if highly complex, meaningful molecular information exists in nature then there must be an intelligent source, someone or something, that created that information. The Bible refers to this intelligent source as the Creator of the universe.

Real science excludes the possibility of meaningful information being generated in nature by _noise_ or randomly generated events over millions of years. If modern information theory was false, then it would be pointless for scientists to search the universe for radio signals in hope of finding extraterrestrial life. It would indicate that meaningful radio signals from space can be generated randomly by noise or no particular intelligent source. Archaeology would be a pointless endeavor if ancient information could be produced _ad hoc_ by non-intelligent sources. Imagine the random action of the weather on rocks, boulders and sand, forming a complete town with Roman baths and amphitheaters in the middle of a desert over eons. Such a possibility would be considered ridiculous, of course.

In parallel thinking, it is highly doubtful that extremely complex, meaningful genetic information can be produced by random, meaningless chaotic events in nature. However, the proponents of evolutionary theory insist that unassisted nature is capable of producing complex molecular information from nothingness over millions of years, somewhat like a monkey typing on a keyboard, being able to create an intelligible word now and then. (Unfortunately for this proposal of randomness and non-directedness, even monkeys have limited intelligence and keyboards must have a creator.) Evolutionary science is probably the only field of study that insists complex information can be created by non-intelligent, non-directed sources, which is in direct contradiction of modern information theory, considered a basic scientific tenet.

Scientific Hoaxes and Fossils

With no compelling molecular evidence to assist naturalistic theories, evolutionists often rely heavily on fossils. Ironically, the search for evolutionary evidence began with a hoax perpetrated by its imminent founder, Charles Darwin. In 1912, he allegedly 'found' some fascinating bones in a gravel pit. A paleontologist at the British Museum, after examining the bones, declared them the "missing link" between humans and apes, the Piltdown Man. After 40 years of being defended and praised by evolutionists, objective scientists were finally able to determine that Piltdown man was nothing more than a fraudulent, deliberate attempt to convince others that evolution is real and supported by the fossil record.153 This hoax was no doubt in keeping with Darwin's admission of being fond from a child of inventing falsehoods in order to create excitement.154

Another major fraud perpetrated was the discovery of the "missing link" between dinosaurs and birds—this one called _Archaeoraptor_. In 1999, _National Geographic Magazine_ glowingly reported on this super specimen, claiming that it "proved" evolution. It turned out to be 'nothing more than a forgery constructed in China from rearranged pieces of real fossils from different species.'155

Extraordinary ruckus was made of the _Coelacanth_ , a lobed-fin fish, in evolutionary circles. Unlike most fishes, its pectoral and anal fins somewhat resemble limbs, being fleshy stalks that cover bones. Because of these fleshy fins, the evolutionary conclusion is, "They are ...the closest link between fish and the first amphibian creatures which made the transition from sea to land in the Devonian period (408-362 Million Years Ago)."156 As usual, there is no scientific corroborating evidence for this allegation. These fishes, once believed to have gone extinct during the "Cretaceous period," are present today in the western Indian Ocean. They are few in number, sensitive to light and prefer deeper waters.

Ironically, the anatomy of living Coelacanths is no different from vestiges found in the sparse, disjointed fossil record; consequently, they are referred to as an ancient "living fossil." A logical explanation is that Coelacanths have always been Coelacanths since creation, which casts further doubt on evolutionary claims. For the completion of evolutionary logic, one should find a coelacanth-like mammal that walks, or walked, upright on land but has not completely shed its fishy fins or scales.

Not finding the exact copy of the bones of a living animal in a fossilized form is insufficient reason to conclude that that animal is "new" or "modern," a reasonable step in thinking that some believers seem to miss. (There is no proof that all extinct species appear in the fossil record.) Many animals living today are smaller than their biological ancestors were, for reasons such as diet and environment, but the bones of their ancestors may or may not appear in the fossil record. The existence of so-called "living fossils" diminishes the basic claims of evolutionary science.

The shaggy, russet-colored "Heck" cattle or aurochs now living in the wild in Holland have been dubbed an "ancient cattle species." This classification is based on its resemblance to "ochre and charcoal paintings in the Great Hall of the Bulls at Lascaux in southwest France." These animals were thought to have been extinct.157 It is not certain that these cave paintings are an unabridged depiction of all types of cattle existing at that time, but it is highly unlikely. "Modern" Egyptian cattle, and many other animals, strongly resemble those depicted in murals found in the ancient tombs of the Pharaohs. It is impossible to go back in antiquity, check the biological records, and declare that a certain species is "ancient" or "modern". There is no biological test to determine whether the DNA from any living entity, plant or animal, is "ancient" or "modern." These are simply biased observations.

The desperate search for intermediate fossils or so-called "transitional species" to support evolutionary thinking is a never-ending quest. In 2009, anthropologists presented the world with 'Ida,' a "47-million-year-old human ancestor" dubbed _Darwinius masillae_ in honor of Darwin's 200th anniversary, and declared it as "the first link to all humans...truly a fossil that links world heritage." Discovered in Germany's Messel Pit, a mile-wide crater rich in oil shale and other fossils, scientists deemed Ida a prehistoric primate link between prosimians (lemurs, etc.) and anthropoids (monkeys, apes, and humans).158 Ida seemed to have been a stroke of good luck for many evolutionists. This apparently lucky lady was promoted with gusto, having a website of her own.

_Scientists have long hoped that the Earth might eventually yield an even more ancient fossil that links apes, man and all other primates to the earliest mammals on the planet. Now Ida is rewriting the history of our earliest origins. She is the most complete primate fossil ever found and has proto-anthropoid features, placing her at the base of the anthropoid branch which leads to monkeys, apes, and humans. Here at last, 150 years after the publication of_ _On the Origin of Species_ _, we have the link that connects us directly with the rest of the animal kingdom._ 159

This tenuous link was based on one tiny bone—a foot bone, called the talus—in the entire skeleton of an animal about the size of a raccoon. Apparently, it has the same basic shape of similar bones found in humans but is much smaller.

This "weighty evidence," mordantly speaking, found in one solitary fossil of an allegedly extinct species, was sufficient for highly esteemed naturalist Sir David Attenborough to gaily and robustly proclaim, "The link they would have said until now is missing...it is no longer missing." This triumphant outburst by Attenborough strongly suggests that there was no substantiate evidence supporting the claims of fossil evolution to start with, at least prior to Ida's dramatic appearance in 2009 with her tiny talus bone. Imagine, the claims of evolutionary science now resting on one solitary bone, something that Thomas Henry Huxley deeply abhorred and considered poor science. The proof of transitional forms in the fossil record is meagerly overwhelming, to say the very least.

Ironically, other competing evolutionary scholars soon challenged Ida's eminence as a transitional fossil, delivering a precise pinprick to this bubble of evolutionary enthusiasm. On July 1, 2009, the _Proceedings of the Royal Society B (Biological Sciences)_ published research online claiming that a new fossil primate from Myanmar (formerly Burma) is the true common ancestor of humans, monkeys and apes, not Ida.

This newly discovered primate, _Ganlea megacanina_ , apparently shows that anthropoids originated in Asia rather than Africa. According to the researchers, Ida was more closely related to lemurs than humans and apes.160 Erik Seiffert of Stony Brook University in New York stated that Ida was far removed from the monkey-ape-human ancestry.161 Other evolutionary experts agreed. So much for the honor bestowed upon Darwin with _Darwinius masillae._

'Ardi' has now replaced the famous 'Lucy,' which was nothing more than the partial skeleton of an extinct species ( _Australopithecus afarensis_ ) alleged to be the link between apes and modern humans that lived some 3.9 million years ago. By the end of 2009, _Ardipithecus ramidus_ was the older kid on the block that linked us to the apes, purportedly "our last ancestor" with the chimps that lived 4.4 million years ago in the woodlands of ancient Ethiopia. Evolutionists are convinced that "we shared and evolved from a common ancestor some 6 million or more years ago."162

It is not certain if this 'human origins' charade will ever end. The very ground, goal posts and bleachers are constantly shifting in this minefield of pseudoscience. Anthropology, paleontology, and other related fields seem to generate nebulous art forms of evolutionary hope that spring up and disappear, rather than sound science.

There is a growing body of evidence challenging the claims of animal evolution found in the fossil record. Researchers at Oregon State University, evolutionists themselves, have disputed the idea that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs. Recent studies indicate that birds breathe differently from dinosaurs and have a lung capacity designed for flight. Funded by the National Science Foundation, these studies were published in the _Journal of Morphology_. John Ruben, professor of zoology at OSU, made the point clear:

"For one thing, birds are found earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they are supposed to have descended from. That's a pretty serious problem, and there are other inconsistencies with the bird-from-dinosaur theories...But one of the primary reasons many scientists kept pointing to birds as having descended from dinosaurs was similarities in their lungs. However, theropod dinosaurs had a moving femur and therefore could not have had a lung that worked like that in birds. Their abdominal air sac, if they had one, would have collapsed. That undercuts a critical piece of supporting evidence for the dinosaur-bird link. A velociraptor did not just sprout feathers at some point and fly off into the sunset."

The OSU researchers are certain that birds evolved separately from dinosaurs and have been challenging the 'birds-descended-from-dinosaurs' so-called evolutionary fact since the 1990s. Ruben concedes that the museum-like politics of naturalistic evolution trumps good science

The Geologic Column and Radiometric Dating

To date, the world has never been presented with a complete, realistic sample of a so-called _geologic column_ in nature that allegedly comprises the strata systems of fossils used to prove that evolutionary theory is valid. Apparently, this column exists only in the drawings and diagrams of geologists.163 The layers of sedimentary rock in the geologic column supposedly reveal the chronological order that life forms appeared on Earth, moving from single-celled organisms at the bottom to the _Homo_ species ( _Homo sapiens_ , etc.) at the uppermost layers.

Ironically, some evolutionists argue that the geologic column is a reality, but cleverly admit at the same time that it is also only a theoretical framework when addressing the problem of missing layers in the column, which is somewhat disingenuous and conflicting.

Missing layers are no problem at all once one understands that the geologic column is an abstract conceptual tool, an ideal reference frame, which gives order to the overall geologic record. It's like a dictionary listing the more important English words. No one expects that every one of those words will be present in some history book! Neither does the geologist expect any particular locality to exhibit all the known strata.

... _The geologic column has no missing strata because it is a catalog of all known strata; it is not a physical locality but a chronological compilation of all localities, an ideal reference frame._ 164

Phrases such as "an abstract conceptual tool" or "a catalog of all known strata" give credence to the contention that the overall geologic column is not a reality but a fabrication used to support evolutionary thinking. Some geologists themselves are confused about the dating and positioning of certain strata within the geologic column. In a letter to members of the International Commission on Stratigraphy, the Chairman, Prof. Stanley Finney, discusses some of the problems.

_We have a most important matter to consider and on which to vote – two different proposals regarding the definitions or re-definitions (rank, extent, and GSSP) of the Quaternary, Pleistocene, Neogene and Pliocene [strata]. As you recall, these are matters with long, controversial histories._ 165

David Mills, who received the blessings of Richard Dawkins, attempted to address the importance of the geologic column. "Why is the geologic column important to evolutionary theory? Because the oldest fossil-bearing layers of rock—3.5 billion years old—contain fossils only of simple, one-cell organisms, which lived in the oceans. ...Moving upward, these multicellular lifeforms evolve into soft-bodied creatures, such as corals, sponges and worms."166 The so-called 'dating' of these rock fossils is even more important to evolutionary theory.

According to one Christian Scientist, Dr. Roger C. Wiens, PhD in Physics and Geology, geologic techniques involving radiometric dating are reliable and the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old, which supports evolutionary thinking.167

Arguments over the age of the Earth have sometimes been divisive for people who regard the Bible as God's word. Even though the Earth's age is never mentioned in the Bible, it is an issue because those who take a strictly literal view of the early chapters of Genesis can calculate an approximate date for the creation by adding up the life-spans of the people mentioned in the genealogies. Assuming a strictly literal interpretation of the week of creation, even if some of the generations were left out of the genealogies, the Earth would be less than ten thousand years old. Radiometric dating techniques indicate that the Earth is thousands of times older than that--approximately four and a half billion years old. Many Christians accept this and interpret the Genesis account in less scientifically literal ways. However, some Christians suggest that the geologic dating techniques are unreliable, that they are wrongly interpreted, or that they are confusing at best. Unfortunately, much of the literature available to Christians has been either inaccurate or difficult to understand, so that confusion over dating techniques continues.

This apparently expert scientific assessment by Dr. Wiens would seem to ring the death knell for those who contend that Earth and the Universe are young, around ten thousand years or less. However, the USGS (U. S. Geological Survey) has a statement on the age of the Earth, which is revealing to the open-minded person.

So far scientists have not found a way to determine the exact age of the Earth directly from Earth rocks because Earth's oldest rocks have been recycled and destroyed by the process of plate tectonics. If there are any of Earth's primordial rocks left in their original state, they have not yet been found. Nevertheless, scientists have been able to determine the probable age of the Solar System and to calculate an age for the Earth by assuming that the Earth and the rest of the solid bodies in the Solar System formed at the same time and are, therefore, of the same age.

_The ages of Earth and Moon rocks and of meteorites are measured by the decay of long-lived radioactive isotopes of elements that occur naturally in rocks and minerals and that decay with half-lives of 700 million to more than 100 billion years to stable isotopes of other elements. These dating techniques, which are firmly grounded in physics and are known collectively as radiometric dating, are used to measure the last time that the rock being dated was either melted or disturbed sufficiently to rehomogenize its radioactive elements._ 168

This statement confirms that science relies on certain assumptions, which may be un-provable. They may also be false. Considering this uncertainty, they may not necessarily be reliable scientific facts when estimating the age of the Earth. Radiometric dating is science tied directly to the calculation of the age of the Solar System, based directly on assumptions concerning the behavior of light and radioactive elements in the past. It cannot give a precise age to any rock or planet, similar to the measurement of temperature with a thermometer.

The unspoken assumption that all stable daughter elements on Earth today, such as Lead, Strontium, Argon, and Neodymium, are derived solely from their radioactive parent isotopes (Uranium, Thorium, Rubidium, Potassium, and Samarium), which are commonly used in radiometric dating, may be a supposition without merit or scientific support.

The planet may not have been one radioactive fireball of radioisotopes to start with, as assumed by science. There may have been a mixture of stable daughter elements and their parent isotopes existing on day one. Very little effort is exerted in determining the actual role naturally occurring radioisotopes play in maintaining life on the planet. It seems intuitively clear that a major purpose of these radioactive parent elements is to help keep the planet sanitized and fit for life.

Certainly, if the Creator formed the planet around 10,000 years ago with a planned mixture of parent-daughter elements, then the results of radiometric dating—even though the process is firmly grounded in physics and mathematics—would still, conceivably, indicate a very old age for rocks in millions or billions of years. In reality, the half-life of a radioisotope and the moment it was created in time may be unrelated issues. However, they seem to have been linked and intertwined by modern science.

According to the USGS, not all types of rocks can be dated using radiometric methods.

Interweaving the relative time scale with the atomic time scale poses certain problems because only certain types of rocks, chiefly the igneous variety, can be dated directly by radiometric methods; but these rocks do not ordinarily contain fossils. Igneous rocks are those such as granite and basalt which crystallize from molten material called "magma"...

_Most sedimentary rocks such as sandstone, limestone, and shale are related to the radiometric time scale by bracketing them within time zones that are determined by dating appropriately selected igneous rocks..._ 169

Consequently, it is impossible, using current technology, to determine the actual age of a stone fossil found in sedimentary rock with direct radiometric techniques. This is contrary to the claims of evolutionary theory and paleontology. The age of a fossil is assumed identical to that of other surrounding rock, which is not necessarily true. Paleontology also insists that no fossil can be younger than 10,000 years.170 This is somewhat dogmatic and unscientific. Of course, a young rock fossil less than this age would cast severe doubts on many of the claims of evolutionary science. Ironically, scientists usually employ guesswork in estimating the age of any rock, which is grossly unreliable.

Carbon-14 dating is useful in determining the age of organic matter derived from plants or animals such as wood, charcoal, shells, bone, and peat. Stone fossils are devoid of such organic matter and cannot be dated by this method. However, this method also comes with several assumptions, which may be inherently true or false.

_A measurement of the_ 14 _C content of an organic sample will provide an accurate determination of the sample's age if it is assumed that (1) the production of_ 14 _C by cosmic rays has remained essentially constant long enough to establish a steady state in the_ 14 _C/_ 12 _C ratio in the atmosphere, (2) there has been a complete and rapid mixing of_ 14 _C throughout the various carbon reservoirs, (3) the carbon isotope ratio in the sample has not been altered except by_ 14 _C decay, and (4) the total amount of carbon in any reservoir has not been altered. In addition, the half-life of_ 14 _C must be known with sufficient accuracy, and it must be possible to measure natural levels of_ 14 _C to appropriate levels of accuracy and precision._ 171

The application of these assumptions is fragile, especially when dealing with areas of Earth's environmental history that are in the distant, nebulous past. An old age for a specimen using this method may be meaningless, if any assumption has been violated, knowingly or unknowingly.

_A shellfish alive today in a lake within a limestone catchment, for instance, will yield a radiocarbon date which is excessively old. The reason for this anomaly is that the limestone, which is weathered and dissolved into bicarbonate, has no radioactive carbon. Thus, it dilutes the activity of the lake meaning that the radioactivity is depleted in comparison to 14C activity elsewhere. The lake, in this case, has a different_ _radiocarbon reservoir_ _than that of the majority of the radiocarbon in the biosphere and therefore an accurate radiocarbon age requires that a correction be made to account for it._ 172

Generally, the older the age returned by Carbon-14 dating process the higher the risk is that there is an anomaly influencing the outcome, which may be unknown.

The scientific method of radiometric dating does not include the assertion or assumption that God created or influences nature. Its methods and reasoning is devoid of the possibility that the Creator may have fashioned a mixture of parent isotopes and daughter elements when he created the Universe. Consequently, radiometric dating may seemingly contradict but not necessarily invalidate the Genesis genealogy and a young Earth theory. Evolutionary processes, which are random by nature and unplanned, require eons and eons of time. Ignoring the Creator factor in radiometric dating provides naturalistic evolutionary science with the required time for these random events to occur, apparently.

In 1977, Pierre-Paul Grasse, a well-qualified scientist, encouraged biologists to refute the erroneous doctrine of evolution, and his views are still valid today.

Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs.173

This objection cannot be dismissed simply as religious dissent. It is uncertain that Grasse was a pious individual or creationist who believed in the Bible, since there is no reference to God in his works. Undoubtedly, he understood that there was no valid scientific support for evolutionary philosophy.

Unfortunately, the academic scientific community today has accepted naturalistic evolution as established science, even while its followers scramble to come up with some plausible, empirical-based explanation for the origin and diversity of life. How is it possible for error to be so readily acceptable in modern society? There is an answer to this question. Ironically, an evolutionist was able to give a sensible explanation for such a phenomenon.

Motoo Kimura, an evolutionary geneticist who attempted to replace Darwinism with his own neutral theory, gave the perfect explanation. Here is his conclusion:

_Looking back, I think that it is a curious human nature, that if a certain doctrine is constantly being spoken of favorably by the majority endorsed by top authorities in their books and taught in classes, then a belief is gradually built up in one's mind, eventually becoming the guiding principle and the basis of value judgement._ 174

Undoubtedly, repetition, repetition and repetition are the keys to promoting and accepting scientific error.

Naturalistic evolution, also known as Neo-Darwinism, is inherently a doctrine, a philosophy, an informal religion favorably approved by most intellectuals. Ironically, governments and private institutions spend gigantic sums of money to find some scrap of concrete evidence that will support this belief. Unfortunately, it is an extreme pitfall, the money pit of modern scientific thinking.

Conclusion

Charles R. Darwin and Thomas Henry Huxley were successful in introducing a naturalistic theory that most scientists today view as established science. They accomplished this feat by primarily creating doubt in miracles recorded in the Bible, creating an ever-increasing chasm between science and religious matters. This Darwinian theory of naturalistic evolution essentially removed any concept that the universe was created by an intelligent being, as declared in the Bible.

Instead of one Creator God, the theory of naturalistic evolution fashions other smaller 'non-intelligent gods' or laws that still act mysteriously and outside of the known laws of nature. Abiogenesis, the most mysterious god or law, was somehow able to allow life to randomly and spontaneously arise from inert chemicals in the distant past. This mysterious entity or activity is no longer on the go today and cannot be verified. No one can give a valid natural explanation on how it achieved its objective of creating life, since all activities in this arena are haphazardly pointless.

An established law of nature, as expressed by Francis Crick, contradicts the proposed Abiogenesis entity, which states that DNA makes RNA makes Protein! Protein is required for all life forms on Earth. DNA, RNA and proteins are highly complex molecules that support each other for life processes to occur. Consequently, earth life forms simply could not have arisen from simple inert, molecular compounds.

Crick realized that life on Earth was far too complex to have started is some pond teeming with the proper chemical ingredients, as suggested by Darwin. Instead, he proposed that life on Earth came from other planets through space by a process called Directed Panspermia. This idea, supported by Richard Dawkins and evolutionary scientists in general, concocts the claim that the universe has billions and billions of earthlike planets teeming with life; therefore, life was able to easily spread throughout the far reaches of space. So far, no astronomer has been able to substantiate that an Earth II exists, much less the billions and billions of other alleged earths.

Modern information theory, discovered by Claude Shannon, routs the naturalistic claim that complex genetic information arose from random, non-directed events. Noise or randomly generated events cannot produce meaningful information. Time on its own, regardless of the length involved, does not alter this established scientific principle. It is impossible for billions of years of "deep time" to generate intelligent information in any form from noise or accidental events that is understandable, important or evocative. Genetic mutations rarely, if at all, assist organisms.

With no supporting evidence, many evolutionists have resorted to engineering corroborating data for naturalistic evolution. Darwin concocted Piltdown Man in order to prove that there was a "missing link" between apes and humans. A fossil called _Archaeoraptor_ was manufactured in China to establish the "missing link" between dinosaurs and birds. Scientists routinely rely on an alleged Geologic Column that does not exist in nature. Computer programs are routinely used to 'prove' evolution.

In reality, the origin of life theory as proposed by naturalistic evolution has no valid scientific basis. Evolutionary projections generally run counter to the way nature behaves. A major fortune is being spent to find some empirical data that will support naturalistic evolution. This is a major pitfall of modern science.

###

COSMIC DELUSIONS: Jump-Starting the Universe by Balfour Christian (Book II)

Available at COSMICDELUSIONS.COM

Twitter: http://twitter.com/cosmicdelusions

Facebook: http://facebook.com/balfour.christian

###  Endnotes

 Darwin, Charles, _The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex_ , (London: John Murray) V.1, 65

 Malcolm Brown, "Good Religion Needs Good Science" The Church of England (Accessed 25 May 2009) http://www.cofe.anglican.org/darwin/malcolmbrown.html

 Darwin, Charles, _The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex_ , (London: John Murray) V.1, 65

 Darwin, Charles, The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection, (London: John Murray) 2nd Edition, p. 490

 Darwin, C. R. 1868. _The variation of animals and plants under domestication_. London: John Murray. 1st edition, second issue. V.2, p. 432

 Darwin, Francis, ed. 1887. _The life and letters of Charles Darwin, including an autobiographical chapter_. London: John Murray. V.3, p. 18

 Darwin, C. R. 1958. _The autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809-1882. With the original omissions restored. Edited and with appendix and notes by his granddaughter Nora Barlow_. (London: Collins) 25

 Ibid., p. 24

 Ibid., p. 57

 Ibid., p. 58

 Ibid., pp. 93, 94

 Francis Darwin, ed., 1887, " _The life and letters of Charles Darwin, including an autobiographical chapter",_ C. Darwin to Asa Gray, May 22, 1860, London: John Murray. V.2, 311, 312

 Darwin, Autobiography, p. 90

 Darwin, C. R., "The descent of man", p. 65

 Exodus 18:20; Leviticus 10:11; Deuteronomy 4:9

 Luke 5:32

 Revelation 12:12

 Psalm 37:10; 104:35; Romans 6:23

 Proverbs 10:25, 30

 Strong's Concordance, H7584

 Ecclesiastes 9:5, 6

 Strong's Concordance, G1067

 Matthew 3:12; 13:40; 25:41; 2 Thessalonians 1:8; Revelation 19:20

 Strong's Concordance, G166

 _Origin of Species_ , 6th Edition, p. 428

 Ibid., p. 17

 Ibid., p. 428

 Ibid., pp. 421, 422

 Ibid., pp. 203, 204

 Ibid., pp. 264, 265

 Ibid., pp. 284

 Darwin, C. R., " _The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex",_ (London: John Murray) 1871 Volume 1. 1st edition., 206, 207

 _Origin of Species_ , 6th Edition, p. 424

 Ibid., p. 425

 Adrian Desmond, Huxley: From Devil's Disciple to Evolution's High Priest (Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books, 1999) 44, Questia, 31 July 2008 <http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=100861848>.

 "Unity in Diversity", The Huxley File, 4 August 2008 <http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/guide12.html>

 Adrian Desmond, p. 657

 T. H. Huxley: Letters and Diary: 1847, The Huxley File, 4 August 2008 <http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/letters/47.html>

 Adrian Desmond, p. 86

 Ibid.

 Ibid. pp. 104, 105

 Ibid. p. 132

 T. H. Huxley, Westminster Review 1854: Murchison, et al. [575], The Huxley File, 11 August 2008 <http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/UnColl/WestRev/WR.html#murchison>

 T. H. Huxley: Letters and Diary: September 9, 1860: Letter to Frederick Dyster, The Huxley File, 12 August 2008 <http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/letters/60.html#9sep1860>

 Darwin's Bulldog, The Huxley File, 12 August 2008 <http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/guide4.html>

 T. H. Huxley, Hume: Chapter VII, The Order of Nature: Miracles, 160, 161 (21 August 2008) <http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE6/Hume.html#citeONM1>

 Email conversation with Sir John Pendry and Technology Research News Editor Eric Smalley (26 August 2008) <http://www.trnmag.com/Stories/2006/051506/VFTHG%20--%20John%20Pendry.html>

 Vergano, Dan, "Two improved invisibility devices show themselves", USA TODAY, 8-12-2008 (26 August 2008) <http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2008-08-11-invisibility-cloak_N.htm>

 DOE/Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. "'Invisibility Cloak' Successfully Hides Objects Placed Under It." ScienceDaily 2 May 2009. 26 May 2009 <http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2009/05/090501154143.htm>.

 Huxley, Agnosticism (1889): Collected Essays V, 218 (27 August 2008) <http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn.html>

 Agnosticism: A Symposium, The Agnostic Annual (1884), The Huxley File 01 September 2008 <http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/UnColl/Rdetc/AgnAnn.html>

 Ibid.

 Ibid.

 Enoch I. Sawin, "The Scientific Method and Other Bases for Evaluation Procedures," ETC.: A Review of General Semantics 62.4 (2005), Questia, 2 Sept. 2008 <http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5011745079>.

 Tim Larkin, "Evidence vs. Nonsense: A Guide to the Scientific Method," FDA Consumer June 1985, Questia, 2 Sept. 2008 <http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5002118670>

 Ibid.

 Dawkins, Richard _The God Delusion_ (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2008) p. 57

 Ibid. p. 73

 Stephen S. Hall, "Darwin's Rottweiler" September 2005 _Discover Magazine_ (Accessed 16 June 2009)

http://discovermagazine.com/2005/sep/darwins-rottweiler/article_view?searchterm=dawkins&b_start:int=0

 Dawkins, _The God Delusion_ , p. 85

 Also see Isaiah 59:1, 2; James 4:3

 Also see Mark 11:24

 Luke 8:47; Mark 9:23

 Keith H. Wanser: John F. Ashton, Ed., _In six days: why fifty scientists choose to believe in creation_ , Masterbooks (2007) p. 103

 Francis J. Beckwith, "Science and Religion Twenty Years after McLean V. Arkansas: Evolution, Public Education, and the New Challenge of Intelligent Design," Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 26.2 (2003), Questia, (Accessed on 2 Oct. 2008) http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5002005568

 Abiogenesis: ISCID Encyclopedia of Science and Philosophy (Accessed on 6 October 2008) http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Abiogenesis

 Darwin, Francis, ed. 1887. The life and letters of Charles Darwin, including an autobiographical chapter. London: John Murray. V.3, p. 18

 Miller, Stanley L. (1953), "Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions." Science 117:528

 A Primer on UV-C Light: Hygiene Tech (Accessed on 11 October 2008) http://www.hygienitech.com/Hygienitech%20UV-C%20Light%20Primer.pdf

 Petersen, et al. "High probability of disrupting a disulphide bridge mediated by an endogenous excited tryptophan residue." Protein Science 2002 11:588-600

 Matsumu, Y. & Ananthaswamy, H. N. (2004), "Toxic effects of ultraviolet radiation on the skin", Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 195(3): 298-308

 NASA Educational Resources: UV Radiation (Accessed on 8 October 2008) http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/Ozone/radiation.html

 THE TALK ORIGINS ARCHIVE, "UV effect on early molecules," (Accessed on 8 October 2008) http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB030_1.html

 T. Lindahl, "Instability and Decay of the Primary Structure of DNA," Nature, 362(6422) (1993): p.709-715.

 USGS: The Dynamic Earth "Exploring the Deep Ocean Floor: Hot Springs and Strange Creatures", (Accessed on 10 October 2008) http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/exploring.html

 Science Centre Singapore: ScienceNet, "Question No. 19212: How are proteins denatured? How do heavy metal ions such as copper denature proteins?" (Accessed on 10 October 2008) http://www.science.edu.sg/ssc/detailed.jsp?artid=4788&type=6&root=4&parent=4&cat=36

 "Heavy Metal Toxins" Chemistry Encyclopedia (Accessed 11 October 2008) http://www.chemistryexplained.com/Ge-Hy/Heavy-Metal-Toxins.html

 "Ocean Chemical Processes" Water Encyclopedia (Accessed 13 October 2008) http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Mi-Oc/Ocean-Chemical-Processes.html

 Huan-Xiang Zhou, "Interactions of Macromolecules with Salt Ions: Electrostatic Theory for the Hofmeister Effect," PROTEINS: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics 61:69–78 (2005), (Accessed 13 October 2008) http://www.physics.fsu.edu/~Users/Zhou/reprints/pr82.pdf

 Fred Hoyle, _The Intelligent Universe_ (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1983) p.23

 Ian Musgrave, "Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations, 1998 THE TALK ORIGINS ARCHIVE (Accessed 13 October 2008) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

 Dean L. Overman, "Not a Chance: Life Cannot Have Formed by Accident," The American Enterprise Sept.-Oct. 1998, Questia, 16 Oct. 2008 <http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001371729>.

 Ian Musgrave

 Richard Dawkins, _The God Delusion_ (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2006) p. 139

 Ibid., p. 147

 Ian Wilmut, Keith Campbell and Colin Tudge, _The Second Creation: The Age of Biological Control by the scientists who cloned Dolly_ (London: Headline, 2000) p. 41

 Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery (New York: Basic Books, 1988) 10, Questia, 20 Oct. 2008 <http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=99522225>.

 Ibid., p. 25

 Ibid., p. 28

 Francis Crick: The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1962, Biography: THE NOBEL FOUNDATION 1962 (21 October 2008) http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1962/crick-bio.html

 Nobelprize.org (21 October 2008) http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1962/index.html

 Crick, F. H.; Orgel, L. E. (1973), "Directed Panspermia", Icarus 19: 341–348, (Accessed 28 October 2008) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2003.10.071 http://dx.doi.org

 University College London. "Origin of life: Hypothesis traces first protocells back to emergence of cell membrane bioenergetics."ScienceDaily, 20 Dec. 2012. Web. 28 Dec. 2012.

 "NASA Data 'Clinches' Claim Life on Earth Started on a Comet," Western Mail (Cardiff, Wales) 15 Aug. 2007: 11, Questia, 28 Oct. 2008 <http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5022263321>.

 Crack the Code: How to crack the Code, Nobelprized.org (27 October 2008) http://nobelprize.org/educational_games/medicine/gene-code/how.html

 "blueprint." Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2008. Merriam-Webster Online. 22 October 2008<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blueprint>

Darwin, Charles, The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection (London: John Murray) 2nd Edition, p. 490. The term "Creator" is also repeated in all subsequent editions of this publication

 Dawkins, _The God Delusion_ p. 164

 Ibid., p. 165

 Ibid.

 A. Pawlowski, "Galaxy may be full of 'Earths,' alien life"—February 25, 2009 CNN.COM/technology (Accessed 25 February 2009) http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/space/02/25/galaxy.planets.kepler/index.html

 Louise Good, "Other Worlds," NaKilo Hoku: A Newsletter from the Institute of Astronomy, University of Hawaii, No. 27-2008 (26 October 2008) http://www2.ifa.hawaii.edu/newsletters/article.cfm?a=377&n=32

 European Southern Observatory (ESO) (2012, October 16). Planet found in nearest star system to Earth: HARPS instrument finds Earth-mass exoplanet orbiting Alpha Centauri B. ScienceDaily. Retrieved October 16, 2012, from http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2012/10/121016184436.htm

 Richard Dawkins, _The God Delusion_ , p. 165

 Ibid., p. 169

 Timothy G. Standish: John F. Ashton, ed., _In six days: why fifty scientists choose to believe in creation_. p. 113

 Nobelprize.org, "DNA-The Double Helix" (Accessed 27 May 2009)

http://nobelprize.org/educational_games/medicine/dna_double_helix/readmore.html

 National Human Genome Research Institute: "Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)" (Accessed 3 November 2008) http://www.genome.gov/25520880

 _Lehinger: Principles of Biochemistry_ , p. 957

 Hsien-hsien Lei, "Eye on DNA: 100 Facts About DNA" (28 October 2008) http://www.eyeondna.com/2007/08/20/100-facts-about-dna/

 David Mills, _Atheist Universe_ (Berkeley, California: Ulysses Press, 2006) p. 123

 Ibid., p. 124

 European Molecular Biology Laboratory (26-Nov-2009): "First-ever Blueprint of a Minimal Cell Is More Complex Than Expected," Press Release (Accessed 28 November 2009)

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-11/embl-fbo112409.php

 Iowa State University: "Iowa State University researcher shows proteins have controlled motions," Press Release 27-Aug-2009 (Accessed 10 November 2009) http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-08/isu-isu082708.php

 North Carolina State University: "Scientists present moving theory behind bacterial decision making," Press Release 24-Nov-2008

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-11/ncsu-sp112408.php

 Shaleen B. Korch, Joshua M. Stomel, Megan A. León, Matt A. Hamada, Christine R. Stevenson, Brent W. Simpson, Sunil K. Gujulla, John C. Chaput. ATP Sequestration by a Synthetic ATP-Binding Protein Leads to Novel Phenotypic Changes inEscherichia coli. ACS Chemical Biology, 2012; : 121203123002005 DOI: 10.1021/cb3004786

 David L. Nelson and Michael M. Fox, Lehninger Principles of Biochemistry (New York: W. H. Freeman, 2005) Fourth Edition, p. 369

 Timothy G. Standish: John F. Ashton, ed. "In six days," p. 115-116

 _Lehninger Principles of Biochemistry_ , p. 29

 Frederick W. Alt, "DNA-Repair Machine Maintains Genomic Stability," Research News: Howard Hughes Medical Institute-June 14, 200 (Accessed 3 November 2008) http://www.hhmi.org/news/alt2.html

 _Lehninger Principles of Biochemistry_ , p. 31-32

 Ibid., p. 32

 Genetics Home Reference: Handbook: Mutations and Health: "What is a gene mutation and how do mutations occur?" (Accessed 3 November 2008) http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/mutationsanddisorders/genemutation

 Ibid.

 Examples of Beneficial Mutations and Natural Selection, (Accessed on 9 November 2008) http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

 Uppsala University. "Mechanism Behind Delayed Development Of Antibiotic Resistance Explained." ScienceDaily 7 May 2009. 19 June 2009 <http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2009/05/090505153629.htm>.

 University of Michigan. "Time In A Bottle: Scientists Watch Evolution Unfold," Press Release (18 October 2009)

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-10/msu-tia101609.php

 Grassé, Pierre-Paul, Evolution of Living Organisms (New York: Academic Press, 1977) p. 8.

 Stephen Hawking, _The Universe in a Nutshell_ (New York: Bantam Books, 2001) p. 161

 Ibid., p. 163-165

 Ibid., p. 167

 Barry and Helen Setterfield, "The Bible and the Geologic Column" (Accessed 27 May 2009)

http://www.setterfield.org/Bibleandgeology.html

 National Biological Information Infrastructure, "Introduction to Genetic Diversity" (Accessed 28 May 2009) http://genetics.nbii.gov/portal/community/Communities/Ecological_Topics/Genetic_Diversity/Introduction_to_Genetic_Diversity/

 University of British Columbia. "'Armored' Fish Study Helps Strengthen Darwin's Natural Selection Theory." 28 August 2008. ( Accessed 15 June 2009) http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca/media/releases/2008/mr-08-112.html

 USDA/Agricultural Research Service "Futuristic Seafood: Raising Delicious Cobia And Pompano Fish -- Inland." February 9, 2009 (Accessed 15 June 2009) http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2009/090209.htm

 University Of California - Davis. "Genetic Switches Help Fish Adjust To Fresh And Salty Water." 14 February 2005. (Accessed 3 May 2009)

http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=7245

 University of California - Riverside. "Evolution Can Occur in Less Than Ten Years," Press Release June 10, 2009 (Accessed 15 June 2009) http://newsroom.ucr.edu/news_item.html?action=page&id=2119

 Robin Lloyd, "Evolution in Action: Lizards Losing Limbs," Technology & Science, MSNBC (Accessed 12 November 2008) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27681984/

 Sir Julian Huxley, Keynote address, Darwin Centennial, 1959.

 Paul E. Wald, _Plague Time: The New Germ Theory of Disease_ (New York: Random Books, 2002) p. 11

 _On the origin of species_ , 6th Edition, p. 66

142 "Information theory," Encyclopædia Britannica. 2008. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 07 Nov. 2008 <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/287907/information-theory>.

143 "Scientists unravel kangaroo DNA," MSN News-UK (Accessed 19 November 2008) http://news.uk.msn.com/Article.aspx?cp-documentid=11089404

144 Church DM, Goodstadt L, Hillier LW, Zody MC, Goldstein S, et al. **Lineage-Specific Biology Revealed by a Finished Genome Assembly of the Mouse**. _PLoS Biol_ , 7(5): e1000112 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000112

145 Tina Hesman Saey, "In research, it matters whether you're a man or a mouse" February 11, 2013 (Accessed 26 February 2013) http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/348250/description/In_research_it_matters_whether_youre_a_man_or_a__mouse

146 Karolinska Institutet. "Learning the alphabet of gene control." _ScienceDaily_ , 17 Jan. 2013. Web. 27 Feb. 2013.

147 "Transplant Rejection," Medical Encyclopedia, MedlinePlus, 2-15-2007 U.S. National Library of Medicine/National Institutes of Health (Accessed 25 December 2008) http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000815.htm

148 "Xenotransplantation," MedicineNet, (Accessed 25 December 2008) http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=10727

149 "DNA Forensics," Human Genome Project Information http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/forensics.shtml

150 "Using Animal DNA to Solve Crimes: Animal Forensics," Genetic Technologies

http://www.gtg.com.au/HumanDNATesting/index.asp?menuid=070.130.010

151 Cell Press. "From fish to man: Research reveals how fins became legs." ScienceDaily, 10 Dec. 2012. Web. 10 Dec. 2012.

152 Ibid.

153 Science Channel: Top Ten Science Hoaxes (Accessed 1 April 2009)

http://science.discovery.com/top-ten/2008/hoaxes/hoaxes-01.html

154 Darwin, C. R. 1958. The autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809-1882. With the original omissions restored. Edited and with appendix and notes by his granddaughter Nora Barlow. (London: Collins) p. 24

155 Science Channel: Top Ten Science Hoaxes (Accessed 1 April 2009)

http://science.discovery.com/top-ten/2008/hoaxes/hoaxes-01.html

156 "The Coelacanth," Extinct Animal (Accessed 16 April 2009) http://www.extinctanimal.com/the_coelacanth.htm

157 Reuters "Ancient cattle species re-introduced to Britain"—April 23, 2009 (Accessed 23 April 2009)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30369177

158 Public Library of Science. "Common Ancestor Of Humans, Modern Primates? 'Extraordinary' Fossil Is 47 Million Years Old." ScienceDaily 19 May 2009. (Accessed 24 May 2009)

<http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2009/05/090519104643.htm>.

159 The Link, "Who is Ida?" (Accessed 25 May 2009) http://www.revealingthelink.com/who-is-ida/

160 K. Christopher Beard, Laurent Marivaux, Yaowalak Chaimanee, Jean-Jacques Jaeger, Bernard Marandat, Paul Tafforeau, Aung Naing Soe, Soe Thura Tun and Aung Aung Kyaw. A new primate from the Eocene Pondaung Formation of Myanmar and the monophyly of Burmese amphipithecids. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, July 2009

161 Associated Press-October 21, 2009, " 'Missing link' primate isn't a link after all," MSNBC (Accessed 21 October 2009)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33416595/ns/technology_and_science-science/?gt1=43001

162 Brooks Hanson. Light on the Origin of Man. Science 2 October 2009: Vol. 326. no. 5949, pp. 60 – 61 DOI: 10.1126/science.326_60a

163 Steven A. Austin, "Ten Misconceptions about the Geologic Column" Institute for Creation Research (Accessed 27 May 2009) http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=242

164 Dave E. Matson, "How Good Are Those Young Earth Arguments?" The Talk Origins Archive (Accessed 28 May 2009) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-gc.html

165 Letter from Prof. Stanley Finney (Chairman) to ICS (International Commission on Stratigraphy) voting members, March 17, 2009 Stratigraphy.org Bulletin Board (Accessed 28 May 2009) http://www.stratigraphy.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=21

166 _Atheist Universe_ , p. 116

167 Roger C. Wiens, "Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective" (First edition 1994; revised 2002) The American Scientific Affiliation (Accessed 2 June 2009) http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html

168 USGS "Age of the Earth" July 9, 2007 (Accessed 2 June 2009) http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html

169 USGS "Radiometric Time Scale" June 13, 2001 (Accessed 2 June 2009) http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html

170 San Diego Natural History Museum "Frequently Asked Questions About Paleontology: What is a fossil?" (Accessed 4 June 2009) http://www.sdnhm.org/research/paleontology/paleofaq.html

171 Sci-Tech Encyclopedia: "Radio Carbon Dating" Answers.com (Accessed 5 June 2009) http://www.answers.com/topic/radiocarbon-dating#cite_note-libby49-1

172 Thomas Higham, "Corrections to radiocarbon dates," Radio Carbon WEB-info (Accessed 2 June 2009) http://www.c14dating.com/corr.html

173 Evolution of Living Organisms, trans. from French (New York: Academic Press, 1977) p.8

174 Kimura, Motoo. The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), p. 22. This book is no longer available. However, there is a collection of papers by Kimura: "Population Genetics, Molecular Evolution, and the Neutral Theory: Selected Papers" available from the University of Chicago Press, 1994.

Copyright 2013 Balfour Christian. All Rights Reserved.
