"...The 'General Theory of Evolution' and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis." George E. Kerkut¹

After fifty years of marriage, Uncle Arch and Aunt Vera, delighted in entertaining dinner guests with good-natured debates.  No subject escaped scrutiny.  Bemused guests took it all in, turning heads back and forth, following the action like fans at a tennis match. Uncle Arch typically pronounced his perception to be absolute "fact."  Aunt Vera patiently countered with a condescending smile.

Neither contestant budged an inch. The discussion would eventually fade away when one would shrug, "Just because you say it, doesn't make it a fact!"

Discussion over!

Rarely did the two minds meet in concert, each partner too intellectually proud to confess error.

*****

Assertions built on assumptions rarely resemble fact.  Superstitious nonsense can result when the assumption virus invades the mind. Even the science realm is victimized by wishful thinking assumptions.

The media in a free society champions free speech in its relentless pursuit of truth. Subtle enticements beckoning from evolutionism's "working hypothesis" can overwhelm fact.   The Editors of USA Today

fell prey to the trap in the August 9, 2005 edition, exalting evolution while taking a swipe at "Intelligent Design," a nemesis of the doctrine. "It is the cornerstone of modern biology.  Though there are various ‘missing links' in the evolutionary chain, it has never been refuted on a scientific basis."²

Hello?  Is something out of kilter here?  The strange irony here is that a team of intelligent minds composed words and phrases, designed a layout, printed and distributed millions of copies while insisting that human brains originated quite by random chance accident from some undetermined, unintelligent source.  without design or designer.

Redundant propaganda catering to assumptions doesn't equate fact. Congenital defects plague evolutionism's dearest dogma. Without corroborating proof, the entire scheme can collapse like a tower of cards. Another news journal, catering to assumptions, insists evolution is "...a fundamental fact of biology..." and that "...scientists have confirmed virtually all of Darwin's postulates,"³

What exactly did Charles Darwin "postulate" that "scientists have confirmed"?  After reviewing his ponderous words, objective analysis might conclude that if his postulates were a publicly traded stock, it might be prudent to discard before a market collapse.

If wise old Uncle Arch and Aunt Vera were around, they would have objected in unison, eyes snapping while declaring with all-knowing grins, "Just because you say it, doesn't make it so!"

Darwin himself carried reservations about his assumptions. "...I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science... It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw[s] & holes as sound parts."⁴ His fretting proved justified. Enough "flaws and holes"  to fill pages of erudite books have surfaced.  Evolutionism's darkest secrets lurk in the mists of public misunderstanding.

George A. Kerkut, British scientist and credentialed evolutionist, acknowledged that Darwinian thought was built on seven, unproven, non provable assumptions "...not capable of experimental verification."  Top billion belongs to the assumption "...that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e. spontaneous generation occurred." ⁵

Top billing for evolutionist George A. Kerkut's 1965 list of evolution's seven nonprovable assumptions "...is that non-living things gave rise to living material."⁶   Darwin agreed, admitting, "... science as yet throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence or origin of life.

^{Just a minute, here!}

^{What's that "assumption" word have to do with the "working hypothesis" propagandized by the media as fact?  Sounds suspiciously akin to "faith."  Abstract faith at that.  Not exactly a viable foundation for fact.  Isn't that the knock aimed at scholars daring to think outside the science box who consider the likelihood of a Supreme Creator at work in the universe?}

Nothing has changed since Kerkut's eye-opening reality checks. Speculation that some primordial soup mixed with doses of heat, cold, water, and lightening somehow delivered genetic information creating a living cell proves nothing other than unverifiable imaginings. Post-1859 breakthroughs have not rescued Darwin's naive ideas to warrant christening evolutionism a "fundamental fact of biology."

Sir Fred Hoyle, another British evolutionist, scoffed at the concept of a genetic code emerging from some primordial organic soup by chance, branding it "nonsense of a high order."⁸ Sir Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the DNA molecule's shape, acknowledged that in the view of "An honest man...the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle..."⁹

Dr. Kerkut's six other designated assumptions do nothing to fortify evolutionism's credibility.

"The second assumption is that spontaneous generation occurred only once...The third assumption is that viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are all interrelated.  The fourth assumption is that the Protozoa gave rise to the Metazoa.  The fifth assumption is that the various invertebrate phyla are interrelated.  The sixth assumption is that the invertebrates gave rise to the vertebrates.  The seventh assumption is that within the vertebrates the fish gave rise to the amphibia, the amphibia to the reptiles, and the reptiles to the birds and mammals...

"...The first point that I should like to make is that these seven assumptions by their nature are not capable of experimental verification."¹⁰

OK!

Admittedly, such hard-nosed assumptions provide a wobbly foundation for any "working hypothesis."   So, can confident evo enthusiasts divvy up evidence that compensates for this shortfall?  The fossil record for example?

Darwin imagined chains of transitional life forms, demonstrating the continuity predicted by his theory, must exist within earth's vast fossil fields.  In a stroke of bravado, he staked his own and his theory's credibility on this evidentiary lynchpin.

"...If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed...The number of intermediate and transitional links between all living and extinct species must have been inconceivably great...Geological research...does not yield the infinitely many fine gradations between past and present species required on the theory...Why do we not find beneath this system great piles of strata stored with the remains of the progenitors of the Cambrian fossils?..."¹¹

Why indeed?  The most obvious explanation is they don't exist!

The paucity of those sought-after intermediates troubled Darwin.  with reason. Darwin fantasized that fossil field discoveries would eventually uncover the fossil chains linking disparate life forms together as envisioned by his conjecture.  No such luck. The entire chains of phantom links conspire to taunt his own words, "...if my theory be true..."

Since Darwin's day, the fossil remains of millions of organisms have been recovered from sedimentary rock. Multi-millions of theoretical transitional links, essential to Darwin's dream, continue missing in action.  More than missing a few links, thousands of entire fossil chains continue absent without leave, a veritable paleontological desert. Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould recognized overwhelming discontinuity. "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology."¹²

Extinct species proliferate!  But even arguably intermediate fossils prove scarce.   Never mind that similarly shaped bone fragments exist.  But dead bones don't necessarily confirm genetic relationship.  Look-alike fossil bone shards from extinct life forms, don't, by themselves, demonstrate transition linkage. Quite the contrary, the fossil record overflows with a fascinating mix of extinct species and life forms displaying a remarkable resemblance to their hardy descendants living in today's world.  something called stasis!

Not only do fossils fail to exonerate evolutionism's working hypothesis but molecular biology, a relative new player in the pantheon of science technology, has emerged preeminent in the study of life's origin.   Rather than uncovering evidence ratifying neo-Darwinism, revelations of the "simple cell"s undreamed of complexity further unravel the texture of its threadbare mantle.

Evo's base of believability continues shrinking, trapped in a scientific no-man's land between the dual pressures of virtually no support from fossil transitionals on the one side and molecular biology's revelatory discoveries on the other.  Far from confirming "...virtually all of Darwin's postulates..." science discoveries, coupled with lack thereof, offer ephemeral refuge at best.

If simple to complex linkage is virtually missing from the rocks, what about living nature?  If Darwin's thought was on the money, nature should abound with examples of life kinds in transit.  But where are they? Where in nature's living world can Darwinian thought be authenticated? Is evolutionism a fait accompli?   Has evolution abandoned the field during the last four millenniums of recorded history?

As with the record in rocks, the living world seems bereft of evolutionism in action.  no half-formed eye, partial ear, or appendages in transit from fin-to-limb-to-wing.

Nada!

With little room to wiggle, evolutionism has resorted to sleight-of-hand, bait-and-switch methodologies to hornswoggle an American public that already rejects the tenets of neo-Darwinism by a two-to-one margin. Desperate for evidence, evolutionism has managed to con the gullible by extrapolating evidence of change from the adaptability of a genome's existing gene pool to argue apples prove oranges.

Street shops in India sell Earnest Hemmingway novels for a pittance.  But when you look inside, the text can be anything but a Hemmingway literary masterpiece.  The purchaser may or may not realize he or she bought into a bait-and-switch con job.

Bait-and-switch is no more honorable in science than in retailing.  In the business world, the technique approaches cheating.  In science, it projects misleading propaganda.  While attempting to quench a thirst for facts substantiating evolutionism, anxious Darwinists hijack the real to authenticate the never-was.

Confronted with evidentiary shortfall, apologists for Darwinian thought, cite evidence of the real to prove the unreal: dog breeds, orchids and finches as examples of Darwinism in action. ¹³

This is not Darwin's evolution dream!!!  In reality, this demonstrated diversity potential within a single genome proves its inherent adaptability not Evolutionism. The prolific variety of finches, orchids, and dog breeds derive from the information built into the DNA of their respective genomes.  Intra-Genomic Adaptation (IGA) assures dazzling diversity in every basic plant and animal form but has nothing to do with radical transitions to new and different life forms envisioned by neo-Darwinism.

The key is genetic information!

More specifically, the lack of new information essential to power the kind of radical modification demanded by evolutionism.  Without new information, finches, orchids, and dog breeds adapt but lack the genes to lead to a new and different animal kind.   Dogs remain dogs; orchids, orchids, and finches, finches.

Dazzling diversity, for sure!  Up-the-down staircase to entirely new and different families, orders, and classes topped with a giant leap to a different phylum?

Never!

Intra-genomic change doesn't appear to reverse direction leading up the taxonomic tree of life.  Modifications move laterally or downwards within the genetic limits of a life.  not upwards toward a new and different phyla postulated by evolutionary thought.

Bird watchers cite the old-saw: "birds of a feather, flock together."   Goldfinches may share bird feeders with house finches but they don't fly away as a flock.  Cardinals, doves, and red-wing blackbirds search for food in the same plot of grass but never abandon the hunting ground simultaneously as a unit except when spooked by a stalking hawk.  Finch beaks may change size or shape but finch beaks remains attached to a finch.

Just because a high-jumper can clear a seven-foot bar doesn't mean he, or his descendants, could someday hurdle the moon, like the proverbial cow, if given mega time and millions of attempts! Such an extrapolated apparition melts under scrutiny like fog kissed by the morning sun. The same with the marvelously diverse dog breeds parading in the Westminster Kennel Club Show: dogs lack the genetic wherewithal to parent cats.

Spinmiesters may mislabel the variety potential of dog genes as "evolution" but this in no way represents what Darwin had in mind.  Intelligent breeders can play with dog genes, orchid genes, or finch genes in order to produce unique colors, sizes, and shapes. However impressive the versatility, this exercise in genetic design does not demonstrate evolution.

Stretching semantics doesn't alter scientific reality. Adaptation using the information present within any genome from its beginning, never equates evolutionism:  Intra-Genomic Adaptation is real, assuring diversity and survival.  One of evolutionism's ugly secrets is the persistent insistence that IGA reality corroborates Darwinian dream.

A bacterium's ability to adapt to changed circumstances is obvious.  But metamorphous to an entirely new and different life-form by mutation and natural selection has not occurred in the last 4,000 years of earth's history.  If not evident in four thousand years, how then in four million?   Does the mere addition of deep time render the impossible, possible?

Darwinism postulates that from a single cell of original life, all living plants and animals evolved upward.  Life forms may vary laterally exhibiting diverse varieties within a genomic kind but never up the scale of life to a completely different phyla.

When an influential news journal described  evolution as a  "fundamental fact of biology," it extrapolated from laboratory induced E. coli modifications to support the claim.  It reported valid laboratory findings of variations in twelve populations of E. coli bacteria that reproduced "every 3.5 hours or so...The populations were once genetically identical but each has adapted in its own way to the conditions in its test-tube home."¹⁴

After thousands of generations, the twelve E. coli populations remain E. coli bacteria.  because bacteria possess built-in genetic information enabling heroic feats of adjustment.  Twelve populations of E. coli reproduce more E. coli, but lack of new genetic information prevents an E. coli bacterium evolving to a fruit fly or anything else except E. coli, ad infinitum.

Genetic cards may be reshuffled, genes may be lost or damaged. A genome may adapt to its environment and switch its genes on or off to survive. Genomic survival represents the exact opposite of transition to something other than E. coli. Without new genetic information being added to the deck, no new life kind evolves.

Extrapolation does not provide evidence authenticating evolution.  Or in the quaint vernacular you might hear from down-home Texans, "You can put your boots in the oven but that doesn't make them biscuits."

The universe pulsates in synchronized motion.  The kaleidoscope of life on earth vibrates with change.  Each genomic kind of life displays the capacity to change, to adjust, to adapt.  But the quantitative and qualitative leap from one genome to an entirely different life kind, either by miniscule incremental modifications or by a single giant leap, is the kind of change  mandated by evolutionism.

It can't be proven because it never happened!

Extrapolating the real in an attempt to prove the never-was, is hocus-pocus, bootstrap science, pushing conjecture's envelope over the brink to wallow in the realm of philosophical make-believe. It proves nothing.   Sleight-of-hand, pseudo-evidence doesn't match the radical biologic transmutation postulated by Darwin.  "...The fact remains that there exists to this day not a shred of bona fide evidence in support of the thesis that macroevolutionary transformations have ever occurred."¹⁵ Without new information in the gene code, finches, fruit flies and bacteria continue as finches, fruit flies and bacteria.  ad infinitum!

Evolutionist Kerkut recognized and addressed the extrapolation issue point blank with a rhetorical question and candid answer.  "...Why can't one extrapolate and say this has in effect led to the changes we have seen right from the Viruses to the Mammals?  Of course one can say that the small observable changes in modern species may be the sort of thing that lead to all the major changes, but what right have we to make such an extrapolation?"¹⁶

Lemmings march mindlessly off cliffs in a mysterious dance of death. Remarkably, the marvelously more sophisticated human mind is vulnerable to multiple brands of cultural coercion. Brainwashing infects impressionable young minds with error's virus. Flawed dogmatic traditions impact politics, history, religion and science. At the malevolent extreme, Hitler youth matured, emerging as a jack-booted army of goose-stepping marionettes, marching off to destroy and to die in sieg heil allegiance to the whim of institutionalized evil.

Authoritarian, lock-step conformity survives in classrooms.  Ritualized indoctrination erodes independent thought, crushing dissent. When respected professors portray evo as "fact," survival instinct kicks in motivating students to shrug and bite the hook. Imposed bias may surface later in some author's knee-jerk defense of hijacked "science."

Neo-Darwinist conjecture contends the mud-to-molecule-to-man scenario explains the origin of all living things. Still, despite a century of public misperception, the natural limits to biological change continue to stymie Darwin's dream. "...evolution is not a formulation of the true scientific method...(it is) the initial formation of unknown organisms from unknown chemicals produced in an unknown atmosphere...of unknown composition under unknown conditions, which organisms have then climbed an unknown evolutionary ladder by an unknown process leaving unknown evidence."¹⁷

"...The salient fact is...evolution...is totally bereft of scientific sanction. Now, to be sure, given the multitude of extravagant claims about evolution promulgated by evolutionists with an air of scientific infallibility, this may indeed sound strange. And yet the fact remains that there exists to this day not a shred of bona fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis that macro-evolutionary transformations have ever occurred."¹⁸

Molecular biologist Michael Denton, spotlighted evo's abysmal performance under the microscope.   "...Nowhere was Darwin able to point to one bona fide case of natural selection having actually generated evolutionary change in nature."¹⁹ Swedish biologist, Søren Løvtrup unleashed a scorching analysis that awarded the quaint imaginings unique status on history's hot seat.  "...One day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science."²⁰

As for those elusive fossil chains that continuing missing, Darwin's empty words echo mockingly, "...if my theory be true..."  And Dr. Kerkut's timeless roster of assumptions, still lurk menacingly, nagging at the fringes of Darwinian thought, as relentlessly "assuming" as when identified in 1960.

Already burdened by the baggage of assumptions and missing fossils, an intimidating morass of scientific shortfall  threatens neo-Darwinism's struggling "hypothesis:"  Front and center, the objective investigator will inquire as to the cell's awesome complexities; mathematical odds against spontaneous generation occurring by random chance; the source of DNA information present in first life; the inability of mutations to create new information or to upgrade a genome; and the sober reality of irreducible complexity blocking the gradual transition of an organism to an entirely new life kind..

Evolutionism hides in some as yet undiscovered never-never land.  It isn't happening now as a newsworthy current event; it hasn't happened in the recent past; it just never happened.  even in a bazillion years

Warren L. Johns, Esq.
8-22-2005

1.  George A. Kerkut, The Implications of Evolution (London: Pergamon, 1960), p. 157.
2.  Editorial Page, "‘Intelligent Design' smacks of Creation by Another Name," USA Today, August 9, 2005.
3.  Thomas Hayden, "A Theory Evolves," U.S. News & World Report, July 29, 2002, p. 42-44.  
4.  Charles Darwin to Asa Gray , cited by Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin, (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1991) p. 456; and Desmond & Moore, Darwin, p. 475.
5.  Kerkut, The Implications of Evolution, p. 6, 7. 
6.  Kerkut, The Implications of Evolution, p. 6.
7.  Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, (Sixth Edition) (New York: Random House, Inc., 1993) p. 637.
8.  Sir Fred Hoyle, "The Big Bang in Astronomy," New Scientist (November 19, 1981) 92:527, cited by Harrub and Thompson, "Creationists Fight Back."
9.  Sir Francis Crick, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature (New York, Simon & Schuster, 1981) p. 88), cited by Harrub and Thompson, "Creationists Fight Back."
10.  Kerkut, The Implications of Evolution, p. 6, 7. 
11.  Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species) pp. 219, 220; Charles Darwin, (1881), from F. Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, vol. 3, 309; and Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, pp. 617, 618.
12.  Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb (New York: W.W. Norton, 1985) as quoted by Woodward, Doubts About Darwin, pp. 40, 41.
13-- Carl Zimmer, "Testing Darwin," Discover, February, 2005, pp. 29-35.  The author cites dog breeds, orchids and finches as examples of Darwinism in action.  -
14.  Thomas Hayden, "A Theory Evolves," U.S. News & World Report, July 29, 2002, p. 42-44.
15.  Wolfgang Smith, Teilhardism and the New Religion (Rockford, Ill.: Tan Books, 1988) pp. 5, 6, as quoted by James Perloff, The Case Against Darwin (Burlington, Massachusetts: Refuge Books, 2002) p. 71.
16.  Kerkut, The Implication of Evolution, p. 154.
17.  Randy L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy: Implications, Methodology and Survey of Evidence Toward a Rational Solution (East Lansing, Michigan: Inquiry Press, 1976) p. 434; as cited by Duane Arthur Schmidt, And God Created Darwin (Fairfax, Virginia: Allegiance Press, 2001) p. 84, quoting from John Ankerberg and John Weldon's, Darwin's Leap of Faith.
18.  Wolfgang Smith, Teilhardism and the New Religion (Rockford., Ill.: Tan Books, 1988), pp. 5‑6.
19.  Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crises (Bethesda, Maryland: Adler & Adler, 1986) pp. 62, 358.
20.  Søren Løvtrup, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (New York: Croom Helm, 1987), p. 422.

Copyright © 2001 - 2007