"...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."¹
- Charles Darwin

Kids can understand when hokiescience meets century 21

The different sizes and shapes of finch beaks Darwin spotted while living his Galapagos Islands odyssey demonstrated the reality of Intra-Genomic Adaptability (IAG) in every life form.  But his speculative extrapolation that "a race of bears...more aquatic...till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale" equated whole-cloth fantasy.

The diversity potential in the genome of all life forms is recognized by creationists and evolutionists alike. So what’s the big deal?  What ground-breaking thought did Darwin propose that so polarized minds and crowned him king of science?

Apples don’t prove oranges.  Critics have been harsh.

"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."²  Natural selection couldn’t deliver the goods, even in 4.6 billion years!

Darwin himself confessed doubts.

With a whiff of prescience, he worried he may "...have devoted my life to a phantasy."³ He fretted that his grandiose "phantasy" seemed "...a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw[s] & holes as sound parts."⁴ He admitted being "...quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science."⁵

Darwin didn’t postulate in a vacuum.

James Burnett touted "descent of man from ape" late in the 18^th century. Grand pappy Erasmus Darwin, composer of erotic poetry, authored Zoonomia, planting seeds of evolutionary thought.   Influential contemporary, Herbert Spencer, coined the catch phrase, "survival of the fittest" in 1864, which Charles  borrowed in later editions of Origin.

Darwin made no attempt to explain the origin of the cosmos.  Nor did he delve into the mystery as to how, when or where the original spark of life managed to first appear from inorganic matter, thanks to random chance. The canny philosopher simply swept mystery under the intellectual rug, sagely admitting  "...Science as yet throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence or origin of life."⁶

The lack of this cornerstone clue didn’t deter Darwin’s pursuit of his grandiose scheme.  Perceiving that first living cell to be nothing more than a blob of protoplasm, and after conceding ignorance as to its origin, he built a castle of dreams on a foundation of make-believe. The philosopher envisioned human intelligence emerging by random chance from prebiotic slime with all species mere blips on the biologic screen, eventually melting to nothingness.

The 1859 publication of The Origin of Species marketed his idea.

Awash in the boundless potential of wishful thinking, Darwin perceived life as a freak of nature.  Starting with his primitive perception of the cell, his tortured trail of genealogy leads from fish, to amphibians, to reptiles, to birds, to mammals, and ultimately to Homo sapiens. Laced with prolific equivocations such as "probably," "apparently," and "it would appear," Darwin touted  "progress towards perfection."⁷

Choice words highlighted unproven assertion.  Never mind the suggestion of exaggerated leaps over vast chasms of biological diversity.  the elixir of unlimited chunks of time made anything possible.  But when his raw verbiage is scrutinized, Darwinspeak’s paucity of scientific substance jumps out.

Inheritance of Traits Acquired by Usage
"...Use in our domestic animals has strengthened and enlarged certain parts and disuse diminished them; and that such modifications are inherited."⁸ "...Some intelligent actions.  as when birds on oceanic islands first learn to avoid man.  after being performed during many generations, became converted into instincts and are inherited."⁹

"The nascent giraffe...had some part or several parts of their bodies rather more elongated than usual, would generally have survived...One kind of animal will almost certainly be able to browse higher than the others; and it is almost equally certain that this one kind alone could have its neck elongated for this purpose, through natural selection and the effects of increased use."¹⁰

"...Every highly developed organism has passed through many changes...each modified structure tends to be inherited...each modification will not readily be quite lost, but may be again, and again further altered...structure of each part is the sum of many inherited changes...during its successive adaptations to changed habits and conditions of life."¹¹

"...I can see no difficulty...in the continued preservation of individuals with fuller and fuller flank-membranes, each modification being useful, each being propagated, until, by the accumulated effects of this process of natural selection, a perfect so-called flying squirrel was produced."¹²

Natural Selection
"...Natural selection acts through the competition of the inhabitants and consequently leads to success in the battle for life."¹³ "...Natural selection acts by life and death,.  by the survival of the fittest and by the destruction of the less well-fitted individuals..."¹⁴  "...Natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection."¹⁵

"...Improved and modified descendants of a species will generally cause the extermination of the parent species..."¹⁶ "...We may safely infer that not one living species will transmit its unaltered likeness to a distant futurity."¹⁷

Simple-to-Complex
"...All the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth may be descended from some one primordial form."¹⁸

"...Animals are descended from at most only four or five progenitors and plants from an equal or lesser number."¹⁹

Gradualism
"...Natural selection will pick out with unerring skill each improvement.  Let this process go on for millions of years..."²⁰

"...Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow, steps."²¹  "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."²²

Missing Transitionals
"...Numberless intermediate varieties...must assuredly have existed ..."²³

"...The number of intermediate and transitional links between all living and extinct species must have been inconceivably great..."²⁴

"...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...?"²⁵

"Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory."²⁶

"...Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?  Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?"²⁷

Human Ancestry
"...Some extremely remote progenitor of the whole vertebrate kingdom appears to have been hermaphrodite or androgynous."²⁸ "...The early progenitor of all the Vertebrata must have been an aquatic animal, provided with branchiae, with the two sexes united in the same individual, and with the most important organs of the body (such as the brain and heart) imperfectly developed."²⁹

"...All the members of the vertebrate kingdom are derived from some fish-like animal, less highly organized than any as yet found in the lowest known formations...Five great vertebrate classes, namely, mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fishes, are all descended from some one prototype..."³⁰

"...All the higher mammals are probably derived from an ancient marsupial, and this through a long line of diversified forms, either from some reptile-like or some amphibian-like creature, and this again from some fish-like animal."³¹

"...Man is descended from some less highly organized form...man is the co-descendant with other mammals of a common progenitor."³² "...Man is descended from a hairy quadruped, furnished with a tail and pointed ears, probably arboreal in its habits..."³³  "...Man appears to have diverged from the Catarhine or Old World division of the Simiadae, after these had diverged from the New World division."³⁴

Darwin loyalists strive to patch acknowledged "holes" and "flaws" in evolutionism’s fragile fabric. But despite relentless tinkering, Darwin’s rambling conjectures still fall short.  Many scholars remain unimpressed. "I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science."³⁵   "Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown‑ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."³⁶   Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo brands it "superstitious nonsense."

Undeterred by the impossibility of his quest, the aspiring naturalist attempted to construct the semblance of a family tree, gamely grafting lifeless sticks of non-existent links to an imaginary trunk rooted in prebiotic soup’s mysterious quagmire. Darwin posited that beginning from the first cell base of this chain of life, miniscule changes moved upward gradually, leaping giant chasms to produce radically new and different life forms.  all by random chance.  Scientifically perverse postulates saturate evolutionism’s legacy.

The science of Taxonomy recognizes plant and animal kingdoms as two of five general classifications of distinct life forms.  Within each kingdom, commencing with phyla, categories move downward to the increasingly specific realms of class, order, family, genus and species.

Evolutionism claims to travel "up the down staircase."  Galapagos finch beak observations represented downward or, at best, lateral changes, never upward above the taxonomic "family."  Darwin succumbed to extrapolating from the very real Intra-Genomic Adaptability inherent in the DNA of every life form to predict upward transition in the chain of life.  without input of entirely new information being added to the genetic code.  Darwin postulated the precise reverse of genetic reality: biologic change actually reaches down, genomic change in the direction of species and sub-species.  never upward beyond "family."

It never happened!

Darwin’s primitive laboratory tools ofered limited perspective.  He lacked access to electricity and the electron microscope; he lived oblivious to the mysteries of the atom; and although a contemporary of Gregor Mendel, he was either uninformed or ignorant of the Austrian monk’s landmark genetic discoveries.  He didn’t understand a cell had a nucleus much less DNA; and a century would pass before computer science reached drawing board conception.

Dr. Colin Patterson, lifelong evolutionist researcher and author, shocked colleagues by expressing serious doubts about the theory in a 1981 lecture. To the dismay of colleagues committed to Darwinian thought, Patterson publicly questioned whether evolution should be taught in high schools.

His insight jolted a distinguished audience of scientists assembled at New York’s American Museum of Natural History.

He described "evolution as faith...evolution does not convey any knowledge, or if so, I haven’t yet heard it...One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it."

"It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow...Most of us think that we are working in evolutionary research.  But is its explanatory power any more than verbal?...Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge, apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics...During the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you’ve experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith.  I know that’s true of me, and I think it’s true of a good many of you in here."³⁷

Listeners sat stunned at the disclosure!

Neo-Darwinist Dr. Stanley Salthe, an author of evolutionary textbooks, followed Patterson’s example, expressing eye-catching doubts. "Darwinian evolutionary theory was my field of specializing in biology.  Among other things, I wrote a textbook on the subject thirty years ago.  Meanwhile, however I have become an apostate from Darwinian theory and have described it as part of modernism’s origination myth."³⁸

Just who was Charles Darwin, this 19^th century merchant of myth?

Certainly not an academically credentialed scientist.  He lacked formal academic training in any science discipline. His resume encompassed a fruitless pursuit of a physician’s career.  A three-year stint at Cambridge, studying religion, convinced him he wasn’t cut out for the clergy.

Armed with pitifully little science education, a five-year tour of the world provided a platform for philosophical adventure. Thanks to seasoning aboard the H.M.S. Beagle, Darwin emerged a well-traveled Englishman, inspired to launch his career as naturalist, philosopher, and prolific author.   The 1477 aggregate pages of The Origin of Species and The Descent of Man were released to a Victorian culture with a built-in caste system of wealth and privilege.  The sun never set on Queen Victoria’s "Union Jack."  Darwin thrived amidst this robust "Rule Britannia" mind-set.  He felt sheltered within the exotic echelons of a dominant power class that ruled 19^th century England.

After sweeping the mystery of the first cell’s origin under the rug, evolutionism traced a molecule-to-man sequence beginning in mysterious green slime and extending to aristocracy’s lofty pinnacle.  Charles didn’t shy away from implicitly awarding regal lineage to a dynasty of the intellectual and cultural elite in evolution’s time odyssey.  He scripted a biological Horatio Alger happy ending starring Charles Robert Darwin and his peers.  Whether due to random chance "progress towards perfection" or to subliminal coincidence, "King" Charles and friends, emerge at the apex of the postulated pyramid, symbolic self-crowned sovereigns of a "survival of the fittest" monarchy.   Lofty aspirations for a privileged citizen who typically spent four-hour days pursuing his hobby; and who likely never punched a time clock or broke a sweat toiling at manual labor.

He married a cousin and settled in as an English country squire.  Emma, wealthy in her own right, was heir to a Wedgwood fortune. Living the good life southeast of London ensconced in their beloved Downe estate, the couple basked in the sunshine of inherited wealth and astute investments.  The family employed a staff of eight to manage the household.

By 1851, "Besides the Beesby farm in Lincolnshire...Charles had acquired assets worth about £40,000 on his father’s death....Emma’s wealth included Wedgwood trust assets of at least £25,000.  "In all, she and Charles had more than £80,000 in investments."³⁹  Thanks to astute reinvestment management, the family’s income eventually exceeded the equivalent of $40,000 per month in 1996 dollars.⁴⁰   But despite these lavish endowments, Charles didn’t squander the family’s larder on a lab assistant.

From this pinnacle of privilege he shilled the trickle down benefits to society.  Darwin’s vision of evolution’s impact reached out to embrace and then endorse the class divisions that plagued English society.  He ranked the wealthy aristocracy as superior to labor. "The presence of...well-instructed men, who have not to labour for their daily bread, is important to a degree which cannot be overestimated; as all high intellectual work is carried on by them, and on such work material progress of all kinds mainly depends."⁴¹

But the religion of his time and place didn’t match his mind set.  Disenchantment with religion simmered.   Its unclear whether his three-year stint studying theology included serious study of the Bible.  Exposure to hell-fire dogma contributed to his jaundiced view of what he perceived to be the establishment dogma of his day.

At one time he ascribed to the Church of England’s Thirty-nine Articles of Faith.   Ultimately, he turned his back on a sterile, state-sponsored religion built on repetitious ritual. "The Anglican Church, fat, complacent, and corrupt, lived luxuriously on its tithes and endowments, as it had for a century.  Desirable parishes were routinely auctioned to the highest bidder."⁴² Darwin had been exposed to a caricature of the Creator, parading in a robe of superficial righteousness.

Eight-years before the release of The Origin of Species, his world came crashing down, confronting death with the agonizing loss of his ten-year-old daughter, Annie.  This crushing loss shook the already wavering faith of the naturalist.  Heartbroken, the distraught philosopher eventually railed against a contemporary religion that pictured God as a vengeful tyrant, intent on condemning the wayward to a eternity of torture in a raging inferno.  He strenuously objected to a teaching that "seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished.  And this is a damnable doctrine."⁴³

His doubts resonate today!

Is the Creator a vengeful tyrant or a forgiving God?  Is it consistent to portray a just God of love presiding over forever torture of unbelievers?  Or was the "damnable doctrine" an inappropriate dogma masquerading as Christian theology, a scare tactic intended to coerce "faith"?  Is "hell" simply an eternal death?

The "damnable doctrine" could have been the clincher that confirmed Darwin as an acknowledged "agnostic," who did not "believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God."⁴⁴   He devoted a lifetime attempting to explain the origin of life on Planet Earth without an Intelligent Designer. He challenged anyone "...who is not content to look, like a savage, at the phenomena of nature as disconnected, cannot any longer believe that man is the work of a separate act of creation."⁴⁵   He boasted, "I have, at least as I hope, done good service in aiding the overthrow of the dogma of separate creations."⁴⁶

Unabashed chauvinist, his conjectures wandered to gender bashing. Compliments of "survival of the fittest" thinking, he bluntly opined "...man has ultimately become superior to woman,"⁴⁷ and "...the average standard of mental power in man must be above that of woman."⁴⁸  Casting caution aside, he praised man’s "superiority" in detail.

"The chief distinction in the intellectual power of the two sexes is shown by man attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than woman can attain.  whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the sense and hands.  If two lists were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, painting, sculpture, music.  comprising composition and performance, history, science, and philosophy, with half-a-dozen names under each subject, the two lists would not bear comparison. We may also infer...the average standard of mental power in man must be above that of a woman."⁴⁹

Evolutionism’s guru pushed the envelope of private bias to decry vaccination’s impact on society.   He fretted that vaccination spared the lives of small-pox victims. "...Vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind... this

must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race...we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind..."⁵⁰ 

Modern medicine stands diametrically opposed to this brash outburst. "The introduction of vaccines during the early part of the last century...contributed to the decline of diseases that had been responsible for much of the morbidity and mortality of humans during recorded history.  Indeed, vaccination is considered the most effective medical intervention..."⁵¹  

Saturated with the arrogant psyche of imperial empire, Darwin contributed an influential voice to the seduction of science.  Social Darwinism reared its ugly head. "The western nations of Europe...immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors and stand at the summit of civilization...Various races differ much from each other...the capacity of the lungs, the form and capacity of the skull...in their intellectual, faculties."⁵² 

"...Without the accumulation of capital the arts could not progress; and it is chiefly through their power that the civilized races have extended, and are now everywhere extending, their range, so as to take the place of the lower races."⁵³  "At some future period, not very far distant, as measured by centuries, the civilised [civilized] races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races."⁵⁴

Citing "bestial Fuegians,"⁵⁵ Darwin left no doubt as to what he meant.  Serious scientists refute this harsh appraisal. "...These superficial comments of a passing tourist in 1832 were entirely without foundation. They were completely demolished by the findings of two missionary

priests, both highly qualified scientists...Darwin had no scientific qualifications at all."⁵⁶

Charles’ younger cousin, Francis Galton, driven by survival of the fittest rationale, introduced "eugenics" in 1883.  Galton’s pseudo-science postured as "...improving the stock...to give the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable."⁵⁷

The surging currents of Darwin’s racist opinions offered fertile soil for the terrors of war destined to grip twentieth century Europe in torrents of blood. George Bernard Shaw’s blunt take on social conditions adds insight.  "Never in history...had there been such a determined, richly subsidized, politically organized attempt to persuade the human race that all progress, all prosperity, all salvation, individual and social, depend on an unrestrained conflict for food and money, on the suppression and elimination of the weak by the strong, on Free Trade, Free Contract, Free Competition, Natural Liberty, Laissez faire: in short, on ‘doing the other fellow down’ with impunity."⁵⁸

The German philosopher, Freidrich Nietzsche, ran with the superman mentality, impacting World War I’s devastation and carving a path for Adolph Hitler’s World War II reign of evil.  Seeds of hate were sown by Nietzsche long before the horrors of the Holocaust engulfed a continent.

The Science of Power, published the year World War I ended, warned of Germany’s "superman" doctrine. "Within half a century the Origin of Species had become the Bible of the doctrine of the omnipotence of force...Nietzsche’s teaching represented the interpretation of the popular Darwinism delivered with a fury and intensity of genius." Nietzsche "gave Germany the doctrine of Darwin’s efficient animal in the voice of his superman...military textbooks in due time gave Germany the doctrine of the superman translated into the national policy of the super state aiming at world power."⁵⁹     

 "During the Holocaust, every institution established to uphold civilized values failed.  the academy, the media, the judiciary, law enforcement, the churches, the government, and yes, the medical and scientific disciplines as well.’ So much for the virtues of civil society, and so much for the hallowed purity of science."⁶⁰ 

Darwin, presumably a sensitive soul, would have abhorred the senseless slaughter unleashed by the Holocaust.  But patently racist advocacy blighted the social fabric, inadvertently providing the Nazi leader a philosophic hook upon which to hang demonically perverted aspirations.

Evolutionism’s essence envisions life without intelligent design, a jungle menagerie of random chance forces haphazardly competing for survival, capped off by a forever death.  Humans are sentenced to a bleak tomorrow if, in fact, "...not one living species will transmit its unaltered likeness to a distant futurity."  

Despite pages of fancy phrased rhetoric, science still  "...throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence or origin of life."  What then is evolutionism if the "essence or origin of life" continues to be a mystery in the minds of the most ardent evolutionists?  How can science build a hypothesis on the foundation of an unknown abstraction and pronounce it "fact?"  Twisted "truth" distorts facts, sows seeds of confusion and misleads vulnerable minds dead-end darkness.

Evolutionism misleads! 

Devoid of solid science or sound logic, evolutionism echoes Wizard of Oz sophistry.  Its dismal legacy offers blank supposition for the origin of human history and lacks the slimmest shred of purpose for the future.  "The idea that humans evolved from unicellular organisms belongs to an overflowing crate of flat worlds, gods living on mountain tops, and superstitions."⁶¹ 

Truth blazes with North Star intensity, setting minds free from intellectual bondage.

1.  Charles Darwin to Asa Gray, cited by Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin, (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1991)  pp. 475 & 456.
2.  Albert Fleischman (University of Erlangen zoologist), "The Doctrine of Organic Evolution in the Light of Modern Research," Journal of the Transactions of the Victoria Institute 65 (1933): 194-95, 205-6, 208-9.  See John Fred Meldau, ed., Witnesses Against Evolution (Denver: Christian Victory Publishing, 1968), p. 13. 
3.  Charles Darwin letter to Asa Gray, cited by Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin, (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1991)  p. 456 & 475.
4.  Desmond & Moore, Darwin, p. 475. 
5.  Charles Darwin to Asa Gray , cited by Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin, (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1991) p. 456. 
6.  Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, (New York: Random House, 1993), p. 637.
7.  Darwin, Origin,  p. 648.
8.  Darwin, Origin,  p. 175. 
9.  Charles Darwin., The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1981), vol. 1, p. 38. 
10.  Darwin, Origin, p. 277, 279.
11.  Darwin, Origin, p. 246.
12.  Darwin, Origin, p. 221.
13.  Darwin, Origin, p. 261. 
14.  Darwin, Origin, p. 247.
15.  Darwin, Origin, p. 648.
16.  Darwin, Origin, p. 453.
17.  Darwin, Origin,  p. 647.
18.  Darwin, Origin, p. 643.
19.  Darwin, Origin, p. 642.
20.  Darwin, Origin, p. 232.
21.  Darwin, Origin, p. 247. 
22.  Darwin, Origin, p. 232.
23.  Darwin, Origin, pp. 219-220. 
24.  Charles Darwin, (1881) from F. Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, vol. 3,  p. 309.
25.  Darwin, Origin, p. 617, 618.  
26.  Darwin, Origin, p. 406.
27.  Darwin, Origin, p. 212.
28.  Darwin, Descent, vol. I, 207.
29.  Darwin, Descent , vol. II, 389, 390. 
30.  Darwin, Descent , vol. I, 203.
31.  Darwin, Descent , vol. II, 389.
32.  Darwin, Descent ,  vol. II, pp. 385-386.   
33.  Darwin, Descent , vol. II, 389. 
34.  Darwin, Descent , vol. I, 201.
35.  Søren Løvtrup (Swedish biologist), Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (New York: Croom Helm, 1987), p. 422. 
36.  Louis Bounoure (former director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, and later director of research at the French National Center of Scientific Research).  The Advocate, 8 March 1984, p. 17, quoted in The Revised Quote Book, p. 5
37.  See Colin Patterson, lecture, "Can You Tell be Anything About Evolution," as transcribed by Dr. Wayne Frair and reported in "Bridge to Nowhere?", CreationDigest.com, Autumn 2004 Edition.
38.  Stanley Salthe, as cited by Access Research Network, 2003 Annual Report, and referenced online by Creation Equation, January 19, 2004.
39.  Desmond and Moore, Darwin, p.396. 
40.  Pat Shipman, Taking Wing (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1998), p. 27. See also Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin (New York: Warner Books, Inc., 1991), p. 461; and Ian T. Taylor, In the Minds of Men (Minneapolis: TFE Publishing, 1996), p. 133. Estimates of Darwin’s annual income range from 2,000 to 8,000 pounds sterling with an estate valued at 250,000 British pounds at death. Dr. Charlie Kramer computes Darwin’s 1861 annual income of 8,000 British pounds sterling to be the equivalent of $526,928 U.S. dollars in 1996—or $43,910 per month. 
41.  Darwin, Descent, vol. 1, p. 169.
42.  Desmond and Moore, Darwin., p. 47. 
43.  Desmond and Moore, Darwin., p. 623.  
44.  Desmond and Moore, Darwin., p. 634, 635, 636.
45.  Darwin, Descent., vol. II, 386
46.  Duane Arthur Schmidt, And God Created Darwin (Fairfax, Virginia: Alliance Press,  2001, p. 181.
47.  Darwin, Descent,  vol. II, 328. 
48.  Darwin, Descent, vol. II, p.  327.
49.  Darwin, Descent, vol. II, p.  327.
50.  Darwin, Descent, vol. I, p. 168, 169.
51.  Rappuoli, Rino, Henry L. Miller, and Stanley Falkow, "The Intangible Value of Vaccination," Science Vol. 297, 9 August 2002, p. 937. 
52.  Darwin, Descent,  vol. I,  pp. 178 & 216.
53.  Darwin, Descent, vol. I, 169 
54.  Dawrin, Descent,  vol. I, 201.
55.  Darwin, Origin, p. 468.
56.  Paul Kildare, "Monkey Business," Christian Order, vol. 23 (December 1982) p. 591 as cited by Henry M. Morris, Their Words Against Them (San Diego: Institute for Creation Research, 1997), p. 231.
57.  Ruth Hubbard and Elijah Wald, Exploding the Gene Myth (Boston: Beacon Press, 1997), p. 14; citing Francis Galton, Inquiries Into Human Faculty (London: Macmillan, 1883), pp. 24, 25.
58.  Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried, p. 57; citing George Bernard Shaw, Back to Methuselah (Penguin paperback), p. 1921.
59.  Adams, The Scopes Trial, pp. 336, 337; citing Benjamin Kidd, The Science of Power (1918), pp. 46, 47 and 67 as referenced by William Jennings Bryan in a draft summary intended for presentation at the 1925 Scopes Trial.
60.  Phillip Kennicott, "The Seduction of Science to Perfect and Imperfect Race," The Washington Post, April 22, 2004, C 1 & 5, quoting Sara J. Bloomfield. 
61.  Geoffrey Simmons, M.D., What Darwin Didn’t Know (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 2004) p. 309.

Copyright © 2001 - 2007