Science

It is so easy to follow the recipe for life, and name all its bare necessities. All you need is a cast of Baloo’s Jungle Book friends, and a villain to spoil the party . The storyline goes something like this….

For life: that is everything from plants to bacteria and onwards to you and I there first has to be a Goldilocks like planet. In a universe so vast there has to be one place that is just right. Image a beginning at which we were called to be witnesses.  With starry eyes we wait, looking up to the heavens. All the component parts of life are gathered in a small pool, held together by some unknown force, as if in a daisy chain. They do not degrade or separate as chemicals randomly gathered in a watery environment might be expected to do. They act as if in a laboratory, each component lovingly arranged and prepared for synthesis. If these parts were conscious they might be looking towards the sky, watching, waiting expectantly to be electrically shocked into action.  And here it comes, a lightning strike hits the very spot and catalyses, causes an action or process to begin. A series of reactions occur which lead to the production of complex  molecules: amino acids, proteins, fats, carbohydrates, RNA and DNA. You might think it was a miracle, but you would be wrong. Why: because the story is Darwinian; consequently we avoid words that could be construed as confusing or suggestive of purpose and meaning.

This kind of story belongs upon any shelf in any library, but only as a work of fiction. The one place where it should not be, is in the section labelled science. The bare necessities apply throughout life: flour to a cake, water to a car radiator, a handle to a door, a handkerchief for a runny nose, a key for a lock, a head for a hat and so on….Baloo’s bare necessities and listed in the video below

Consider some of the finely tuned factors that make our universe possible:

If the strong nuclear force were slightly more powerful, then there would be no hydrogen, an essential element of life. If it was slightly weaker, then hydrogen would be the only element in existence.

If the weak nuclear force were slightly different, then either there would not be enough helium to generate heavy elements in stars, or stars would burn out too quickly and supernova explosions could not scatter heavy elements across the universe.

If the electromagnetic force were slightly stronger or weaker, atomic bonds, and thus complex molecules, could not form.

If the value of the gravitational constant were slightly larger, one consequence would be that stars would become too hot and burn out too quickly. If it were smaller, stars would never burn at all and heavy elements would not be produced.

These foundational laws and constants are characteristic of design, not happenstance. The reason being that their values and settings are highly unlikely. They seem to be serving a higher purpose. They are specified in that they match the specific requirements needed for life. The universe as far as we can judge seems viciously hostile to life. We search but never find another planet like ours. And yet here sits the Earth, protected by a unique atmosphere under which we, the human race live and breathe. When we consider what surrounds us beyond our life saving atmosphere it is a wonder we live at such ease. We are like a helpless child in a crib overseen by innumerable benign and protective measures. And yet this is set against a seemingly eternal and threatening malignant silence and a darkness spattered by the light of planets and galaxies. We exist and for the most part carry on without a thought or a word of thanks to the being who must have placed us in the universe’s only safe haven. So I will say it because I believe in a Designer and Creator. Thank you Jesus: my Lord and my God.

A final word on the thought of an intelligent all powerful creator. A quote from Nobel laureate in physics Charles Townes: “This is a very special universe: its remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren’t just the way they are, we wouldn’t be here at all. The sun couldn’t be there, the laws of gravity and nuclear laws and magnetic theory. quantum mechanics, and so on have to be just the way they are.”

Nothing is more incompatible than the polar opposites provided by explanations for creation. These divide into two camps. Modern Science holds the dominant position claiming evolutionary theory as the only possible plausible account of creation. The only competitor to Darwinism is God as Designer and Creator. There are of course attempts to bridge this gap which tend to attract Christian intellectuals attempting to escape what they believe to be an embarrassing dead end: namely the Genesis account found in the opening chapter of the Old Testament. This ancient account is largely ignored or treated with contempt. Why? because it assumes an almighty force above and beyond the bounds of nature. One which it is claimed is both unprovable and extremely unlikely. My answer to that accusation is compared to what? The only other explanation which is evolution should evoke a similar reaction since it has not been proved and arguably cannot be proved. Two hundred and fifty years plus since its appearance and it is seen to be still shot full of holes, as is roved by numerous quotes listed later in this article. It is also counter intuitive. Biological systems which at every level of their existence give the appearance of exquisite design are said to be without a single fraction of design. Purpose also is ruled out. Why? It cannot be ruled out on the basis of science. An oak tree dropping its seeds in season guarantees the propagation of the species. It is an act of faith to insist that this has no purpose in a greater scheme of things. That one biological act is linked to another in an endless circular chain of events which contribute to what we call the Eco System. The Eco System exists in another finely tuned environment, and that in another until we hit the foundational laws of physics and chemistry which rule everything from the earth to the outer edges of the universe; that is if there is a boundary to the universe. The denial of a higher purpose is an act of faith perhaps more closely linked to spitting into the wind. My view is that much of modern science is devoted to hypothetical assertions which are presented as established facts. This is not realised by most and is kept well under wraps by the many enthusiastic apologists for Darwinian explanations.

So, is Darwinism pseudo science? 

Here is a definition of Pseudo science: A collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as based on the scientific method. This Scientific Method is a systematic procedure that has characterised natural science since the 17th century, consisting of observation, measurement, and experiment, plus the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. If Darwinism were a religion it would be pulled apart by critics largely because the explanations offered are incoherent. Designed objects and systems such as those found in nature do not just appear. According to the Scientific Method, which is set aside in the cause of Darwinism, evolutionary theory when applied to nature is unbelievable.

The greats of science, the fathers of most of its disciplines always applied the scientific method. Faraday, Clerk Maxwell, Mendel, Boyle, Newton etc. They observed, hypothesised, critically tested, and repeated their experiments and tests, thereby proving themselves. They were all bible believing Christians. They based their key assumptions on the belief that a rational God had created the universe. They were proved correct: it was discovered that mathematical principles and equations underpinned everything everywhere. Today we have the The Big Bang theory. One filled with fudge factors, including out of nothing came everything, inflation theory, the invention of dark matter and dark energy neither of which have ever been observed. The Multiverse theory, the belief in an infinity of universes can never be proved either true or false by the scientific method. And yet it has become an icon, a fixed belief lodged in some of the finest minds on the planet. Pseudo science reigns like a sovereign in all these areas. Another is evolution, a subject on which I have devoted a lot of time and space.

The reason I am going to give is heartfelt and personal. Darwinism and its explanation for life through evolution and millions of years has done more damage to the biblical accounts and caused more loss of those born to Christian parents than any other secular belief system bar none. I studied the matter and survived, perhaps only by the grace of God since I worked to understand the problem entirely alone. I was open to Darwinism or Lamarckism being the explanation and remember at the time favouring the latter. A theory making a bit of a comeback with the discovery of Epigenetics. I was just another unprepared innocent waiting to get suckered into what l now consider a myth without even a hint of science to back it up. In modern times upheld through constant reinforcement via the most powerful persuasive force on earth: the media. A regime producing non-stop streams of sophisticated presentations promoting hundreds of millions of years of evolution through mutations and natural selection. And the source of their information? Those propagating the myth.

The great majority of Christians will disagree, but in my estimation if this debate is forever lost nothing much will be left to defend. Why? Because God’s word throughout scripture, the goodness and truthfulness of his character and any pretence of divine knowledge re the universe and nature are gone beyond recovery. Modern science tells a story which contradicts scripture, and it is the evolutionary story which is now believed by the great majority. If you want an example of the effectiveness of indoctrination through media and the erasure of the only plausible alternative, then you need look no further than Darwin’s theory. Since the nineteen fifties, during which its acceptance became almost total among scientists, Darwinism has cast a long shadow over the bible. If scientific presuppositions were once influenced by religious convictions this no longer applies. The former experimental methods which demanded the possibility of a hypothesis being falsified are rarely applied to Darwinism. Every assumption made in areas of science where evolution is a factor assumes that evolution is a fact beyond doubt and questioning. Assumed to be true in the same way that God is assumed to be true by Christianity. Demonstrations of this bias are innumerable and can be heard or read in almost any media production relating to nature. The other side is rarely heard and never on an equal footing: PhD scientist against PhD scientist with each given equal time. You will never have heard such a debate on public broadcasting. The reasons are obvious to me, it is a shut out. God as a Creator of an instantaneous myriad of life forms, such as those that populate the oceans and seas and rivers is derided without good cause. The reason being, if an Almighty God such as that described in Genesis and throughout the Bible exists, and is true to his word, a hypothesis which can never be disproved, created all things then why think, act and speak as if it could not happen. This alternative is not to be heard because if it was it may prove unsettling to the consensus view: a Darwinian construct upheld for so long it would now be unwise to tug at its roots. The design / designer argument is strong and intellectually satisfying, but it is also dangerous because if given credence and a public airing it might provoke many to consider that evolutionary theory is counter intuitive. Worse than that, despite that fact that if it were true there should be a vast reservoir of slam dunk proofs in the fossil record. Transitions and intermediates should be numerous and obvious, since the change for instance between fish and tetrapods (four legged air-breathing mammals) should be traceable in the fossil record, and it is not. This problem is universal and it has not been solved even though you will read and see graphically demonstrated that this question has been solved many times over. This is bluster and lies. The examples of intermediate fossils become temporary icons that fade without any of the fanfare that heralded them. They sink into the conjecture that gave them temporary life. They were names that if recalled give rise to nothing but embarrassment. Here are a few: Coelecanth, Neanderthal, Ida, Ambulocetus, Tiktaalik to name just a few.

They hang on these for as long as possible, in human evolution the apelike Australopithecus named Lucy is presented in museum displays as a bright eyed, upright intermediate. Believe it if you must, but if Lucy and all the others promoted as the real deal are as suggested, proofs of evolution, then how can a list like the following be produced. A number of respected scientists who can see no evidence whatsoever? As far as I am aware all of these scientists accept evolutionary theory as being true; they just cannot find the evidence to prove their contention. This problem was known to Darwin and also to his great supporter Aldous Huxley who had well established motives which had nothing to do with science. Darwinism provided a get out clause for atheists. Huxley’s quote below relates directly to Darwin’s theory of evolution.

“The fact that a theory so vague, so insufficiently verifiable, and so far from the criteria otherwise applied in ‘hard’ science has become a dogma can only be explained on sociological grounds.” (Ludwig von Bertalanffy, biologist)  ‘I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. … For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.’ Aldous Huxley: Ends and Means, pp. 270 ff.

Darwin had this to say.

“There are two or three million species on earth. A sufficient field one might think for observation; but it must be said today that in spite of all the evidence of trained observers, not one change of the species to another is on record” (Life and Letters, vol. 3, p. 25). There is a small controversy about this quote. A section of it seems to have been inserted by his son Francis. However it is admitted this changes virtually nothing of what Darwin said. The defence of Darwin states the following. Before the semicolon, Francis Darwin editorially inserted a gloss in square brackets: “i.e. we cannot prove that a single species has changed.” So the actual words of the second half of the quotation aren’t Darwin’s, although the sentiment is. 

Many other evolutionary scientists have expressed similar disappointment and frustration.

Dr. Austin Clark of the U.S. National Museum wrote concerning the Cambrian fossils:

“Strange as it may seem … molluscs were molluscs just as unmistakably as they are now” (The New Evolution: Zoogenesis, p. 101).

Drs. Marshall Kay and Edwin Colbert of Columbia University marvelled over the problem in these words:

“Why should such complex organic forms be in rocks about 600 million years old and be absent or unrecognised in the records of the preceding two billion years? ….if there has been evolution of life, the absence of the requisite fossils in the rocks older than the Cambrian is puzzling.” ( Stratigraphy and Life History p. 102)

All of the following quotes are from the website Genesis Park.

“The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic super-groups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life’s history, the principal ‘types’ seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organisation. No intermediate ‘grades’ or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.” (Koonin, Eugene, “The Biological Big Bang Model for the Major Transitions in Evolution,” Biology Direct, 2007, 2:21.)

“Gaps remain, of course, in the fossil records of many species, although a lot of them shrink each year as new fossils are discovered. These gaps do not indicate weakness in the theory of evolution itself. Rather, they point out uncertainties in our understanding of exactly how some species evolved.” (Miller, Kenneth, Levine, Joseph, Prentice Hall Biology, 2008, p. 383.)

“The fossil record is a unique source of evidence for important evolutionary phenomena such as transitions between major clades. Frustratingly, relevant fossils are still comparatively rare, most transitions have yet to be documented in detail and the mechanisms that underpin such events, typified by rapid large scale changes and for which microevolutionary processes seem insufficient, are still unclear….Normal microevolutionary processes seem insufficient to account for the rapid large scale changes that typify most transitions but, at the same time, the operation, or even existence, of alternative macroevolutionary processes is uncertain and controversial.” ( Lü, Junchang, Unwin, David M., Jin, Xingsheng, iu, Yongqing, Ji, Qiang, “Evidence for Modular Evolution in a Long-tailed Pterosaur with a Pterodactyloid Skull,” Proceedings of the Royal Society, Biological Sciences, 277:1680.)

“It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. …Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative.” (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, pp. 229-230.)

“Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series.” (Ernst Mayr-Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University, What Evolution Is, 2001, p.14.)

“The turtle body plan is evidently highly derived, indeed unique among tetrapods. The problem for an evolutionary biologist is to explain these transformations in the context of a gradualistic process. …Ribs can only be located either deep to, or superficial to, the scapula. There are no intermediates, and there is only one way to get from one condition to the other, which is the redirection of the migration, through the embryonic body, of the precursor cells that will form the ribs.” (Rieppel, Olivier, “Turtles as Hopeful Monsters,” BioEssays 23, 2001, p. 990-991.)

“All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record.” (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 189.)

“What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types.” (Carroll, Robert L., “Towards a new evolutionary synthesis,” in Trends in Evolution and Ecology 15(1):27-32, 2000, p. 27.)

“Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion …it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to more evolved. …Instead of filling the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational evolutionary intermediates between documented fossil species.” (Schwartz, Jeffrey H., Sudden Origins, 1999, p. 89.)

“He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)

“There is no need to apologise any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich, and discovery is out-pacing integration…The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps.” (George, T. Neville, “Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective,” Science Progress, vol. 48 January 1960, pp. 1-3.)

“Despite the bright promise – that palaeontology provides a means of ‘seeing’ evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of ‘gaps’ in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and palaeontology does not provide them. The gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the record.” (Kitts, David B., “Palaeontology and Evolutionary Theory,” Evolution, vol. 28, 1974, p. 467.)

About 80% of all known fossils are marine animals, mostly various types of fish. Yet there is no evidence of intermediate forms. “The most common explanation for the total lack of fossil evidence for fish evolution is that few transitional fossils have been preserved. This is an incorrect conclusion because every major fish kind known today has been found in the fossil record, indicating the completeness of the existing known fossil record.” (Bergman, Jerry, “The Search for Evidence Concerning the Origin of Fish,” CRSQ, vol. 47, 2011, p. 291. ) “Absence of the transitional fossils in the gaps between each group of fishes and its ancestor is repeated in standard treatises on vertebrate evolution…. This is one count in the creationists’ charge that can only evoke in unison from the paleontologists a plea of nolo contendere” (Strahler, Arthur, Science and Earth History, 1987, p. 408.).

“It is interesting that all the cases of gradual evolution that we know about from the fossil record seem to involve smooth changes without the appearance of novel structures and functions.” (Wills, C.,Genetic Variability, 1989, p. 94-96.)

“So the creationist prediction of systematic gaps in the fossil record has no value in validating the creationist model, since the evolution theory makes precisely the same prediction.” (Weinberg, S.,Reviews of Thirty-one Creationist Books, 1984, p. 8.)

“We seem to have no choice but to invoke the rapid divergence of populations too small to leave legible fossil records.” (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 99.)

“For over a hundred years paleontologists have recognized the large number of gaps in the fossil record. Creationists make it seem like gaps are a deep, dark secret of paleontology…” (Cracraft, in Awbrey & Thwaites, Evolutionists Confront Creationists”, 1984.)

“Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact it’s rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find.” (Raup, David M., “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, 1979, p. 23.)

Chicago Field Museum, Prof. of Geology, Univ. of Chicago, “A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks, semi-popular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks…One of the ironies of the creation evolution debate is that the creationists have accepted the mistaken notion that the fossil record shows a detailed and orderly progression and they have gone to great lengths to accommodate this ‘fact’ in their Flood (Raup, David, “Geology” New Scientist, Vol. 90, p.832, 1981.)

“As we shall see when we take up the creationist position, there are all sorts of gaps: absence of graduationally intermediate ‘transitional’ forms between species, but also between larger groups — between say, families of carnivores, or the orders of mammals. In fact, the higher up the Linnaean hierarchy you look, the fewer transitional forms there seem to be.” (Eldredge, Niles, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, 1982, p. 65-66.)

“A persistent problem in evolutionary biology has been the absence of intermediate forms in the fossil record. Long term gradual transformations of single lineages are rare and generally involve simple size increase or trivial phenotypic effects. Typically, the record consists of successive ancestor-descendant lineages, morphologically invariant through time and unconnected by intermediates.” (Williamson, P.G., Palaeontological Documentation of Speciation in Cenozoic Molluscs from Turkana Basin, 1982, p. 163.)

“What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities: All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed . . . The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories.” (Mayr, E., Animal Species and Evolution, 1982, p. 524.)

“The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with gradualism. What is remarkable is that, through a variety of historical circumstances, even the history of opposition has been obscured . . . ‘The majority of paleontologists felt their evidence simply contradicted Darwin’s stress on minute, slow, and cumulative changes leading to species transformation.’ . . . their story has been suppressed.” (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable, 1981, p. 71.)

“One must acknowledge that there are many, many gaps in the fossil record . . . There is no reason to think that all or most of these gaps will be bridged.” (Ruse, “Is There a Limit to Our Knowledge of Evolution,” 1984, p.101.)

“To explain discontinuities, Simpson relied, in part, upon the classical argument of an imperfect fossil record, but concluded that such an outstanding regularity could not be entirely artificial.” (Gould, Stephen J., “The Hardening of the Modern Synthesis,” 1983, p. 81.)

“The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in life’s history – not the artifact of a poor fossil record.” (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 59.)

“The fossil record itself provided no documentation of continuity – of gradual transition from one animal or plant to another of quite different form.” (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 40.)

“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” (Gould, Stephen J., “Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?,” 1982, p. 140.)

“We have so many gaps in the evolutionary history of life, gaps in such key areas as the origin of the multicellular organisms, the origin of the vertebrates, not to mention the origins of most invertebrate groups.” (McGowan, C., In the Beginning . . . A Scientist Shows Why Creationists are Wrong, 1984, p. 95.)

“If life had evolved into its wondrous profusion of creatures little by little, Dr. Eldredge argues, then one would expect to find fossils of transitional creatures which were a bit like what went before them and a bit like what came after. But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures. This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found. In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them. If it is not the fossil record which is incomplete then it must be the theory.” (The Guardian Weekly, 26 Nov 1978, vol. 119, no 22, p. 1.)

“Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information — what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.” (Raup, David, “Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology,” Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Jan. 1979, Vol. 50 No. 1 p. 25.)’

So try this one out: an example from nature, a fish solves a design problem, one requiring a grasp of geometry. How could the following have come about through the processes proposed by Darwin’s theory. Maybe an aquatic mathematician with romance and reproduction in mind might think it up: but a small fish!

Watch it and remember all you have been taught. When you see a natural miracle, don’t be alarmed, just stir in a pinch of evolutionary theory and out pops the answer; time and purposeless, directionless processes enabled this fish to create a design somehow implanted into its consciousness. Causing the impulse to create a beautiful design out of sand, knowing in advance it would attract a female, thereby ensuring the propagation of the species.  You may think you do not not believe in miracles, but you do. You may think you do not have faith, but you do. I wonder if you can admit this to yourself.

Darwin’s argument is sad and powerful, it is one that not only reinforces the convictions of atheists and agnostics; it also troubles believers in God. It poses the question how can a good God seemingly create and tolerate a nature in which the following takes place?

In a letter to the botanist Asa Gray, Darwin wrote:

“With respect to the theological view of the question: This is always painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no intention to write atheistically, but I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae ( parasitoid wasp ) with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars …”

Darwin must have had some understanding of the Bible and of its first book Genesis, and most importantly its opening chapter describing creation. He attended an Anglican school with the aim of becoming a clergyman and went to the University of Cambridge for the required Bachelor of Arts degree. This included studies of Anglican theology.

It is inconceivable that after such an education Darwin was ignorant of two key issues: firstly that God created all things and described this creation as “very good”. And secondly that all creatures ate plants and their produce: leaves, fruits and nuts etc. There was therefore no place or reason for survival of the fittest, and no nature red in tooth and claw. Predators were not present and nor were prey; nature was at peace both with itself and with its Creator. Neither could Darwin have been unaware of the biblical cause of death and suffering. The Fall of not just mankind, but all of nature’s kingdom through the effects of disobedience, sin, rebellion and death. And with this calamity came cruelty, yes malignant cruelty, and a fallen world came under judgement. God is not just the giver of life He is also the taker of life. Judgement became an inevitable factor following the collapse of the relationship between God and His creation.

God is love, but it is to be deaf to the call of our feelings and sense of justice not to admit it is difficult to reconcile the dilemma felt so strongly by Darwin. We all feel it, atheists and Christians. In the Bible there is another complicating factor which is the presence of evil personified: the Devil. A fairy story  you may argue, and just one of many. How to stand up in defence of such accusations? To answer that question would take an essay at the very least. And that is not my purpose here, but rather to take a look at Darwinism as it is currently understood. Because there is a careless evil at its heart, heartless killers called mutations. Survival of the fittest is harsh. Inevitable extinctions are harsh, but neither compare to the method envisaged by Darwin’s followers. 

Charles Darwin had championed his theory of common descent and evolution by natural selection. This concept springs from artificial selection, a procedure breeders use to enhance desired characteristics such as stamina, colour, size, yield, and so forth, in animals and plants. Darwin thought that a similar process happens in nature. There is nothing to disagree with here. Natural selection can bring about evolution in a fashion similar to artificial selection, but this only takes you so far before it hits a brick wall. Animal and plant breeders have always known that artificial selection has limits beyond which no-one has ever been able to pass. There is a reason for that, evolution by that route is impossible. There is a genetic roadblock. By the early part of the 20th century this was well known. Consequently a new cause of diversity was needed to save Darwin’s theory of evolution via natural selection. The saviour came in a strange form: mutations. Here is an evolutionary account of how this can work in the real world. It looks good at first glance, partly because it is made to look like a story with a happy ending.

Mutations contribute to genetic variations within Species.  

Mutations can also be inherited, particularly if they have a positive effect.

For example, the disorder sickle cell anaemia^? is caused by a mutation in the gene^? that instructs the building of a protein called haemoglobin^?. This causes the red blood cells^? to become an abnormal, rigid, sickle shape. However, in African populations, having this mutation also protects against malaria.

Note the positive effect. This is the best these apologists for evolution can provide. This mutation may give you painful episodes called sickle cell crisis, which can be very severe and last up to a week, an increased risk of serious infections, anaemia (where red blood cells cannot carry enough oxygen around the body), which can cause tiredness and shortness of breath. Some people also experience other problems, such as delayed growth, strokes and lung problems.

This mutation is of benefit only if you live in Africa and are unlucky enough to catch malaria. You would have thought that over the course of life’s history in all its diversity an example a little more heart warming could be given rather than this certainty of a nasty illness that may protect you from the possible future potential of getting a worse one.

But your evolutionist friend may argue that mutations do so much more than that, they have been working from the beginning. They have after all served to evolve us from bacteria upwards to the summit of animal life. For that they should surely be awarded a Nobel Prize for the advancement of Species. A reality check might be in order here. Mutations are our enemies. I know this because I have been diagnosed with prostate cancer. Cancer is the cause of extremes of suffering to humans at every stage of life, it is no respecter of age, it cares nothing about the goodness or badness of the person it infests. It takes over from within and destroys whatever part of the body it is primed to attack. It has no mercy and it tortures not just the body but the mind and spirit as well. 

Here is a little insight into another connection between cancer and evolution. An area in which evolution is actually known to work. It ensures that whatever drugs we use to mitigate the effects of the disease are lessened or made useless. Most patients with advanced cancers, even when there is a well-known target and a specific drug response to therapy, still find relief is temporary. This is due to the evolution and proliferation of a resistant population of cancer cells. While targeted therapies have been among the most recent approaches to treating cancer, the vast changes in the genetics of tumours via mutations reduce the effectiveness of targeted therapies and are a reason why targeted therapies cease to work. 

But who cares, since in the great scheme of things we owe so much to mutations. Due to them we can look forward to our future extinction: something called Genetic Load; which is the presence of unfavourable genetic material ( mutations ) in the genes of a population. High genetic load may put a population in danger of extinction. Genetic load is the reduction in the mean fitness of a population relative to a population composed entirely of individuals having optimal genotypes. Load can be caused by recurrent deleterious mutations. 

My conclusion is this: if the parasitoid wasp put Darwin off God then I think the above and the list of cancers below have put me off Neo-Darwinism. Its method of advancing the diversity of species would not be recommended by any sane person. If you find fault with the Bible account of Creation then please do not lay down your critical faculties until you have applied them to the Modern Synthesis / Neo-Darwinism / Evolutionary Theory. In the world of mutations evolutionists struggle to find one of countless trillions that can be said to have been of benefit. The examples they give are few and doubtful. The loss of sight to creatures who live in perpetual darkness. A lesser sickness that gives resistance to a greater one. The bargain basement of doubtful benefits is the best they have on offer. 

If God is to held accountable and blamed for the creation of the parasitoid wasp then why is God not applauded for parenthood, beauty, love, self sacrifice and a treasure trove of wonders in nature beyond counting? Does God have to become a one dimensional monster in order to buttress an account of nature which centres around examples such as the parasitoid wasp?

I believe God is flawless in love. Not everybody agrees with that, but one thing we may well agree on is that even those we count as friends, and maybe even cohabit with have character flaws. They might manifest vices like anger, selfishness, even cruelty sometimes, but these failings do not necessarily obscure the good and the noble in them. So in nature there are seemingly mixed messages concerning the Creator. This should make us look deeper into the picture not turn away in disgust at something for which an explanation is given. If we did put down our pre judgements, we may find a Creator who so loves what was created that He, Jesus Christ, when He found it ruined by an enemy chose to sacrifice His own life in order to reclaim what was lost. A mission to defeat His enemy and return creation to its original perfection. To a life and a place prepared for us following our death. That is the required leap of faith, one which many people have made and few have regretted. 

Postscript:. The video below tells you everything you need to know about mutations and their effects in the real world and relate to the tragic consequences which hit Darwin through the death of his daughter Annie from tuberculosis at the age of ten years old. She died after a lingering illness caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Darwin feared inbreeding had caused Annie’s illness and death. He did not consider the role of microbes and infectious diseases in his work. M. tuberculosis is an obligate human pathogen and is said to have co-evolved with humans for millennia. Today one-third of the world’s population is estimated to be infected and 1.7 million people die from TB each year, more than anytime during previous human history. Co-infection with HIV is an important risk factor for TB, increasing the lifetime risk of progression from infection to active disease from 5% per lifetime to 5% per year, which is a particular problem in sub-Saharan Africa. Moreover, the emergence of bacterial strains resistant to most current antimicrobial drugs threatens to make TB untreatable.

A 2019 report from the website Science Daily has this to say; Scientists have discovered a genetic variant which greatly increases the likelihood of developing tuberculosis. Their research elucidates how this mutation affects the immune system. The almost too horrible connection to mention is that something similar to the parasitoid wasp happens here, and it has Darwin’s name ( Neo-Darwinism ) associated with it. A mutation causes a disease to arise and destroy a vital function of the body of its host from within. The video below traces the journey of mutational damage. To even begin to imagine this process could ever have contributed to the wonder of nature’s diversity and beauty is verging on the obscene.

So hope comes through combating and over-riding the effects of the Neo-Darwinism mechanism for evolution. A bizarre and contradictory story which perhaps goes some way towards shaking the foundations of the monstrous lie known as The Modern Synthesis of Evolutionary Theory. Here below is the real inheritance of mutations Read the list and rejoice if you can at their presence in the world. Remember that these causes of the diseases listed below result from the same processes we are told have enabled the evolution of life to occur. 

A

• Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL)
• Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML)
• Adolescents, Cancer in
• Adrenocortical Carcinoma
  • Childhood Adrenocortical Carcinoma – see Unusual Cancers of Childhood
• AIDS-Related Cancers
  • Kaposi Sarcoma (Soft Tissue Sarcoma)
  • AIDS-Related Lymphoma (Lymphoma)
  • Primary CNS Lymphoma (Lymphoma)
• Anal Cancer
• Appendix Cancer – see Gastrointestinal Carcinoid Tumors
• Astrocytomas, Childhood (Brain Cancer)
• Atypical Teratoid/Rhabdoid Tumor, Childhood, Central Nervous System (Brain Cancer)

B

• Basal Cell Carcinoma of the Skin – see Skin Cancer
• Bile Duct Cancer
• Bladder Cancer
  • Childhood Bladder Cancer – see Unusual Cancers of Childhood
• Bone Cancer (includes Ewing Sarcoma and Osteosarcoma and Malignant Fibrous Histiocytoma)
• Brain Tumors
• Breast Cancer
  • Childhood Breast Cancer – see Unusual Cancers of Childhood
• Bronchial Tumors, Childhood – see Unusual Cancers of Childhood
• Burkitt Lymphoma – see Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma

C

• Carcinoid Tumor (Gastrointestinal)
  • Childhood Carcinoid Tumors – see Unusual Cancers of Childhood
• Carcinoma of Unknown Primary
  • Childhood Carcinoma of Unknown Primary – see Unusual Cancers of Childhood
• Cardiac (Heart) Tumors, Childhood – see Unusual Cancers of Childhood
• Central Nervous System
  • Atypical Teratoid/Rhabdoid Tumor, Childhood (Brain Cancer)
  • Medulloblastoma and Other CNS Embryonal Tumors, Childhood (Brain Cancer)
  • Germ Cell Tumor, Childhood (Brain Cancer)
  • Primary CNS Lymphoma
• Cervical Cancer
  • Childhood Cervical Cancer – see Unusual Cancers of Childhood
• Childhood Cancers
• Cancers of Childhood, Unusual
• Cholangiocarcinoma – see Bile Duct Cancer
• Chordoma, Childhood – see Unusual Cancers of Childhood
• Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL)
• Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia (CML)
• Chronic Myeloproliferative Neoplasms
• Colorectal Cancer
  • Childhood Colorectal Cancer – see Unusual Cancers of Childhood
• Craniopharyngioma, Childhood (Brain Cancer)
• Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma – see Lymphoma (Mycosis Fungoides and Sézary Syndrome)

D

• Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS) – see Breast Cancer

E

• Embryonal Tumors, Medulloblastoma and Other Central Nervous System, Childhood (Brain Cancer)
• Endometrial Cancer (Uterine Cancer)
• Ependymoma, Childhood (Brain Cancer)
• Esophageal Cancer
  • Childhood Esophageal Cancer – see Unusual Cancers of Childhood
• Esthesioneuroblastoma (Head and Neck Cancer)
• Ewing Sarcoma (Bone Cancer)
• Extracranial Germ Cell Tumor, Childhood
• Extragonadal Germ Cell Tumor
• Eye Cancer
  • Childhood Intraocular Melanoma – see Unusual Cancers of Childhood
  • Intraocular Melanoma
  • Retinoblastoma

F

• Fallopian Tube Cancer
• Fibrous Histiocytoma of Bone, Malignant, and Osteosarcoma

G

• Gallbladder Cancer
• Gastric (Stomach) Cancer
  • Childhood Gastric (Stomach) Cancer – see Unusual Cancers of Childhood
• Gastrointestinal Carcinoid Tumor
• Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors (GIST) (Soft Tissue Sarcoma)
  • Childhood Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors – see Unusual Cancers of Childhood
• Germ Cell Tumors
  • Childhood Central Nervous System Germ Cell Tumors (Brain Cancer)
  • Childhood Extracranial Germ Cell Tumors
  • Extragonadal Germ Cell Tumors
  • Ovarian Germ Cell Tumors
  • Testicular Cancer
• Gestational Trophoblastic Disease

H

• Hairy Cell Leukemia
• Head and Neck Cancer
• Heart Tumors, Childhood – see Unusual Cancers of Childhood
• Hepatocellular (Liver) Cancer
• Histiocytosis, Langerhans Cell
• Hodgkin Lymphoma
• Hypopharyngeal Cancer (Head and Neck Cancer)

I

• Intraocular Melanoma
  • Childhood Intraocular Melanoma – see Unusual Cancers of Childhood
• Islet Cell Tumors, Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors

K

• Kaposi Sarcoma (Soft Tissue Sarcoma)
• Kidney (Renal Cell) Cancer

L

• Langerhans Cell Histiocytosis
• Laryngeal Cancer (Head and Neck Cancer)
• Leukemia
• Lip and Oral Cavity Cancer (Head and Neck Cancer)
• Liver Cancer
• Lung Cancer (Non-Small Cell and Small Cell)
  • Childhood Lung Cancer – see Unusual Cancers of Childhood
• Lymphoma

M

• Male Breast Cancer
• Malignant Fibrous Histiocytoma of Bone and Osteosarcoma
• Melanoma
  • Childhood Melanoma – see Unusual Cancers of Childhood
• Melanoma, Intraocular (Eye)
  • Childhood Intraocular Melanoma – see Unusual Cancers of Childhood
• Merkel Cell Carcinoma (Skin Cancer)
• Mesothelioma, Malignant
  • Childhood Mesothelioma – see Unusual Cancers of Childhood
• Metastatic Cancer
• Metastatic Squamous Neck Cancer with Occult Primary (Head and Neck Cancer)
• Midline Tract Carcinoma With NUT Gene Changes
• Mouth Cancer (Head and Neck Cancer)
• Multiple Endocrine Neoplasia Syndromes – see Unusual Cancers of Childhood
• Multiple Myeloma/Plasma Cell Neoplasms
• Mycosis Fungoides (Lymphoma)
• Myelodysplastic Syndromes, Myelodysplastic/Myeloproliferative Neoplasms
• Myelogenous Leukemia, Chronic (CML)
• Myeloid Leukemia, Acute (AML)
• Myeloproliferative Neoplasms, Chronic

N

• Nasal Cavity and Paranasal Sinus Cancer (Head and Neck Cancer)
• Nasopharyngeal Cancer (Head and Neck Cancer)
• Neuroblastoma
• Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma
• Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

O

• Oral Cancer, Lip and Oral Cavity Cancer and Oropharyngeal Cancer (Head and Neck Cancer)
• Osteosarcoma and Malignant Fibrous Histiocytoma of Bone
• Ovarian Cancer
  • Childhood Ovarian Cancer – see Unusual Cancers of Childhood

P

• Pancreatic Cancer
  • Childhood Pancreatic Cancer – see Unusual Cancers of Childhood
• Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors (Islet Cell Tumors)
• Papillomatosis (Childhood Laryngeal)
• Paraganglioma
  • Childhood Paraganglioma – see Unusual Cancers of Childhood
• Paranasal Sinus and Nasal Cavity Cancer (Head and Neck Cancer)
• Parathyroid Cancer
• Penile Cancer
• Pharyngeal Cancer (Head and Neck Cancer)
• Pheochromocytoma
  • Childhood Pheochromocytoma – see Unusual Cancers of Childhood
• Pituitary Tumor
• Plasma Cell Neoplasm/Multiple Myeloma
• Pleuropulmonary Blastoma – see Unusual Cancers of Childhood
• Pregnancy and Breast Cancer
• Primary Central Nervous System (CNS) Lymphoma
• Primary Peritoneal Cancer
• Prostate Cancer

R

• Rectal Cancer
• Recurrent Cancer
• Renal Cell (Kidney) Cancer
• Retinoblastoma
• Rhabdomyosarcoma, Childhood (Soft Tissue Sarcoma)

S

• Salivary Gland Cancer (Head and Neck Cancer)
• Sarcoma
  • Childhood Rhabdomyosarcoma (Soft Tissue Sarcoma)
  • Childhood Vascular Tumors (Soft Tissue Sarcoma)
  • Ewing Sarcoma (Bone Cancer)
  • Kaposi Sarcoma (Soft Tissue Sarcoma)
  • Osteosarcoma (Bone Cancer)
  • Soft Tissue Sarcoma
  • Uterine Sarcoma
• Sézary Syndrome (Lymphoma)
• Skin Cancer
  • Childhood Skin Cancer – see Unusual Cancers of Childhood
• Small Cell Lung Cancer
• Small Intestine Cancer
• Soft Tissue Sarcoma
• Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Skin – see Skin Cancer
• Squamous Neck Cancer with Occult Primary, Metastatic (Head and Neck Cancer)
• Stomach (Gastric) Cancer
  • Childhood Stomach (Gastric) Cancer – see Unusual Cancers of Childhood

T

• T-Cell Lymphoma, Cutaneous – see Lymphoma (Mycosis Fungoides and Sèzary Syndrome)
• Testicular Cancer
  • Childhood Testicular Cancer – see Unusual Cancers of Childhood
• Throat Cancer (Head and Neck Cancer)
  • Nasopharyngeal Cancer
  • Oropharyngeal Cancer
  • Hypopharyngeal Cancer
• Thymoma and Thymic Carcinoma
• Thyroid Cancer
• Transitional Cell Cancer of the Renal Pelvis and Ureter (Kidney (Renal Cell) Cancer)

U

• Unknown Primary, Carcinoma of
  • Childhood Cancer of Unknown Primary – see Unusual Cancers of Childhood
• Unusual Cancers of Childhood
• Ureter and Renal Pelvis, Transitional Cell Cancer (Kidney (Renal Cell) Cancer
• Urethral Cancer
• Uterine Cancer, Endometrial
• Uterine Sarcoma

V

• Vaginal Cancer
  • Childhood Vaginal Cancer – see Unusual Cancers of Childhood
• Vascular Tumors (Soft Tissue Sarcoma)
• Vulvar Cancer

W

• Wilms Tumor and Other Childhood Kidney Tumors

I looked up internet lists of the Most Influential Scientists, Past and Present. Johannes Kepler was 9th on one of the lists. A German mathematician, astronomer and astrologer; a key figure in the 17th-century scientific revolution, best known for his laws of planetary motion. His writings provided one of the foundations for Newton’s theory of universal gravitation. As I read through quotes attributed to him I thought that this man was more than a scientist, he seemed to have the instincts of a poet and philosopher as well. In modern terms he could be thought an eccentric genius, since he interested himself in astrology, believing the motions of the planets had their effects on earth. At times it seemed as if he were a prophet, speaking into our age, seen it in his mind’s eye and comprehended its character. As if he knew where we were headed. He more than believed in God he was devoted to God. All the following quotes of his are in italics.

The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order and harmony which has been imposed on it by God and which He revealed to us in the language of mathematics.

The laws of physics. Where do they come from, and why do they have the form that they do? The answer to those questions are we do not know and have no means to find out. They are simply beyond us, a solution so remote it must feel like  a centuries long silent scream of frustration. Traditionally, scientists have just accepted that the laws of physics were elegant mathematical equations originally imprinted on the universe at its birth, and fixed thereafter.

Nature uses as little as possible of anything.

Unlike man, nature uses clean energy to power all its systems. Adenosine triphosphate (ATP) is considered by biologists to be the energy currency of life. It is the high-energy molecule that stores the energy we need to do just about everything we do.

When ships to sail the void between the stars have been built, there will step forth men to sail these ships.

Kepler had the foresight to anticipate space travel and space ships.

If God himself has waited six thousand years for someone to contemplate his works, my book can wait for a hundred.

He believed the Earth was young, thousands rather than billions of years. Evolutionary theory requires millions and billions of years before the theory can even hypothetically work. Long before radiometric dating was invented, scientists believed in long ages. It was an article of Faith and had nothing to do with science and everything to do with necessity.

Without proper experiments I conclude nothing.

Richard Feynman, one of the great scientists of the 20th century gives a talk on this subject which is humorous, to the point and true. Don’t make your conclusions before you have solid evidence. Because if you do this you are locked in to your publicly stated position and therefore liable to defend both it and your reputation at almost any cost. Human nature is not overridden by the call of truth. Pontius Pilate washed his hands of a man he knew to be innocent, and Jesus was taken from his presence to be crucified.

…for a long time I wanted to become a theologian… now, however, behold how through my efforts God is being debated in astronomy.

It has taken the modern age to throw out the only rational solution to the design apparent throughout nature and the cosmos. God was not apparent to Kepler just because he was a bible believing Christian, but because what he saw and what he knew spoke most eloquently of a Creator. One of a beauty and an intelligence of which we can just about faintly comprehend. And that only because we are made in his image and likeness.

Why waste words? Geometry existed before the Creation, is co-eternal with the mind of God, is God himself (what exists in God that is not God himself?): geometry provided God with a model for the Creation and was implanted into man, together with God’s own likeness – and not merely conveyed to his mind through the eyes.

Freeman Dyson FRS (born 15 December 1923) a British-American theoretical physicist  and mathematician speaks on this matter of invented mathematical equations being found to exist in  the cosmos.

He who will please the crowd and for the sake of the most ephemeral renown will either proclaim those things which nature does not display or even will publish genuine miracles of nature without regard to deeper causes is a spiritually corrupt person…

There are plenty of celebrity scientists, some like Richard Dawkins who appear never to have done an experiment or engineered anything, but who nevertheless speaks as if he knows everything. He represents the truth of above quote to the letter. He has proclaimed those things which nature does not display, such as scientific proof of evolution, and will speak and publish about genuine miracles of nature without regard to any deeper cause than that proposed by Darwin and its later incarnation Neo-Darwinism.

Great is God our Lord, great is His power and there is no end to His wisdom. Praise Him you heavens, glorify Him, sun and moon and you planets. For out of Him and through Him, and in Him are all things….. We know, oh, so little. To Him be the praise, the honour and the glory from eternity to eternity.

A hymn of praise which would be replicated by large numbers of PhD scientists working and publishing today, who believe exactly as Kepler did. An example being James Tour.

As soon as somebody demonstrates the art of flying, settlers from our species of man will not be lacking on the moon and Jupiter… Given ships or sails adapted to the breezes of heaven, there will be those who will not shrink from even that vast expanse.

There is about 350 years separating Kepler’s prediction and the 1969 landing on the Moon and a spacecraft to Jupiter in 2003.

The diversity of the phenomena of nature is so great, and the treasures hidden in the heavens so rich, precisely in order that the human mind shall never be lacking in fresh nourishment.

I believe that concluding comment is true. Creation exists for two primary reasons: to show the reach and creative power of God and to demonstrate how much he loves the only beings on earth gifted with consciousness and the inclination to praise and worship.

Above the earth there is the atmosphere. This can be seen in the picture as a line circling just above the earth. It could be called the mother and father of life. It protects us from all sorts of outside harm, from Ultra-violet rays to meteoroids. It enables life to  flourish and gives us air to breathe. The air provides, among so many other things, an environment in which we can hear sound and communicate with each other. It permits the hydrologic cycle which describes how water molecules make their way from the Earth’s surface to the atmosphere and back again, in some cases to below the surface. This gigantic system, powered by energy from the Sun, is a continuous exchange of moisture between the oceans, the atmosphere, and the land. Without it we are dead. It is found in such a Goldilocks like, just right for everything condition only on earth. The search for another planet with this fine tuned for life condition is ongoing and so far fruitless. Our planet is either a stroke of luck beyond calculation, or an act of calculation by an intelligence and power beyond all knowledge; unless you think outside the godless box and open the Bible. The opening sentences in the book of Genesis describe exactly that kind of Creator.

The video below is worth watching for various reasons. The narrator takes a trip into the atmosphere in my favourite aircraft: the British made Lightning jet fighter. Secondly he speaks of a man who did a free-fall parachute descent from the stratosphere, reaching speeds of over 600 mph. Ben Kittinger’s comment on reaching the safety of the ground, a journey of fifteen minutes was: “…from space to the Garden of Eden.” Whether that comment was rehearsed or not  makes no difference. It is true, we live and breathe in a Garden of Eden. Because beyond the earth’s atmosphere there is a seemingly endless eternity of life extinguishing darkness. Earth sits as the only known, and the most unlikely beneficiary of a life giving and sustaining environment. It does so in a universe that would suck all life out of us without the protection of a blanket of gases 300 miles thick.

To sit and contemplate such a miracle might be considered as thinking outside the box. You might also consider that outside this box is our guardian, our Father, Our Creator and Our God. But even that is only partly true, because this God came to earth, entered our planetary home, became like us: a baby, a child, an adult, a sacrifice, and at the end of his life on earth a Saviour. Then he returned to his heavenly home having invited us to share it with him; a new and unending and never to be spoilt paradise in comparison to which the Garden of Eden was just a pale imitation.

If you want to know more and see some amazing pictures from space then the video below provides both in abundance.

Spotting design in nature is a risky business, since we are told by experts that to recognise design in nature is to see what is not there. Richard Dawkins has said that “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” He goes on to state that there is no design or purpose involved in the production of these complicated things. From that relatively mild beginning he goes on to argue that people who do believe such nonsense: about a Creator and intelligent design are little more than ignorant, credulous, cretinous buffoons. His targets include PhD scientists, theologians and philosophers in what is a general critique of those who oppose evolution via natural selection over millions of years. So a layman like myself stands no chance in the face of such derision. But fool though I may be I stand alongside others of faith, people it is difficult to accuse of being fools. Dawkins if he were to appear before Newton, Lord Kelvin, Mendel, Clerk Maxwell, Pascal and Faraday, to name just a few, may shrink to his proper condition: a microbe in comparison to those who believed in a Creator God who made it all. The perfect model of an intelligent designer. However we do not live in the age of those greats of science. We live in an age of scepticism, and believers in a Creator God in such an age are in a hard pressed minority. Just your average village idiot holding fast to ideas long since abandoned.

I believe God created everything in six twenty-four hour days. Saying that sets me up for a storm of ridicule, and if I am to set out my stall in the public arena I might as well get ready for the over ripe tomatoes, rotten eggs and all of the above satire, insults and irony. But before you do you might like to pause for a moment. Below you can listen to the comments of someone you might take more seriously. The video is less than three minutes long. The main speaker is  Stuart Burgess. He came from an unpromising deprived background, got a job at an engineering firm, and completed his engineering apprenticeship with Stothert and Pitt Cranes in Bath. After attaining his PhD in the area of machine design he worked for the European Space Agency for 5 years, mainly working on the ENVISAT earth observation satellite which is the largest civilian satellite in the world. He designed the solar array deployment mechanism including inventing a new type of gearbox – the double action worm gear set. He spent three years at Cambridge University as an Assistant Director of Research and Fellow of Selywn College. He has been at Bristol University since 1997 mainly working in the area of design optimisation of mechanical systems and biomechanical systems.

He has also studied peacock feathers and this is what he had to say about them. Amazingly the colour is not produced by pigment.

“My favourite evidence is the peacock tail feather. It has beautiful iridescent colours produced by thin film interference. The feather has layers of keratin with precision thicknesses comparable to the wavelengths of the individual colours of white light. The feather barbs are also incredibly well aligned to produce mathematical patterns like ellipsoids and cardioids. The design of peacock feathers is so precise that engineers cannot replicate it. Yet the feathers seem to exist purely for decoration!”

Burgess was instrumental in the Gold medal performances of Team GB cycling at the Brazil Olympics. Britain’s athletes in the Velodrome accrued a total of 12 medals, 6 being Gold with every member of the 10-strong track cycling team winning at least one, which was a record performance. No other nation got more than two Gold medals.

His team’s chain drive engineering was used on all the Team GB 2016 track bikes. Every part of the bike, which travels at up to 50 miles an hour, had to work as efficiently as possible. The best combination of chain and sprockets was required, but current test rigs using a turbo trainer were found not to be accurate enough. A pendulum system and a laser to measure its movement was devised to measure efficiency by monitoring how slowly the pendulum came to rest. By turning existing design rules on their head, their research found that larger sprockets made for a more efficient chain drive. Two years were spent testing and designing, with great results. Between them, the Para and Olympic Team won 33 medals and set two world records. He has also designed a flapping micro air vehicle (FMAV). It weighs less than 1 ounce (20 g), with nuts smaller than a pinhead. The wings have a span of approximately 6 inches (15 cm) and can flap up to 10 beats per second. Powered by a mobile phone battery, the wings can flap for around 5 minutes.

That brief bio of a brilliant engineer and scientist should persuade you to listen to what he has to say about nature’s systems, because most of his inventions are inspired by nature’s systems.

Almost everyone knows how to date a dinosaur. You need to time travel backwards to 65 million years BC. Unless of course they were seen and documented in those days before the word dinosaur was invented by Richard Owen. The famous Victorian palaeontologist, who founded London’s Natural History Museum in 1881. Until that time such creatures whose fossils were being discovered were called dragons. If there is solid evidence that such creatures were seen by humans then the entire evolutionary framework, which is based on millions of years, goes up in smoke. As this cannot be contemplated, prepare yourself to deny the credibility of all the following.

Witness of Apollonius a famous Greek traveller and philosopher.

The following is quoted from the Life of Apollonius of Tyana: by Philostratus {220 AD}

On the Existence of Dragons.

‘Now as they descended the mountain, they say they came in for a dragon hunt, which I must needs describe. For it is utterly absurd for those who are amateurs of hare-hunting to spin yarns about the hare as to how it is caught or ought to be caught, and yet that we should omit to describe a chase as bold as it is wonderful, and in which the sage (Apollonius) was careful to assist; so I have written the following account of it: The whole of India is girt with dragons of enormous size; for not only the marshes are full of them, but the mountains as well, and there is not a single ridge without one. Now the marsh kind are sluggish in their habits and are thirty cubits long, (45 feet) and they have no crest standing up on their heads, but in this respect resemble the she-dragons. Their backs however are very black, with fewer scales on them than the other kinds; and Homer has described them with deeper insight than have most poets, for he says that the dragon that lived hard by the spring in Aulis had a tawny back; but other poets declare that the congener of this one in the grove of Nemea also had a crest, a feature which we could not verify in regard to the marsh dragons.

And the dragons along the foothills and the mountain crests make their way into the plains after their quarry, and prey upon all the creatures in the marshes; for indeed they reach an extreme length, and move faster than the swiftest rivers, so that nothing escapes them. These actually have a crest, of moderate extent and height when they are young; but as they reach their full size, it grows with them and extends to a considerable height, at which time also they turn red and get serrated backs. This kind also have beards, and lift their necks on high, while their scales glitter like silver; and the pupils of their eyes consist of a fiery stone, and they say that this has an uncanny power for many secret purposes. The plain specimen falls the prize of the hunters whenever it draws upon itself an elephant; for the destruction of both creatures is the result, and those who capture the dragons are rewarded by getting the eyes and skin and teeth. In most respects they resemble the largest swine, but they are slighter in build and flexible, and they have teeth as sharp and indestructible as those of the largest fishes.’

Experts disagree as to whether or not all these writings belong to the named author. This type of criticism is applied in one form or another to most ancient texts. Appollonius is believed to have lived around 2000 years ago. What is certain is that this text was written long before anything was known about dinosaurs. So, these descriptions are either made up out of the writer’s imagination or arose as the result of a drug induced reverie. Beyond that the only logical alternative is that this incredible sage, who had encyclopedic about all things animal and was exceptionally well travelled, actually saw what he described. There is part of one sentence in the above account which rules out the possibility of this account being a myth.

…but other poets declare that the congener of this one in the grove of Nemea also had a crest, a feature which we could not verify in regard to the marsh dragons.

No writer of myths is concerned with verifying anything. Verification of this kind of evidence is the business of academics: historians and scientists. The Loch Ness monster is considered an unverified modern myth, but what about these eye witness accounts of a creature which if seen in Loch Ness would be considered as verification.

Witness from a Royal Navy Captain

To falsify a ship’s log would cause a captain to face court-martial, the loss of his career, reputation and pension, and cause great trouble to the crew members judged complicit in the deceit.

Declassified files recently released from the National Archives indicate that huge sea serpents were a fact of life for mariners. This account is taken from a captain of the Royal Navy. It.is in no sense legendary and comes from the 19th century. This sea-serpent was seen close to the island of St Helena on May 9, 1830 by the crew of the Rob Roy. Its captain, James Stockdale recorded the encounter in his official log.

“About five p.m. all at once while I was walking on the poop my attention was drawn to the water on the port bow by a scuffling noise. Likewise all the watch on deck were drawn to it. Judge my amazement when what should stare us all in the face as if not knowing whether to come over the deck or to go around the stern, but the great big sea snake! Now I have heard of the fellow before, and I have killed snakes twenty-four feet long in the straits of Malacca, but they would go in his mouth. I think he must have been asleep for we were going along very softly two knots an hour, and he seemed as much alarmed as we were and all taken aback for about fifteen seconds. But he soon was underway and, when fairly off, his head was square with our topsail and his tail was square with the foremast….My ship is 171 feet long overall and the foremast is 42 feet from the stern which would make the monster about 129 feet long. If I had not seen it I could not have believed it but there was no mistake or doubt of its length, for the brute was so close I could even smell his nasty fishy smell….When underway he carried his head about six feet out of water – with a fin between the shoulders about two feet long. I think he was swimming about five miles an hour – for I watched him from the topsail yard till I lost sight of him in about fifty minutes. I hope never to see him more. It is enough to frighten the strong at heart.”

And another! This second report of a sea-monster sighting has been declassified at an official level by the British Government. It describes an 1857 encounter that also occurred in the vicinity of the island of St. Helena. The following is from Commander George Henry Harrington.

Below a Creationist scientist: Mark Armitage puts forward his case having studied the same kind of evidence found by Schweitzer. He served as the Manager for the Electron and Confocal Microscopy Suite in the Biology Department at California State University Northridge. After nearly four years his job was suddenly terminated by the Biology Department when his discovery of soft tissues in Triceratops horn was published in Acta Histochemica. He was told to keep his religion out of the lab. His actual fault was to point out that the soft tissue he had found, which included intact bone cells ( Osteocytes ) in an 80.000,000 year old triceratops, were inconsistent with the long age evolutionary paradigm. He was sacked. Armitage subsequently took a legal action for wrongful termination and religious discrimination by the University. He won that lawsuit and was awarded a sum of $399,500. Armitage is a full on character. You may not agree with many of his comments but his talk on both his own work and that of Mary Schweitzer is fascinating. How could proteins and cells remain intact and in such good order in conditions hostile to preservation for 80 million years? If you think this is impossible then maybe you should reconsider the biblical explanation for the origins of life.

Richard Dawkins finds himself admitting the opposite to what he believes.

The following may surprise you. If you watch the 5 minute video at the foot of this page you will discover that Richard Dawkins definitely does not believe in an intelligent designer of life. He is categoric about this for just over three minutes. This leaves him just over two minutes to say the precise reverse. He does believe in the possibility of an extraterrestrial entity of extreme intelligence. One which not only created life but also journeyed across the universe to seed it on earth. That is really quite close to the Genesis chapter one account of Creation. Dawkins makes only one caveat about this matter. He insists this god like alien must have come about by some explicable process, by which he means it evolved in accordance with something like Darwin’s 19th century theory. He admits he does not know how life began, let alone a life form of a type unknown to anyone, ET’s, but he is apparently expert enough to lecture us on the kind of process that brought this wonderfully altruistic, close to all powerful ET into existence.

Dawkins in describing this phenomenon describes a poor man’s god. Extraterrestrial means: of or from outside the earth or its atmosphere. That is a good starting point definition for the God of the Bible. Early in the interview, Dawkins asks with some annoyance why Stein asks the “who did it” question? Who made it all? Dawkins protests. Why bring a “Who” into the discussion? By the end you might be wondering why Dawkins introduces his own whopping big WHO into the debate. Maybe this ET is the answer to Ben Stein’s question. The Who in who dunnit! You may if you search further videos come across a later interview he had with an accommodating and uncritical  interviewer. In that conversation he argues that he was more or less playing along with the line of Stein’s questioning, and the impression of endorsing the design inference for creation was therefore misleading. However he looked serious enough to me when he admitted the ET theory was “intriguing” and without prompting suggested how it might have happened.