Chapter 1: The Opinion Factory Although you most surely have heard otherwise, molecule-to-man evolution is not a proven scientific fact. Repeat: molecule-to-man evolution is not a proven scientific fact. In truth, the only thing factual about it is its own evolution from Charles Darwin’s original postulation – the alleged common ancestry of all plant and animal life - to today’s new-Darwinism which claims that the universe, including all organic life, created itself - out of one atom whose origin is “unknown.” What’s more, the only thing scientific about it is the fact that a substantial number of its proponents consider themselves and each other to be scientists. But stark reality exposes the new Darwinism as a pseudo-science at best, one whose claims cannot be confirmed or falsified by the time-tested scientific method. In fact, molecule-to-man evolution, stripped of all the obfuscating layers that insulate it from reality, is nothing more and nothing less than an opinion factory, generating in school textbooks and the mainstream media only those opinions that foster and further its doctrine. Chief among its unproven assertions is the astonishing opinion that our universe and the life within it are purposeless, self-created accidents, natural occurrences subject to natural explanations. What could be more marvelous, more miraculous than creation of all things by a sovereign God? Why it’s the self-creation of molecule-to-man evolution according to the propaganda issuing from Evolution Central. Darwin’s brainchild – organic evolution - has been considerably fattened up, dressed out in the duds of royalty, and elevated to Emperor of the Kingdom of Science by those who would dispense with God and God-given morality. But the emperor really has no clothes. Exposed to the light of reason and the immutable natural laws that govern our lives, molecule-to-man evolution becomes simply another transparent covering for mankind’s sinful rebelliousness. So, to all who are engaged in reading this work, though you be showered later on with reams of scientific studies, tons of geologic evidence, and the bony remains of a thousand fossils, resist the temptation to accept as fact that which – in fact – is neither true nor even possible. Molecule-to-man evolution not only has not been proven, it is an endeavor as fruitless as was the alchemists’ pursuit in the Middle Ages of the so-called “Philosopher’s Stone.” It was believed by “scientists” of that era that finding the “Philosopher’s Stone” would enable man to convert lesser metals such as iron and copper into pure gold. And more than that, it would reveal the secret to creation of life itself while enabling the development of miraculous elixirs to heal all of mankind’s maladies and bring about greatly extended life spans. The seed out of which that futile quest developed is traced to ancient times and one man’s opinion that gold – the noblest metal – evolved from baser metals lodged deep within the earth. That man was the Greek philosopher, Aristotle, and his opinion sent mankind on a vain search for the missing link (the “Philosopher’s Stone”) that supposedly caused conversion of base metals into gold, and held the secret of life as well. Years and years of experimentation turned up nothing. The coveted “Philosopher’s Stone” was never found. Base metals lodged deep within the earth remained base metals. Gold was never anything more or less than gold. Aristotle was wrong. And all who believed him. The only thing produced was a cadre of charlatans who profited from the superstitions rampant in that era. Base metals do not evolve into gold. In fact, nothing evolves from one thing into something else of a higher order, for that – as we shall see – is an impossibility. Unable to produce on their predictions, alchemists and their science of Alchemy were discredited many centuries ago, only to return in our time as the New Darwinists and the so-called “science” of molecule-to-man evolution. Once again, the opinion of a lone individual – Charles Darwin – has sent mankind on a “wild goose chase” as certain of failure as the quest for a “Philosopher’s Stone.” From his observation of variations naturally occurring in animal “kinds,” [1] and their adaptability to diverse environments, Darwin falsely opined that gradual evolution, driven by what he called “natural selection,” accounted for the survival and development upward of animal organisms from one primitive, common ancestor. Contradicting the title given to his own book, though, Darwin stayed completely away from the touchy subject of the earth’s origin or the origin of life itself, thereby avoiding direct confrontation with the Biblical record of ex nihilo creation by an omnipotent God. Whereas men “who hold the truth in unrighteousness” [2] welcomed the opportunity to free themselves from accountability to a holy God, men of faith and wisdom were not fooled by Darwin’s hypothesis. And they still aren’t. But many men of Darwin’s era had become “vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.” [3] By embracing Darwinism in place of ex nihilo creation as recorded in the divine Scriptures, they “changed the truth of God into a lie.” [4] Led by a man named Thomas Huxley, advocates of Darwin’s postulations undertook to assemble proof positive that the impossible was not only possible, but through eons of time actually had occurred. After more than 100 years, however, years of research, research, and more research, there’s not even one halfway-decent “proof” that m-to-m evolution ever has occurred, nor that it’s anything but a baseless opinion founded on the circular reasoning that evolution is the proof of evolution. Darwin saw one thing but assumed something else. He saw variation; he assumed evolution. There was living proof for what he saw. There still is no proof for his opinion that all living organisms trace their origins backward in time to one common ancestor. Neither is there proof for the more radical modern extensions of Darwin’s postulations such as the bear trap Darwin avoided - how living organisms actually originated.
THE LIFE FROM NON-LIFE FANTASY Take for example the New Darwinist’s much repeated opinion that at some point in the distant past, inert, lifeless matter turned itself into a living organism of some kind from which all others have evolved. Can you imagine that? Dead lifeless matter coming to life? On its own? All by itself? Do you believe it? I don’t. The mere thought of a living organism rising up from dead, lifeless matter is – to put it mildly – absolutely bizarre. Suggesting that inorganic matter - a grain of sand, perhaps – could have turned itself into some kind of organic life isn’t even good fantasy where I come from; it’s just insane! If something like that really happened, we’re all in serious danger. You could be sleeping some night and your pillow come to life and accidentally strangle the breath out of you! Or, as you head to work on the expressway some morning, your steering wheel could come to life and begin spinning in sheer joie de vivre. Or, as you start to descend a steep flight of steps, one of your shoes could come to life and try to run off by itself. Are these examples any more far-fetched than what we are fed by the m-to-m Darwinists? I think not. Life self-created from non-life? Wow! Aren’t these the same people who mock all who believe in ex-nihilo creation by a holy God? How can they espouse such an obviously off-the-wall idea? They can, (they must), because Darwin’s evolution theory is really just a clever smokescreen. A clever smokescreen? Yes, a very clever smokescreen. Any fool can see that organisms don’t gradually evolve from one thing to something else of a higher order. If they did in the past, they’d still be evolving today, and they obviously aren’t. So Darwin’s theory is really only a smokescreen hiding the true atheistic objective - to rid the world of God by replacing divine creation with “creation by magic.” “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” Convince the public that life created itself from non-life and God becomes simply an egregious interloper in the lives of men. So it’s not about evolution, students; it’s all about so-called natural origins and doing away with God. [5] Awhile back I e-mailed a question to a professor of Biology at one of the time-honored Ivy League Universities. Here is what I asked him: Dear Ken: Since there's no such thing as spontaneous generation; but there is a physical law of cause and effect, how do proponents of evolution theory account for the original atom? And by what mechanism did it propagate itself?
If molecule-to-man evolution were on trial in a court of law for lying to students and the public about its being a proven fact, this professor’s answer to my question would be anything but helpful to its defense. Here is his response: I certainly agree that lab experiments show that maggots and bees and other complex organisms don't arise suddenly, but it's also true that many experiments suggest that biological molecules could have arisen by ordinary chemical means on the surface of the early earth. The "cause" for such events is quite real - namely, the conditions on our planet, the laws of physics and chemistry, and the input of energy from the sun. Evolution is a biological theory concerning the origin of species, not the origin of atoms. We biologists leave the origin of matter to our friends in cosmology! Sincerely, Ken.” [6] (Emphasis added)
Are you shocked? Maybe a little bit perturbed? It’s way over a century since publication of Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species.” For almost a hundred of those years it’s been drummed into the public consciousness that we are little more than evolved apes with the ability to think and walk upright. But these brilliant scholars don’t even know at this advanced date when and how life arose, or in what form, much less whether it had a power to reproduce and a need to evolve! In other words, the origin of species remains a mystery. With that in mind, imagine for a moment that Darwinian evolution is a set of house plans. For reasons unknown, the foundation blueprint is missing. Do you dare to skip the foundation entirely, building the house without one? In relation to organic evolution, isn’t that exactly what Darwin did? Without knowing when, how and in what form life arose, didn’t Darwin form an opinion, make a judgment, base a theory on a non-existent foundation? Or look at it another way. A man retains a contractor to build him a house, insisting that the foundation be made out of helium. The builder says, “Sir, that’s an impossibility. Helium is a gas, not a solid. It can’t be done.” The man says, “Oh, but you must do the impossible.” So the builder builds him a house with no foundation, and says to the man, “There is your house. You can’t see the foundation because it’s a gas not a solid.” I don’t want to live in that house. Do you? But the New Darwinists’ house – molecule-to-man evolution - is exactly like that. It’s built on an impossible foundation – that life arose from non-life – and is therefore entirely without any foundation at all. Nevertheless, m-to-m evolution is a fact, you see, because so many self-styled scientists say it is, ignoring as they do its lack of a viable foundation. But that doesn’t prevent the “alchemists” of new-Darwinism from promoting as scientific fact what is nothing more than their opinion – that some form of life arose from non-living matter and became the “father” of m-to-m evolution. Worse yet, this mindless fantasy is endowed with such importance it must be force-fed to every school age child in this country via teachings like this: “Today, students, we’re going to talk about the origin of life. Swirling in the oceanic waters was a bubbling broth of complex chemicals. Evolution from this complex chemical broth to the first living organism was very slow. This evolution of life was the most important of the numerous events attributed to the Archean era. The development from complex molecules to the very simplest living organisms was a very slow, lengthy process. The first self-replicating systems must have emerged in this organic soup. And the first living cells emerged between four billion and 3.8 billion years ago.” [7]
That’s not science. It’s not education, either. It’s just deliberate, carefully planned brainwashing. There is not one established fact contained in that entire entry. No one on this planet can produce proof that a “bubbling broth of complex chemicals” ever existed. Where is something like that found today? Nowhere. Moreover, no one on this planet can produce proof that “complex molecules” sprang to life and became the “simplest living organisms;” nor that “self-replicating systems” generated themselves out of inorganic soup. Furthermore, as we shall shortly see, the cited teachings contradict what is readily admitted by New Darwinists when they are confronted with a demand to prove when, how and in what form organic life arose. Truly now, can any rational individual believe that Darwinian evolution is a proven scientific fact when the practitioners of this peculiar “science” must resort to such perfidy as is cited above in order to perpetuate belief in what most surely is an impossibility? Biologists appear to agree on the one hand that there is no such thing as spontaneous generation; that is, life generating itself - all by itself - out of non-living substance. They agree a grain of sand won’t suddenly come to life and begin evolving. But on the other hand, we are informed in the email correspondence cited above that experiments – and not just a few – are being conducted to prove “biological molecules” (not living organisms, mind you) “could have arisen” all by themselves out of “ordinary chemical means” on the “early earth.” Isn’t double-speak like that simply 21st century alchemy? Conducting experiments to prove possible what they’ve already admitted is impossible? It certainly doesn’t qualify as science. True science adheres to a rigid scientific method, namely: a) observation, b) postulation, c) experimentation, d) replication, and e) confirmation or falsification. Of those five steps, evolution lacks every one except postulation. There were no eyewitnesses to the origin of the universe or the alleged moment when organic life arose. Hence, the first step – observation – is missing from the evolution file. What happened long ago – and happened only once - can’t be tested, so step three – experimentation - is out as well. No experimentation means no replication, and without those two steps the possibility of scientifically confirming or falsifying evolution is exactly zero. With regard to spontaneous generation, Louis Pasteur observed that maggots appeared seemingly out of nowhere on spoiled meat. He postulated that they either were self generated, (spontaneous generation), or had a traceable cause. Experimentation that may be replicated by any modern scientist showed the maggots to be the result of fly eggs deposited on the spoiled meat. Using the accepted scientific method, Pasteur ruled out any possibility of spontaneous generation at the same time he confirmed that maggots on spoiled meats had a traceable cause. But those who, here in the 21st century, undertake in state-of-the-art laboratories to duplicate the conditions that existed on a primitive earth are twice deceived and certain to fail. As previously stated there were no human eyewitnesses to earth’s origin, nor to the moment imagined by the disciples of Darwin when lifeless matter is alleged to have come alive by means of some miraculous, but as yet unidentified, self-generated force. He is first deceived who believes that life from non-life is even a possibility; he is deceived again who believes that conditions peculiar to the primitive earth - conditions no one observed or will ever know - can be duplicated in the modern age. Back in 1953, a couple of New Darwinists, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey, put together in their laboratory a very complicated contraption made up of tubes, flasks, heating and cooling devices, a gas feeder, an electrical spark generator, a chemical trap, etc. In this famous experiment, they filled a flask with methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water vapor, and then sent electric sparks through the mixture. The purpose of the experiment was to show that amino acids (biological molecules) could have been produced by lightning striking the imagined “primordial soup.” The sludge that collected in the trap actually contained some random amino acids and it was proclaimed widely that “life” had been produced in a laboratory. Digressing for just a moment, it’s almost impossible not to become aware of the fact that molecule-to-man evolution is not just full of - it’s actually inundated by - “could-haves,” “might-haves,” “may-haves,” “must-haves,” “maybes,” “possiblies,” “perhapses,” “we-believes,” “this-suggests,” and numerous other such “speculatives.” Be advised that all of them are simply expressions of “opinions,” unsupported by hard data. Use of these terms is epidemic in so-called “proofs” that molecule-to-man evolution has taken place. So by all means remember this: For every “could-have” there’s an unspoken “has-not.”
For every “might-have” there’s an unspoken “not-yet.”
For every “perhaps” there’s a silent “not-likely”
For every “this-suggests” there’s a silent “sheer-speculation.”
For every “we believe” there’s a silent “personal opinion.”
Where positive proof exists it cannot be negated or falsified. Where speculation (opinion) exists, pure chance abounds with the odds on being correct no better than the odds one gets in the local lottery. It is a fairly good prediction that if all the “speculation” words were removed from teachings about evolution, 90% of Darwinism’s “evidence” and all of its self-generated “proofs” would vanish like a snowball in a bonfire.
In the famous Miller/Urey experiment, described above, there are all kinds of speculations, or assumptions if you prefer, that render its findings worthless. They include but are not limited to the following: 1. That there was a “primordial soup” on the early earth is not a proven fact, it’s pure speculation; a Darwinist opinion. 2. That the alleged “primordial soup” was made up of methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water vapor is not a fact, it’s pure speculation; a Darwinist opinion. 3. That the early earth experienced lightning is not a fact, it’s pure speculation. [8] Another Darwinist opinion. 4. That the alleged lightning striking the alleged primordial soup could have produced biological molecules is pure speculation; a Darwinist opinion. (More than likely it would have set the methane and the hydrogen on fire.) 5. That electrical sparks in a controlled laboratory experiment approximates lightning is just plain ridiculous!
The experiment’s stated purpose was the most astounding speculation of all. Producing in controlled laboratory conditions some biological molecules – two amino acids - to show that life could have arisen spontaneously from non-life is about as far from reality as China is from New York. A couple of tiny metal washers are far more crucial in the assembly of an automobile than Miller and Urey’s amino acids would have been to the creation of a living organism from dead, lifeless matter. Especially when one considers that the amino acids produced proved to be the wrong kind needed for the manufacture of proteins. It is to the shame of this nation’s public school educators that the Miller/Urey experiment is included in science courses, undoubtedly as a means of convincing students that life arose from non-life, and God had nothing to do with it. Let’s face it; babies don’t just start growing. They are caused. They may be unwanted or a happy surprise, but they don’t just “happen.” They are caused. Likewise, living organisms didn’t just “happen.” They were caused. Dead, lifeless matter didn’t just one day come to life and begin to evolve. Like everything else, living organisms are caused. Want to make a quick million dollars? Find an effect – any effect - that is not caused. Molecule-to-man evolution is, we are told, a “baby” that just “happened.” It’s a “baby” with no traceable cause. But there are no uncaused babies. Fact is if you tell me all about your baby that just “happened” and was not caused, I know you’re lying to me. You really don’t have a real baby, you’re just “spoofing” me. This is in keeping with one of the most visible of all the natural laws that govern our lives - the immutable law of Cause and Effect. Accidents don’t just “happen,” they are caused; by speeding, negligence, inattention, etc. Buildings don’t just “happen,” people build them. Automobiles don’t just “happen,” they are assembled on production lines. Success doesn’t just “happen,” it’s caused; by education, hard work, favorable circumstances, etc. Universes, worlds, people, dogs, atoms, they don’t just “happen.” Each is an “effect” that has been “caused.” Even the molecule-to-man evolution concept didn’t just “happen.” It was caused; caused by people who deceived themselves into a conviction that there are natural (scientific) explanations for supernatural occurrences; and, therefore, absolutely no need for a supreme being to whom accountability is owed. The origin of life – plant, animal, and human - was a supernatural event. [9] That’s why the New Darwinists have not proved that life came from non-life, nor ever will prove it! Because it is – in two words – simply impossible! Supplementing the universal Law of Cause and Effect is another universal law, the Law of Biogenesis which asserts that life begets life. Always has; always will; the errant opinions of self-styled scientists notwithstanding. Non-living matter? It may be changed in its form and/or appearance by external forces, but it will never become alive; never has and never will. Spontaneous generation is an impossibility. Only that which already is alive is capable and able to propagate new life. Once it’s understood that life didn’t - and won’t ever - arise from non-life, the entire m-to-m evolution case – the smokescreen - is nullified. Just as an automobile won’t take you anywhere without a battery for power and a starter to make it run, evolution is going nowhere until an uncaused, self-generated living organism of some kind is proven to have existed, thereby identifying a real plant or animal from which all other plant and animal life could possibly have evolved. Won’t happen. Can’t happen. Keep reading. It’s well worth remembering that the only “proof” life and living things arose from non-life exists in the opinions of the New Darwinists. And the only “proof” that such primitive life then began evolving is in the evolutionists’ repeatedly stated opinion that it did. Sit in with me for a few moments on part of a NOVA (PBS) interview with paleontologist Andrew Knoll, a Harvard University professor, and author of Life on a Young Planet: The First Three Billion Years of Life. [10] NOTE: Parentheses have been inserted to identify unproved opinions [op] and pure speculations [spec]. NOVA: What do you think was the first form of life? Professor Knoll: It's pretty clear (op) that all the organisms living today, even the simplest ones, are removed from some initial life form (spec) by four billion years (op) or so, so one has to imagine (op) that the first forms of life would have been much, much simpler (spec) than anything that we see around us. But they must have had (spec) that fundamental property of being able to grow and reproduce (spec) and be subject to Darwinian evolution (op). So it might be (spec) that the earliest things that actually fit that definition (spec) were little strands of nucleic acids (spec). Not DNA yet—that's a more sophisticated molecule—but something (spec) that could catalyze (spec) some chemical reactions, something (spec) that had the blueprint for its own reproduction. (Bold-face type added for emphasis.) NOVA: Would it be something we would recognize under a microscope as living, or would it be totally different? Professor Knoll: That's a good question. I can imagine (op) that there was a time before there was life (spec) on Earth, and then clearly (op) there was a time X-hundred thousand years or a million years later (op) when there were things that we would all recognize as biological (op). But there's no question that we must have gone (spec) through some intermediate stage (spec) where, had you been there watching them, you might have (spec) placed your bets either way. So I can imagine (op) that on a primordial Earth (spec) you would have replicating molecules (spec)—not particularly lifelike in our definition, but they're really getting the machinery going (spec). Then some of them start interacting together (spec) and pretty soon you have something a little more lifelike (spec), and then it incorporates maybe (spec) another piece of nucleic acid from somewhere else (spec), and by the accumulation (spec) of these disparate strands of information and activity, something (spec) that you and I would look at and agree (op) "that's biological" would have emerged (spec). (Bold face type added for emphasis.) NOVA: In a nutshell, what is the process? How does life form? Professor Knoll: The short answer is we don't really know how life originated on this planet. There have been a variety of experiments that tell us some possible roads, (spec) but we remain in substantial ignorance. That said, I think (op) what we're looking for is some kind of molecule (spec) that is simple enough (spec) that it can be made (spec) by physical processes on the young Earth, (spec) yet complicated enough (spec) that it can take charge of making more of itself (spec). That, I think (op), is the moment when we cross that great divide (spec) and start moving toward something (spec) that most people would recognize (op) as living. (Bold-face type added for emphasis.)
In the interview segment related above, there are a total of 46 easily identified expressions either of a personal opinion or a generally accepted evolutionary speculation. There is only one statement of fact: “…we don’t really know how life originated on this planet.” Forty-six opinions or speculations (assumptions if you prefer), and but a single truth. One is constrained to wonder whether it’s Biology or Alchemy that’s being taught behind the ivied walls of Harvard and in the public school rooms Christian tax dollars support. Let me point out here a truth that clearly shows molecule-to-man evolution is not magic, not scientific, only a much believed lie. Darwin assumed evolution; he had no proof for it, only personal opinions based on how he interpreted what he observed. We start, then, with an unproven assumption. But that unproven assumption becomes in the minds of Darwinists an established fact. To them evolution becomes the proof of evolution. Therefore, all forms of evidence must “fit that definition.” Must “fit” what definition? Read again what the Harvard paleontologist imagines early life forms would have been like IF they ever are found. Said he: “…they must have had that fundamental property of being able to grow and reproduce and (here it is) be subject to Darwinian evolution.” What? Anything that does not fit that definition – be subject to Darwinian evolution – is rejected as evidence in the study of life? Yes, that’s exactly the mindset of Darwinists. Whereas science allows for falsification in its search for truth, Darwinism makes no such allowance. Hence, the universal Law of Biogenesis – only life begets life – and the universal Law of Cause and Effect find no acceptance in the Darwinist camp. And most eloquently ignored is the fact that every bit of evidence cited as “proof” for m-to-m evolution can more readily be cited as proof for ex-nihilo creation by a holy God. It’s truly amazing how widely believed are such emanations issuing with monotonous regularity from the Darwinian opinion factory. But what is equally amazing is how few seem to notice or care. Like intimidated children, the general public accepts the opinion of New Darwinists that something - they don’t know what –created itself from lifeless matter and began evolving into all that currently exists. Then, by keeping attention focused on evolution instead of on their impossible claims regarding origins, the New Darwinists successfully seduce the unsuspecting, shaking or destroying entirely belief in a sovereign God. In England, for instance, a formerly Christian nation, where Darwin’s opinion first found favor, only 44% of the citizenry now believes in God, this according to a YouGov survey taken at the end of 2004. A majority of Britons don’t believe there’s life after death; only about a third of them believes there’s a heaven, an even fewer believe in hell and its chief occupant, Lucifer. [11] The whole sorry matter is at best Alchemy reprised. To my way of thinking, the New Darwinists’ quest for how life arose and in what form it arose is the sought-after “Philosopher’s Stone” of this modern era. And molecule-to-man-evolution is the “gold” the biologist would be able to “produce” if the “Philosopher’s Stone” ever were found. But life from non-life is as much an impossibility as the “Philosopher’s Stone,” so with all pretense stripped away, Darwinian evolution is simply Alchemy updated for the 21st Century. Back in the middle ages, the charlatans of Alchemy eventually were exposed as frauds because they never succeeded in converting base metals into gold; neither did they create life or potions to extend life spans. What they claimed to be able to do was falsified by their failure to find the magic “Philosopher’s Stone” and subsequently produce the promised results. Today’s biologists have not found their “Philosopher’s Stone” – life creating itself out of non-life. They’ve been searching for it for a century-and-a-half and aren’t within a universe of finding it. It is safe to conclude then that the “gold” of m-to-m evolution they claim has already been produced is, in fact, just “fools’ gold,” and of no true or lasting value. Espousing the doctrine of molecule-to-man evolution would have been for the medieval alchemists a dream come true. They could have made the wildest claims (as the New Darwinists do) of what allegedly happened long ago without fearing their claims would be falsified, or they themselves exposed as con men. There were no eyewitnesses to the origin of the universe and life itself. No eyewitnesses to say, “Sirs, you lie!” Yet what they believe, (if they truly believe it), and what they preach goes against all that is observed. In doing so, they conflict directly with the universal laws of Biogenesis, Cause and Effect, and, as we shall see, numerous others. Visualize the molecule-to-man evolution structure, then, as a building without a foundation. When and how life allegedly arose from non-life is not known, nor in what form the first living organism appeared. That’s the needed foundation, but it’s missing. It’s like a three-story house with the second and third floors suspended in mid-air because the entire first floor has been left out. You can’t build a house that way, nor a factual case for molecule-to-man evolution. Therefore, Reason Number-One that absolutely guarantees m-to-m evolution is either magic (which it isn’t) or a lie (which it is), is its obvious and complete failure to prove a natural origin for the existence of life, how non-life produced a living organism, and what exactly was produced. Look, if you don’t know what the first living organism was, how can you know that it wasn’t a fully developed “kind” that had no power nor even the necessity to evolve into something else? Seems to me rather than looking in rocks and in laboratories for proof of evolution, the New Darwinists would be better advised to look to the Rock of Ages who assures all who care to listen that, “all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.” [12]
SUMMARY Chapter 1
1. Darwin was of the opinion that all organic life – plants, animals and humans – evolved very gradually from one common ancestor. He did not deal with when or how or in what form living organisms arose.
2. New-Darwinists, however, make claims far beyond what Darwin proposed. In their opinion the universe, and later, organic life, literally created themselves. This is an opinion. There is no supporting proof. In fact, the natural Law of Cause and Effect obviates such alleged events. 3. Biologists admit that spontaneous generation - that is, something creating itself from nothing – is impossible. Yet many experiments are being conducted to prove that life generated itself from non-life. The pseudo-science of Alchemy also sought in vain to make the impossible possible. 4. The Miller/Urey experiment did not produce life, only some useless biological molecules. 5. The Law of Biogenesis – a proven natural law – states that existing life is the only generator of living offspring. Non-life (inert matter) cannot produce a living organism. 6. Variations occur naturally in animal families. But dogs remain dogs; cats remain cats; pigeons remain pigeons. Variation within species is not molecule-to-man evolution, just variation within species. 7. Darwin’s opinion that all organisms evolved gradually from one primitive common ancestor lacks the foundation of when, how, and in what form life allegedly arose from non-life. Without that information evolution is just a silly idea. 8. The first and most basic reason m-to-m evolution is in fact a lie is its dependence on “magic” to account for the first living organism. Only “magic” could produce life from non-life. 9. All evidence cited as proof for Darwinian evolution is more readily interpreted as support for ex-nihilo creation by God. 10. Because it is founded on the “impossible,” operates entirely on “speculation,” and cites for “proof” the unproven, molecule-to-man evolution is simply Alchemy for the 21st century. Notes 1) Genesis 1:21, 24, 25
2) Romans 1:18
3) Romans 1:21, 22
4) Romans 1:25
5) Psalm 11:3
6) E-mail response from Prof. Miller, Brown Univ. See http://bms.brown.edu/faculty/m/kmiller
7) Composite of phrases taken from Biology textbooks currently in use in public schools.
8) See Genesis 2:5, 6. The primitive earth had no rain. A mist watered the ground
9) Genesis 1:11; 1:20; 1:24: 1:27
10) PBS NOVA feature. How Did Life Begin? An interview with Andy Knoll. Reported at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/knoll.html
11) Article, Belief in God on wane in Britain, Atlanta Journal/Constitution, Jan. 28, 2004, p.A3
Colossians 1:16 | 
