Banana peel on which darwinism slips

 

In memory of Charles Darwin

1859 - 2024

„Natural Selection
Natural selection is the process through which species adapt to their environments. It is the engine that drives evolution.

On the Origin of Species

English naturalist Charles Darwin wrote the definitive book outlining his idea of natural selection, On the Origin of Species. The book chronicled his studies in South America and Pacific islands. Published in 1859, the book became a best seller.

English naturalist Charles Darwin developed the idea of natural selection after a five-year voyage to study plants, animals, and fossils in South America and on islands in the Pacific. In 1859, he brought the idea of natural selection to the attention of the world in his best-selling book, On the Origin of Species.

Natural selection is the process through which populations of living organisms adapt and change. Individuals in a population are naturally variable, meaning that they are all different in some ways. This variation means that some individuals have traits better suited to the environment than others. Individuals with adaptive traits—traits that give them some advantage—are more likely to survive and reproduce. These individuals then pass the adaptive traits on to their offspring. Over time, these advantageous traits become more common in the population. Through this process of natural selection, favorable traits are transmitted through generations.

Natural selection can lead to speciation, where one species gives rise to a new and distinctly different species. It is one of the processes that drives evolution and helps to explain the diversity of life on Earth.

[Important addition: it can explain variation within species - not the existence of the original basal species. The emergence of new, significantly different species is the slippery slope, the banana peel that is the bankruptcy of Darwinism, because you cannot extrapolate from it to the emergence of the original species, because their origin is not from those that already exist - as here - but from those, which did not exist at all before.]

Darwin chose the name natural selection to contrast with “artificial selection,” or selective breeding that is controlled by humans. He pointed to the pastime of pigeon breeding, a popular hobby in his day, as an example of artificial selection. By choosing which pigeons mated with others, hobbyists created distinct pigeon breeds, with fancy feathers or acrobatic flight, that were different from wild pigeons.

Darwin and other scientists of his day argued that a process much like artificial selection happened in nature, without any human intervention. He argued that natural selection explained how a wide variety of life forms developed over time from a single common ancestor.” - https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/natural-selection/

THE NATURE OF NATURAL SELECTION

The workings of natural selection were described by Charles Darwin in his 1859 book The Origin of Species by analogy with artificial selection, as we have seen above.

HUMAN SELECTION - AND CULLING
In artificial selection /selective breeding/, breeders prefer animals and plants based on their own judgement when breeding. So humans choose which animals to breed and when. While those that are not suitable for further breeding are excluded from breeding in the strictest sense.

NATURE CHOOSES - AND WEED
Natural reproduction is when nature chooses which animals can pass on their genes to their offspring. Through natural selection, individuals that are well-adapted to their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce, producing offspring that share these well-adapted traits. Those less adapted to the environment are more likely to die before they reproduce.

In nature, heritable variants that are unviable or unable to reproduce die out of populations. The remaining heritable variants may be selected for by environmental factors (e.g. temperature, quality of available food, natural enemies, etc.).

EVOLUTIONARY TASK - BREEDING ELEPHANT

"Life, driven by evolutionary processes and adapting to a changing environment, is an unpredictably creative construct. In other words, it can evolve into anything, even human-like intelligence." /Stuart Kauffman: What is life? - John Brockman: The next 50 years. Vince Publishing House, Budapest, 2002, p. 129./

Let it be anything, say an elephant. The simplicity of its evolution was put like this by an atheist chemist:

"If there are atoms, and there is opportunity, there will be molecules; and if molecules are in a warm, humid place, sooner or later they will become elephants." /P.W. Atkins in Genesis p.17./

A chemist should know. Or is he bluffing? Let's take a closer look at the credibility of the claim.

It is thought that all living things can trace their ancestry back a few billion years to microscopic, single-celled organisms such as bacteria. These unicellular organisms evolved multicellularity through a specific series of adaptations. Modern evolutionary biology holds that each organism is the descendant of a unique ancestor, usually referred to as the last universal common ancestor (LUCA) of all life on Earth. At least, that is what it is traced back to.

Well, let's take this as a theoretical basis from which to start. From a single bacteria-like single-celled organism /LUCA/, let the atheist biologist, chemist or newspaper deliverer /whatever/ evolve an elephant with the tools of science. This can only be done by selective breeding /theoretically deriving the process as we have seen in pigeon breeding the choice of individuals to mate/.

This is the artificial selection or breeding process, in which the selection pressure is specifically controlled, as in all other human breeding. The problem is that in nature there is no controlled breeding process by selection pressure that controls the development of a given organism to full maturity.

Because, as we read, "a process similar to artificial selection occurs in nature, without human intervention." How similar, or not similar, we shall examine more closely.

In human supervised breeding, the aim is to produce a new breed or population by combining genotypes of two or more varieties. In this way, the favourable characteristics of different varieties can be combined and concentrated in a single variety. Producing a new variety by crossing is therefore by no means a simple task. A great many factors have to be taken into account, all of which influence the result.

The individuals to be used for breeding must be carefully identified and selected. The husbandry conditions must be such that the desirable qualities of the new breed can be fully developed. This complex and highly experienced breeding work can only be undertaken by highly skilled professionals, because in this type of breeding, the production of /synthetic/ breeds requires several decades.

[It is noteworthy that in the natural process there are no highly trained professionals, i.e. intelligent factors!]

In the present task, we cannot talk about concentrating the beneficial traits of different breeds into a single species (i.e. the elephant), we cannot talk about the conscious application of selection methods of this kind, because there are no different subjects, but we have a unique common ancestor, LUCA, from which we have to extract.

What does Charles Darwin say in his autobiography about how natural selection works? "... there is no more design in the operation of natural selection than in the direction in which the wind blows." What did Richard Dawkins say about the same thing? "Natural selection is the blind watchmaker; blind because it cannot foresee, because it does not plan consequences, because it has no purpose in mind... biological evolution is essentially a random wandering in a field of genetic possibilities." This is exactly the opposite of the process of human breeding.

Let's ask the extremely high profile question: If biological evolution is essentially a random wandering through the field of genetic possibilities, what does this random wandering have to do with the evolutionary design and conservation of elephant genetic traits? What is the role of natural selection as a consequence of uncontrolled selection pressures?

If the strategic goal of living organisms is survival through immediate adaptation - "some individuals are better adapted to the environment than others. Individuals with adaptive traits - which give them certain advantages - are more likely to survive and reproduce" - then the ongoing design and construction of anatomical features of a complete structural architecture that did not exist before must be a completely different strategic goal for the elephant.

After all, the improvement in adaptability must occur immediately, but the new elephant-specific structure must undergo a long process of evolution, with the aim of developing and maintaining the genetic characteristics that correspond to that structure, otherwise the anatomical structure and traits that are specific to that organism will not be produced. This then ensures the continued survival of that particular organism through adaptation.

We read that natural reproduction is when nature chooses what animals to breed. Through natural selection, individuals that are well-adapted to their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce, so that offspring are born that share these well-adapted traits. Those that are less adapted to the environment are more likely to die before they reproduce. This is the essence of natural selection - without human intervention, that is, without conscious selection.

But what does this have to do with the development of the elephant from stem cells? Since when does the long-term development and conservation of the genetic characteristics of a species coincide with its immediate adaptation to a changing environment, which is reflected in a continuous improvement of its adaptability?!

It is quite another to evolve something purposefully /conscious breeding/, and quite another to spontaneously select those best able to survive in a given environmental situation. Then the goal of spontaneous evolution is not to evolve the elephant, but to seek survival of the best adapted by natural selection. And if it does not even strive to evolve, how does it evolve? How does a molecule roosting in a damp, warm place eventually become an elephant?

How does that ancient cell know that it must evolve towards the elephant? Or does it not know, but it evolves in that direction? So what does it do? What selective force is giving it the right direction? Which force of selection, influenced by the whims of nature, is subject to the incessant processes of change?!

In the case of conscious human breeding, if someone can only develop anything by selective breeding /in this case, developing an elephant from a non-elephant cell, i.e. consciously/, and ignorantly blame nature for having bred it, and moreover, both males and females optimally adapted to each other, optimally attuned to each other, this is not science, but pseudo-scientific atheistic philosophy, which has nothing to do with biological laws.

Or that would be the main insight of Darwin, the biological genius, that this is how it works, because "a process similar to artificial selection takes place in nature without human intervention." Now, what's the similarity? That in one there is conscious selection for breed, and in the other there is selection for survival regardless of breed?!

That unicellular organisms can evolve to become multicellular organisms up to a certain level through evolutionary processes, since when is it evidence that this evolutionary process leads to the evolution of the elephant in the long run without a purposeful breeding strategy? If it works in nature without a guiding force, why do breeders in artificial selection consciously prefer animals and plants with specific parameters based on their own judgement when breeding? Then it would be enough to select the most productive ones, without taking into account the breed characteristics - or not?!

BREEDING OF HOLSTEIN-FRIESIAN CATTLE

The Holstein-Friesian is the world's most populous and largest dairy cattle breed capable of producing milk. If the breed's reproductive traits have been perfected using modern techniques to achieve the highest possible milk yield, how did nature develop the genetic potential of an elephant with unrivalled anatomy and characteristics, wandering aimlessly and at random in a field of genetic possibilities?

If the elephant did not have a specific breed characteristic /as the Holstein-Friesian does/, after a few generations the characteristics of the elephant would be lost /as the Holstein-Friesian would lose the characteristics of its breed/, but it is precisely natural selection that does not allow the breed to degenerate /as artificial selection breeding does not allow the Holstein-Friesian to degenerate/.

So how did nature create the elephant blindly, without intelligent intervention, like conscious human breeding created the standard Holstein-Friesian? Were breeding animals spontaneously bred on the most viable, breed-less stock of the time, and did time and chance solve the problem of the world's most populous and largest dairy cattle breed?

Because there is a huge difference between the unconscious and conscious creation and preservation of high quality genetic endowments. If conservation by natural selection is not conscious, then evolution cannot be conscious either. And if it is not conscious, then where did the elephant with its excellent character and conformation come from? Blindly evolved by natural selection without any guidance?

If the standard of the Holstein-Friesian is consciously established by artificial selection, then its conservation cannot be unconscious. And if it is conscious, how can the development by nature of an elephant with excellent character and conformation be unconscious? Does conscious and non-conscious breeding develop the same standard of living? Is this a serious claim or is it a gullible, manipulated pseudoscience known to mankind as Darwinism? 

If fruit flies (of which more than 20 generations are easily bred every year) are used to provoke some microevolutionary, species-boundary-breaking freak (e.g. wing or eye variation), what kind of macroevolutionary hopeful monster would be bred from LUCA? Would they further confusingly breed that into an elephant, or some furry-feathered, woolly-scaly gawking stork-crocodile-gnome with big flat palms, a droopy nose, eyebrows that drift over the eyes, a donkey-toothed duck's beak, a fluffy rabbit tail, or what?

They would not even be able to create a fly with compound eyes providing a 360-degree field of vision, which play a very important role in the environment. If there were no flies, there would be garbage and dead animal carcasses everywhere. As scavengers, flies digest decaying organic matter, participate in pollination, etc., so they play a very purposeful role in different ecosystems. [Of course, existing without any strategic purpose, as nature has none.]

The human brain processes about 60 images per second, while a fly can process about 250 images in a single second. If reproductive incompatibility has been shown to have occurred on numerous occasions in laboratory populations of fruit flies, i.e. speciation has occurred according to the most commonly used reproductive species concept - an absolutely arbitrary, evolution-friendly species definition category - does this prove that evolved from LUCA an ancestral fly due to some spontaneous gene exchange?

And then the same LUCA /or another LUCA/ went on to evolve the elephant? And did that particular LUCA evolve to as many as the millions of living creatures that exist, just because evolutionary biology has created a species concept that it can manipulate as it pleases?

Because that's what academic power science tests: "Describe the Darwinian model of evolution by natural selection." /Biology i. detailed examination requirements/ And the examinee has no say in the matter, if he does not biflagate the spontaneous self-organizing theorems of Darwinian evolution, he can go wherever he sees fit, his future career will have "no more design than in the direction the wind blows." The existence on which he builds his life will be the result of "essentially random wandering" in the very uneven field of possibilities provided by academic science.

"Can the state allow its citizens to decide how the world is? If there is a form of knowledge that is honoured today, it is scientific knowledge. Can a contrary view be taught to millions of children? If so, the status of one of the most important institutions in society - science, which is responsible for the creation of knowledge - would be undermined." /Gábor Zemplén Creationism - pro and con LUCIDITY, 2006/6-7./

However, they cannot deny anyone the right to investigate, with the level of responsibility that everyone feels for themselves and their children, what are they building their present and their future on? On the hypothesis of evolutionary theory, which is thought to be proven, or on creation, which is rejected. It is everyone's personal, sovereign right to decide. /For those who care about the outcome of their own fate./

Evolution is the process by which the heritable characteristics of biological populations change over successive generations.

- We who doubt evolution are still at the LUCA, when there are no heritable traits anywhere, because first the specific traits and their continuity of heritability must be acquired! -

As the process of evolution works, the composition of the living world is constantly changing /despite this, living organisms still reproduce according to their own sex, the dog reproduces the dog, etc./, species are constantly changing /Darwin's finches did not change, but only varied according to natural conditions/.

New species are created and dieout /these new species would be new species if they evolved from the LUCA level, but their novelty is only a kind of novelty according to evolutionary theory, in reality they are species variations of a given species showing variability, they have nothing to do with the actual speciation/.

Elephants are thought to have evolved from the evolutionary tree group known as proboscidea. But the point is not here, but how did the evolutionary tree group known as proboscidea evolve from LUCA? Furthermore, where is the controlled application of selection pressure that coordinated evolution through the evolutionary tree group known as proboscidea in the direction of the elephant? And of course in a million other directions without direct control!

A study published in an issue of the American Academy of Sciences' journal PNAS suggests that it takes about 24 million generations for mammals to reach maximum body size, which is about the time it takes for an animal the size of a mouse to grow to the size of an elephant. For a slightly less drastic but significant change, such as a cat to elephant size in terrestrial mammals, it takes 10 million generations.

It's about the same philosophy as saying to a taxi driver in a cosmopolitan city: - "please turn right or left at every street corner at your convenience, and I'll let you know when I get home" - because why would nature make an elephant out of a mouse, when in fact it didn't, there are mice and there are elephants today. That the elephant evolved from the mouse on its own is just like how first there was the wooden sledge, then the iron sledge, then the Nissan. Completely by accident, of course, because no conscious designer was involved in the evolutionary process.

Is this real science or a version of Grimm's best fairy tale?

If humans choose what animals to breed and when to breed them, why is natural selection analogous to artificial selection - as Charles Darwin argued in his 1859 book The Origin of Species? After all, in artificial there is consciousness, and in natural there is spontaneous selection. Do I select what I need for a particular purpose, or do I let the most highly evolved survive spontaneously, and the result is the same either way?

And see again: "... in the operation of natural selection there is no more design than in the direction which the wind blows." /Charles Darwin/ "Natural selection is the blind watchmaker; blind because it does not foresee, because it does not plan consequences, because it has no purpose in mind... biological evolution is essentially a random wandering in the field of genetic possibilities." /Richard Dawkins/ This is the exact opposite of the human process based on artificial selection!

Then the two have nothing to do with each other if the elephant is to be consciously evolved, so this evolution could not have brought about this evolution by the random application of selection pressures, by the uncontrolled application of selection pressures, but it had to be FORMED by God.

Then evolutionary change is possible, when the elephant adapts to external environmental changes, but this is simple microevolution, not macroevolution, not the evolution of a phylum from some ancient cell.

Microevolutionary changes can be observed in animals and even within humans. The problem is that a species cannot change beyond the range of its genetic code (DNA). That is, a 'breed of dog' can adapt and reproduce within its own species, but dogs never grow a tribe and become elephants, they never become a completely different, distinct species from their own.

As it is written in the Bible, James 3:12 "Or, brethren, can a fig tree bring forth olives, or a vine figs?

The origin of evolutionary capacity

A pre-existing capacity cannot be developed afterwards, and if the capacity for evolution is not there, the evolutionary process cannot begin. So evolution fails when organisms with the capacity to evolve from the beginning are created by an evolutionary process that takes place afterwards. So if there is no creation, there is no evolution. None!

No one can become a magician until they have developed the skill of a magician. But evolution is a magician whose pre-existing magical ability gives rise to the possibility of developing magical ability, that is, evolutionary development.

Where did the origin of mutanscopy come from?

Furthermore, any subsequent mutation cannot create the genetic base in which the mutation first occurs, which would be the imaginary engine of such evolution. /Where does the evolutionary process get the possibility of mutational divergence / imprecise inheritance/, which it subsequently uses as a tool? 

LUCA is not a real fund, but merely a reference fund. Moreover, it has to be created, because the mixing of atoms and molecules does not create an information-driven system base, because then paper writes the book, as naturalism claims.

"If there are atoms, and there is a way, there will be molecules; and if molecules are in a warm, humid place, sooner or later they will become elephants." /P.W. Atkins in Genesis p.17./ - But this can hardly happen by undirected evolutionary processes at the whim of the wind, as we have seen the necessity of consciously influencing processes according to the purpose.

SPECIFIC PARAMETERS FOR ELEPHANTS
Adjustment of the gestation cycle and hormone levels; emission of different sounds and detection of subsonic rumbles through the sensitive skin of their legs and trunk; vibration communication; free flow of temporal gland fluid; the development of the role of the most dominant breeding male; their intelligence, ensuring their ability to learn; the development of 150,000 muscle units in their proboscis; water-retaining thick skin folds and wrinkles; their large and dense temporal lobes, ensuring their memory. Stb. How can these be conceived of as the result of uncontrolled natural processes, since even consciously they would be incredibly difficult to design and create.

"Elephant Knees?

Elephants are the only mammals that have four knees. An elephant’s knees are an extraordinary feat of engineering. Elephants weigh up to 8,000 kg, yet their unique knee structure helps support their immense weight. The back of an elephant’s knee is very different from that of a human’s. There is no single joint as seen in vertebrates like humans, but rather a series of smaller joints that fit together in a ‘polygonal’ shape. This allows the elephant to move their legs in multiple directions and adapt to different surfaces and terrain. The importance of their knees is highlighted in their gait. While they may appear slow, their joints allow them to maintain a relatively fast pace. Keeping their feet in contact with the ground for a longer time helps to give them a more stable and secure movement. It is no surprise that it is not uncommon to find elephants running as well as walking. Despite their weight, the unique structure of their knees allows them to run at speeds of up to 25km/h. The anatomy of an elephant’s knees is an incredible example of the wonders of nature.” - https://elephantfreedom.org/hu/25-amazing-facts-about-elephants/

But where does imaginative nature have the imagination to invent elephant trunks when there are much simpler feeding methods and anatomical formulas, such as for bison, horses, sheep, etc. Why does nature invent a more complex system without design, which does not work until it is fully developed?! How does it survive, reproduce and survive until then?

Did nature blindly develop eyes so that he would not be blind? And while one eye is being developed by nature, are the other organs waiting to develop, or are all the organelles developing at the same time, and can survive in the intervening period just as well as the finished system after full development? A fairy tale with whipped cream sauce evolutionary style!

The Darwinian selection of evolutionary theory for a strategic purpose is a fictional theory, at least it uses the stacking of short-term evolutionary steps to form the long-term strategic purpose, and attributes their existence to these imaginary stackings. But it cannot, because this stacking leading to a strategic goal is alien to nature.

A natural being is like a man walking through a jungle, avoiding the obstacles that are in front of him, and then being where he is. He may go around the jungle, he may not come out of it, but as he goes, he keeps surviving. And he doesn't aim to go in a particular direction to avoid obstacles according to his chosen purpose.

In contrast, man looks at a distant goal, fixes his gaze on it, and tailors his path according to a strategy of artificial selection, taking into account the possibilities.

In nature, it is a matter of selecting the most favourable options, the most productive ones, with the aim of survival and not of achieving some strategic goal. Evolution that goes far beyond mere survival and aims to create entirely new species over millions of years exists only in the imagination, not in reality!

So that molecules camping in a warm place will produce an elephant has no scientific basis whatsoever. Not even a trunk is created by blind selection of the most productive, let alone an elephant trotting behind a trunk.

The evolutionist's eye sees, only the evolutionist himself is blind to see them, to see through them and to draw the right conclusions about conscious creation, about purposeful breeding. He doesn't need that, because that would impose a moral order on him. And that is intolerable for an evolutionist.

Creation is not scientific. The life-sustaining complexity of the Earth's parameters: the size and density of the planet, the planet's rotation speed, the planet's position in the galaxy, the size and number of the planet's moons, the amount of water on the planet, etc. are, in scientific terms, completely meaningless factors, despite their alignment.

Whether mathematics describes the universe the way an engineer uses mathematics to design a building or an aeroplane is irrelevant. That the universe appears to be clearly designed, and that there are peer-reviewed scientific papers on all the parameters of the design - it doesn't matter. It is scientific that the existence of the universe makes no sense, let everyone live as they wish. Without any consequences of course.

As Atkins, who turned molecules into hip-hop elephants, said, "We are children of chaos, and the deep structure of change is decay. At its root is nothing but corruption and an unstoppable wave of chaos. The destination is gone; only the direction remains. This is the BLEAKNESS we must accept as we look deeply and dispassionately into the heart of the Universe." /Peter Atkins (1984), The Second Law (New York: Scientific American), p. 200.

"Darwin made it possible for us to be intellectually fulfilled atheists." /RichardDawkins, The Blind Watchmaker/

Intellectually fulfilled amidst an unstoppable wave of chaos and corruption. This is what Satan and the prevailing science do: promise much, give little, and ultimately take all.For science proclaims the utter futility of existence!

"People cannot tolerate the belief that the Universe and life are meaningless. In fact, that is what science tells us. Meaningless in the sense that there is no externally determined purpose or point in the Universe. As atheists, this is obviously true for us. We determine our own meaning and purpose." /Jerry Coyne Jerry Coyne Professor of Biology, (2012), "The Odd Couple: Why Science and Religion Shouldn't Cohabitate," Speech to Glasgow Skeptics, December 21./

"The whole genetic programme is at the service of DNA, not of the people themselves. We are merely temporary containers of life-bearing molecules. In this case the packaging, ourselves, is merely there to be discarded." /Rudi Westendorp, Dutch professor of genetics/

If man himself is meant to be thrown away, how can his garbage not be meant to be thrown away?! Thank science for this telling, far-reaching moral teaching.

Special thanks to Charles Darwin for making this human animal origin and perspective accessible. As modern science proclaims: modern man originated in Africa and mixed with Neanderthals some 50,000 years ago.

Consequently, given our animal origins, we now have the possibility to be intellectual atheists. Darwinism makes us happy. Let each man use his free choice to his own benefit and to the detriment of society. "There is probably no God, so enjoy life at your leisure." /Dawkins' bus campaign in England/

The Darwinian theory itself is where Darwinism fails. All it does is make people throw banana peels. With serious attention, such a theory worthy of being thrown around would not, could not, have come about.

Darwin's main assumption was that, primarily through variation and natural selection, all kinds of different organisms could arise naturally on their own. In reality, however, he was only discovering limited biological principles, variation within a species, and not those dealing with macroevolution /change from one species to another/.

Adaptation and specialisation are fundamentally very different things from macroevolution, from strain evolution.

Evolutionary factor isolation and genetic drift do not answer questions about macroevolution. Darwin inferred not only subsequent racial diversity from formal variation, but also racial origin, even though the two are two entirely different things.

"All life on Earth evolved from a single-celled organism that lived about 3.5 billion years ago..." - https://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/article/100513-science-evolution-darwin-single-ancestor

"Darwin's greatest achievement was to show that the complex organisation and functioning of living things can be explained as the result of a natural process - natural selection - without recourse to a Creator or other external agent." /Francisco José Ayala : Darwin's greatest discovery: design without a designer / -https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.0701072104

In the light of the evidence above, we can see that these claims do not hold water.

Species variation /natural variation within a species/ can occur in nature, but the species in which it occurs can never occur by natural selection. Darwinian evolution cannot take over the creation of the foundations, it can only make them plausible through various manipulations.

Darwinism is a fantasy product used by the atheist to make the impossible believable to the gullible.

- - - 

"I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will become the greatest hoax in the history of science." /Soren Lovtrup's Darwinism: a myth debunked (Croom Helm, 1987) p. 422,/

As Phillip Johnson, a law professor at the University of California, elegantly put it, "Darwinian evolution... resembles a great battleship on the ocean of reality. Its sides are heavily armored with philosophical barriers to criticism, and its decks are loaded with big rhetorical cannons to intimidate any would-be attackers... "But the ship has sprung a metaphysical leak [due to the growing arguments for intelligent design], and the more astute among the ship's officers are beginning to feel that the ship cannot be saved with all the firepower at its disposal unless the leak is plugged. Of course there will be heroic efforts to save the ship... The spectacle will be impressive and the battle will go on for a long time. But in the end, reality will prevail." /Darwin on Trial, 1993, pp. 169-170/.

Darwin's bicentenary has arrived, but as Phillip Johnson predicts: "Darwin's ideas will eventually end up in the dustbin of history. Johnson states. Yet Marx and Freud failed... I am convinced that Darwin is next in line. His failure will be the greatest of the three." /Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, 1997, p. 113/. 

* * * * *

PROCLAIM TO THE WORLD AT LARGE THE TRIUMPH

OF CREATION OVER DARWINISM!

„You alone are the JEHOVAH! You created the heavens, the heavens of heavens and all the host, the earth and all that is in it, the seas with all that is in them; and you give life to all, and the host of heaven falls down before you.” (Nehemiah 9:6)

„And I saw another angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel, to preach the gospel to the inhabitants of the earth, and to every kindred, and to every branch, and tongue, and people, Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him: for the hour of his judgment is come; and worship him that made heaven and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.” (Revelation 14:6-7)