Chapter 5.


The struggle between capitalist and socialist dreams has caused incredible misery and millions of deaths, but no one bothers to ask if either is a valid human objective or 'scientific' in any sense that the term might reasonably be used. If anyone has brought the matter up then they have been carefully kept from explaining the situation in any way meaningful to the public.

The invalidity of these deadly dreams is the secret of the evolution myth; and human manipulation is the reason for the evolution myth.

Evolution - A Decisive Proof of Manipulation.

A short review of the evidence disproving the evolution myth.

Why does the peacock have such a large and colourful tail?

Answer: To attract his mate. Nature has evolved a wonderful courtship ritual for that purpose.

You will find (or have already found) that evolutionists have what they call `a plausible explanation' for everything. Obviously an explanation of sorts can be devised to explain everything imaginable, but do these explanations have any relevance to fact? What if we ask why the sparrow does not need a large and colourful tail to attract a mate?

The explanations evolutionists give do nothing to explain why nature, in her blind unconcern for all things, should evolve birds of fancy colours when brown or black would seem to serve equally well. Or, for that matter, why would nature evolve birds at all?

Because they are necessary for this or that purpose, the evolutionists reply. But nature does not care about this or that purpose, nature knows nothing and cares nothing. Nature is a purely physical mechanism. Nature, without life, is a bare rock, and only after the complicated arrangement of life is complete do any or all of the oddities of life serve some purpose. Nature has no concern with reason. Nature neither knows nor cares; nature is blind, deaf and dumb.

The trouble with evolutionists is that they look at a complete system and seek to explain the finished product in terms to suit their religious need. If we begin at the beginning we find their plausible explanations are meaningless drivel explaining nothing. Does the earth want birds and bees? Does the water want fish? No!

But it All Happened by Chance, say the Evolutionists.

Chance, in physics, is a mathematically verifiable proposition. Any logical or scientific theory that depends on chance can be tested.

In a sound materialist logic any theory would begin with its mathematical status. This would be especially important to people claiming logic and science as their only guide. It is a very relevant point when we realize that mathematics is considered as being the ultimate form of scientific confirmation.

Chance evolutionary theory does not have the honour of mathematical support despite the fact that evolution is the sole base for the materialist philosophy.

Professors Sir Fred Hoyle & N.C. Wickramasinghe.

Two competent mathematicians, Professors Sir Fred Hoyle and N.C. Wickramasinghe, published (1981) a book called 'Evolution from Space' in which they ridicule the theory of chance evolution as something mathematically impossible. They say:

. . .there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is... an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.' They also say of evolution theory, 'If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or scientific training into the conviction . . . this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court.'

Hoyle, long a proponent of the atheist viewpoint, while on a lecture tour of Australia (1982) said:

'REJECTION OF DARWINIAN EVOLUTIONARY BELIEFS ARE CRUCIAL TO THE SURVIVAL OF LIFE ON EARTH'.... and 'Once you believe in the evolutionary theory that the weakest go to the wall and that nothing can be done about the selection process, then it's an open invitation to the kind of political behaviour we've had over the last century. One has almost built world wars into the system at that point.' (EA).

Hoyle also points out that if a theory is correct then the pieces fall rapidly into place. New horizons open up and benefits accumulate.

This is the opposite to what has happened with the evolution theory. 'Evolution' has saddled humanity with a dead whale. A hundred years and many millions of dollars have failed to bring it to life. Meanwhile millions of lives have been lost, incredible amounts of pain and suffering have been inflicted and countless man-hours of scientific effort have been misdirected. No theory concocted by human mind has ever been so carelessly used to such destruction of human life and happiness.

Dr. H.B. Holroyd.

Professors Hoyle and Wickramasinghe are not alone in finding that evolution by chance fails utterly the test of science:

Dr. H.B. Holroyd, Ph.D., mechanical engineer and physicist, and retired head of the Department of Physics, Augustana College, Illinois, USA, independently came up with much the same conclusions in an article headed 'Darwinism is Physical and Mathematical Nonsense' published in the Creation Research Society Quarterly of June 1982. In proposing that gigantic human errors should in future be called Darwinian. He suggests that in a scale of human errors the Darwinian error is the Mr. Everest of errors. He goes on to make the following comments:

'The Darwinian error was caused by the failure to use necessary mathematics.'

`. . .for we have seen far beyond dispute, that the infinitesimally probable designs of organisms could not have been produced in a googol of operations of random change and selection.' [a googol is 10 to the 100th power and represents a number greater than the number of atoms in the known universe.]

'Darwinism is physical and mathematical nonsense, and it is logical nonsense as well, for a sound thinker does not assume anything which must be deduced from his theory. Darwinism is, indeed, far more a blunder than a theory, and physical scientist should have shown this clearly and effectively decades ago.'

'It is not surprising that Darwin, with his weak scientific education should fail into error; but it is surprising that the great physicists and chemists of his time and following should not have taken time enough to point out the errors effectively.'

'Physical scientists, who know higher mathematics and are capable of analytical thinking, should never have allowed the thoroughly mistaken mechanical theory of evolution to reach such a degree of apparent certainty in the thoughts of nearly everyone.'

`It is ironical that Darwinians, who have made great efforts to destroy superstitions, should themselves be responsible for one of the worst superstitions of all time.'

The conflict of rationality in the evolution position is highlighted by the fact that the evolution theory is promoted and defended by humanism. The religion that raves against myth, emotional dependence and dogmatism is no less blind that the worst of theistic religions.

Even the religious dependence of the humanists however does not explain how such an error could be introduced into scientific thought and maintained there in spite of its obvious lack of substance. It is only when we understand the relevance of chance evolution theory to human manipulation that we realize why this confidence trick would be performed by a powerful international institution. The tax free foundations of the U.S.A. poured $millions into the education system and it is evident that the sole purpose of this 'generosity' was to influence the acceptance of chance evolution theory as the sole 'scientific' teaching.

Norman Macbeth.

The above is the answer as to why the public was not made aware that evolution theory is no more than a mish-mash of faith and confusion. Original Darwinism was replaced by the 'Synthetic Theory' and of this Norman Macbeth (author of Darwin Retried)in a 1983 interview makes these comments:

'It is rather strange to say this, but the Synthetic Theory has never been formulated. It was a vague consensus that was never formulated in any detail. This means that they were able to achieve remarkable agreement, because nobody knew what it was all about .... ' He goes on:

'But a much deeper and more penetrating analysis of the problem was put together by Professor Ronald H. Brady the quarterly called 'Systematic Zoology' for December 1979 .... I think it destroys the idea of natural selection, and this is certainly the opinion of many people at the American Museum of Natural History. The whole basis for the Synthetic Theory is shot to pieces right there in his article.'

The educated seem confused! Although believing life only physical they find it difficult to see life as something that is restricted by the same laws as rocks and minerals. But all physical things are made of physical materials and the form that they take does not make them less subject to natural law. Neither slow gradual evolution nor evolution by sudden great leaps, has any valid explanation within natural law.

Giovanni Blandino.

Here is what Giovanni Blandino S.J. wrote in his book, Theories on the Nature of Life (1969):

'Summing up, we may say: In the hypothesis of equiprobability, the probability that a regular structure should form, either by generation or by gradual evolution, is equal to the probability that the same structure should form immediately from matter irregularly arranged. That is to say: by varying the ways of formation, the probabilities do not vary. (Principle of invariableness of probabilities)'

Blandino is quite definite that the creation of life or of any other structure is, in a system of equal chance, impossible.

To finish making the point that chance evolution theory is in conflict with natural law, I should also like to say that it is not only the mathematical law that is violated, as we saw above the 'Natural Selection' part of the theory is also considered by competent people to be entirely invalid. The 'Second Law of Thermodynamics' is also violated. The second law states that the universe is running down, that simplification of structure is the natural state. We have this reflected in the fact that the genetic pools of nature also destruct. This confirms the mathematical law that complex structure cannot form by chance.

Evolution theory is disproven by the laws of nature and is not a properly formulated scientific theory.

The Fossil Evidence.

Leading authorities admit what is now too obvious to cover up: the fossil evidence also, DENIES evolution.

This was confirmed in October 1980 when some 160 of the world's top anatomists, paleontologists, evolutionary geneticists, etc. met in Chicago at what is commonly known as The Chicago Conference. They were forced to admit that the fossil evidence did not support Darwinian evolution and could only fall back on the previously ridiculed 'hopeful monster' theory. This theory is also ridiculed by mathematics and has all the problems of supernatural intervention while denying that explanation.

On the other hand it can be shown that de-evolution is a theory fully compatible with physical law. It is completely logical in relation to the factual evidence and scientifically unchallenged.

The future of humanity depends on exposing the thoroughly discredited dogma called Chance Evolution Theory.

Our Most Deadly Myth.

Let me remind you again of the incredible suffering and misery that has been inflicted on mankind in the name of socialist ideology. An ideology based on humanist religious dogma which in turn is dependent on the evolution myth.

Let us also not forget that this religion of libertinage now leads all other religions in bigotry and despotism. The great pity of it all, is that in this age the scientific knowledge is available to show it as misconceived.

The whole structure of socialism relies on chance evolution for an appearance of rationality and a lot of blame for its persistence as an acceptable theory must rest with those scientists who knew it a fake but were afraid to speak out.

The facts are known and are available, but have not been revealed to the public. The majority of educators neither know nor want to know, that Darwinism is scientifically dead. To admit the truth to themselves would mean having to face up to the failure of their entire (socialist) philosophy.

They will fight to the last to preserve this crutch for their licentious philosophy. and so our schools still teach evolution as though it were a fact even though it is known to be disproven by the evidence.

They continue, with government backing, to mislead children and promote a deadly philosophy because they need the prop of this religious myth to support their selfish dogma.

While they betray us, they also betray themselves.

The Conflict With Logic.

The heart of evolution theory—its fundamental principle of operation—is 'survival of the fittest'; this applies to all forms of the theory. Evolutionists (because of the inhuman connotations) now prefer to call survival of the fittest by the name of 'natural selection'. Its twin operational mechanism (claimed to allow the creation of some that are more fit than others) is 'random mutation'.

The first mechanism says that the fittest have the best chance to survive and implies (as a matter of necessity) that the survivors will, by nature, be more genetically complex, more advanced, and better future survivors than their ancestors; the second mechanism provides the alternatives from which selection can take place.

The word 'evolution' simply means a natural or logical progression of events. The silly assumption of evolutionists is that a progression of events is creative.

It is quite legitimate and acceptable to talk of change as evolution if the discussion is about change. BUT, when evolutionists talk and write about evolution they are not talking about change, they are talking about CREATION.

BE WARNED, if you read evolution propaganda you will constantly be presented with examples of change or re-arrangement as examples of creation.

Evolution theorists have for years misled people by the simple device of claiming that, as any genetic change provides an opportunity for natural selection, it also explains creative development. What they ignore is that the random damage to genes that provides opportunity for genetic change is actual damage, and while this certainly allows opportunity for selection it is NOT creative.

Chance selection is not a mechanism that can create new genes, a process far too complicated for chance events. What selection of the fittest does is defend the gene pool and life-form against the rapid degeneration that would take place were damaged genes maintained in the system.

It also serves another important use: all life forms have a genetic surplus. As you are aware no two persons are exactly alike. Since the gene pool of a genus is always much larger than is required for any one individual, there is always potential for selection and specialization.

What this means is that if some life form has the opportunity to live in two different environments, then those that go one way will be able to use those surplus genes which are beneficial in the environment while the other group will be able to draw from the gene pool those genes which are more useful in their living area.

This obviously does not mean that either group has evolved new genes. On the contrary, so long as they continue to live in a specialized environment they will tend to lose the genes not being used. The reason for this loss is simple: if an unused gene is damaged by random mutation then it has no effect on the efficiency of the life form and so is not selected out. Evolutionists point to all visible signs of past change as evidence of evolution, but what they say is not only untrue it is intellectual nonsense.

We may note that Nobel Prize winner, H.J.Muller, dismissed 'survival of the fittest' as a mechanism for creation in 1949; while C.H.Waddington (a geneticist) in 1959 claimed natural selection a tautology (a pointless repetition of words).

Random mutation is by nature destructive. The mechanisms, 'survival of the fittest' and 'random mutation' are perfectly suited to a theory of genetic degeneration and not at all to a theory of creation. If we consider the fact that genetic damage is constantly occurring and that the only defense life-forms have from this damage is natural selection, then degeneration is inevitable.

The second law of thermodynamics suggests that all systems, left to nature, degenerate.

Any attempt to argue that life forms, being different from inanimate objects, are not subject to the same laws, is a clear nonsense. Life forms, in their physical aspects, are mechanisms designed to absorb energy, and so long as they absorb the energy they need then they may fulfill a mechanical program. The genetic system is like a computer program that controls the organism and this genetic system, over generations, will degenerate just as the evidence shows.

NOTE: The preservation of the plant gene pool is now a major problem. In the process of breeding new plants (similarly with animals) we are not creating anything new. What we do is isolate the features we want and then breed out the unwanted competitive genes. Over the years we have lost a large part of the gene pool of many essential plants and animals. This also, more slowly, is nature's way.

Francis Crick

It is interesting to see that Francis Crick (Nobel Laureate co-discoverer of the DNA structure) (Science, Vol. 204, April 1979) observes:

'Should a chromosomal gene arise whose transcript was processed to make more than one protein, I would expect that in the course of evolution the gene would be duplicated, one copy subsequently specializing on one of the proteins and the other copy on the other. If this point of view is correct, then one would expect multiple-choice genes to occur only rarely in the chromosomes of eukaryotes.'

What he is saying is that if we had a gene which contained information to express two alternatives, then in time one alternative would be expected to express itself in one branch of the family and the other in another branch. We would not expect it to remain as a multiple choice gene.

This gives another expert (if uninterested) support for de-evolution. The life-form first appears on earth having great genetic complexity. This gives potential to diversify and specialize into related families. Because of the constant pressure of random mutation and survival of the fittest, this must give rise to the fossil record as is now known and which is in direct opposition to the needs of evolution theory.

A piece of evidence of genetic simplification, over the kind of time span during which evolution theory would require an increase in complexity, is found in Bacillus Circulans. Scientific literature says that this tiny form of life has survived 300 million years of suspended animation in rock salts. After that period of time it is found to have been genetically more complex than its present day descendants.

The theory of chance evolution is not a scientific theory, it is a religious theory. It was designed to provide a logical base for a pagan religious revival. Evolution has no support in natural law, physical fact, or logic; what is more, leading secular scientists admit it is a creation myth.

Why Have The Faults Been Hidden?

Why have more scientists not spoken out?

Why are those who do speak out so often retired or of independent means?

Why is it that those who do speak out are given so little publicity?

Why are there no headlines and no experts discussing the social consequences of the failure of this socially deadly theory?

Why is it that we now have a constant stream of propaganda to reinforce public belief in evolution?

Why does this propaganda increase as the evidence against evolution has become more difficult to cover up?

Why were the bones of assorted animals arranged to represent the evolution of the horse, and why is this model still used long after proved wrong?

How do you think it would be possible for such a childish theory to be maintained in scientific literature and education if there were not a very powerful and wealthy establishment promoting and protecting it?

Why Is Chance Evolution Theory so Important?

Would you send your children to a school that taught the flat earth theory as the only valid understanding of the earth? Probably not, but if you did then the miseducation would not be very harmful since 'flat earth' does not have the important social implications that are attached to a theory of creation.

The importance of the theory of evolution is that it is a theory about creation. The most important belief motivating human behaviour is belief in how we came to exist. How could it be otherwise? creation belief represents man's link with his origins. It is the base of his conviction of what he really is. It is the base of his belief as to his true nature and how he came to be. It is the foundation of his reasoning about the nature of life and of man's purpose (or lack of purpose) in it.

Evolution theory provides the elitists with a base for socialist theory and paganism. Chance evolution theory is what makes all the kaleidoscope of deviant self-destructive anti-social behaviour appear beautifully logical. The failure of the theory of chance evolution has been carefully kept from the public because it is a deliberate confidence trick. This myth supplies the foundation for the humanist/pagan religion which in turn is the cheese in the liberal/socialist trap.

Just so long as we maintain false creation beliefs we will live in conflict and slavery.

I have challenged our leaders and authorities to prove their sincerity by making the true scientific status of the evolution myth known to the public and by explaining the consequences of this theory in terms of social philosophy. Our leaders have not been prepared to do this without pressure. That challenge, and the meaning and reason for that challenge, is an important purpose of this book. avoid20.htm

.../Next Page

.../Home to Contents Page