When Darwin first penned his book “Origin of the Species” science did not have access to the knowledge that we have today.  Much of his conclusions were therefore premature, in fact he might have not written his book if the scientific knowledge that we have today had been available to him.

One of his serious mistakes was the assumption that “natural selection” was a law in nature. According to his book he found finches on the Island of Galapagos which were different to those elsewhere. To account for this he theorized that in the competition for survival these particular finches were better equipped to survive because their beaks were bigger and harder than others. He explained this by improvising this law of the “survival of the fittest” which  is called “Natural selection.” The flaw in his reasoning was the fact that there were different finches in other places and the question would then arise as to whether they were also “the fittest” because they had survived. Actually what was regarded as the fittest was only relative to the environment  in that particular locality. So the fittest is merely a relative term. It is also doubtful whether the law of the survival of the fittest is actually a law because the phenomena could be better explained by Mendel’s Law. According to Mendel’s Law certain characteristics might apparently disappear from a species when certain conditions prevailed in a certain area, but when these changed the characteristics could reappear again.  In this way the adaptability of species worked for the preservation of the species. So the flaw in Darwin’s reasoning was in not taking into account that the change was a local phenomena. Different conditions exist in different places on the earth at any time. Characteristics that may favor a creature in one part of the world may handicap a creature in another part of the world. The fittest are not therefore the best. Unfortunately, many scientists are reluctant to part with the theory and so continue to hang on to it without thinking it through.

There are also factors that make it doubtful as to whether natural selection and survival of the fittest is really a law in nature. There are many examples in nature of co-operation rather than competition. This is discussed in more detail in the article “The Universe -Accident or design.” There are little fish that act as cleaners for large predators, and certain birds that have no hesitation in entering the mouth of a crocodile to clean it’s teeth. and many other examples of co-operation in nature. In fact all this apparent competition may just be a way of preserving a balance in nature. Predators usually only give birth to few offspring and the pregnancy appears to occupy longer periods of time, whereas those creature that provide the food for the predators produce many more offspring and more often. this ensures a balance in nature. So the balance seems to be built into nature and has nothing to do with natural selection because the balance works for the preservation for both the  predator and the prey.

Natural Selection and the Species.

Another apparent flaw in the theory is, that “survival of the fittest” is accepted without regard to the effects of other species. if certain cats were under consideration as the survivors of their species, how could that species be the fittest to survive if it was in competition with other wild carnivore.  The presence of other species would be part of the environmental conditions and so by holding to the theory of the survival of the fittest then all cats should die out because of the presence of these other carnivore, however the facts show otherwise.  The presence of cats and other carnivore co-existing in the world shows that natural selection is no law but is only apparent because species can adjust to a certain extent according to Mendel’s Law. The finches in Darwin’s book were still finches, and being regarded as the fittest to survive was only applicable while the conditions that favored their selection were there. The problem with the word fittest is that it misleads one into thinking that the creature is the best. Actually it is not the best but only the most suitable for the conditions operating in that area. Furthermore there are limits to this adaptability.

Faulty Reasoning

A certain “Time Life” book on evolution attempting to explain evolution theorized that the flightless cormorant could not fly because there were no carnivore on the Island. It then went on to state that  the frigate bird which lives on the same Island was an unmitigated flier. Obviously the fact that there was no carnivore on the Island should have affected the frigate bird as well, and so why should we assume that only the cormorant was affected? These explanations only demonstrate how eager the authors were to accept any imaginative explanation to maintain the theory. Surely the presence of the frigate bird proved that the reasons they gave for the differences that they observed were only in their imagination and not fact, and so shows their eagerness to invent explanations. One scientist actually said that the beauty of the evolution theory was in the fact that if a cat had a long tail one could invent an explanation and still sound scientific and if the cat had a short tail one could similarly invent an explanation and still sound scientific. Evolution relies on imagination.

What About  Evolution’s Reputation?

An interesting fact, when one thinks about it, is that evolution has only made its name as science, not on what it has done but on the reputation of other branches of science.  Engineering, whether applied to electronics, mathematics, medicine and astronomy, to name just a few areas, is where science has actually progressed. Evolution has been in the area of theorists, who do nothing but theorize and have no works of their own to recommend their theory. Unfortunately the public thinks that they represent science because the unwarranted assumptions they make are accepted as fact.. I once discussed evolution with an evolutionist who was a paleontologist.  After a few minutes he confessed that he knew very little about evolution because his field was only really the study of bones. However if this man had made a statement regarding evolution to the average person, he would have been regarded as an authority on evolution because of his being a scientist. This example shows how evolution rides on the strengths of the other branches of science.

Evolution Dodges Creation

What evolutionists do not appreciate is that the whole matter can be reduced to the simple question of whether there was a creation or not. Evolutionists bypass the issue of creation, by simply assuming that the universe evolved, whereas the facts prove otherwise. Modern astronomical observations have led to the conclusion that the universe is expanding. Materialists are forced to backtrack in time to the beginning when all the matter of the universe was compressed into a dot. That is their dead-end. Now, if the dot existed from eternity then when did the dot develop intelligence and decide to expand. Our instinctive knowledge of “cause and effect” tells us that there has to be a first cause. Even Evolution is forced to accept the “cause and effect” principle, but disguises this by appealing to nature as if nature had intelligence and can create. If a dam was built and formed a lake, we would not consider that the lake was natural, but if the lake was formed without human intervention then we would regard it as natural. However to say that nature had created the lake or designed anything is just a cute way of hiding behind words. Nature is just an expression that indicates that what was there was not formed by humans. That is why I have no hesitation  in saying that evolution is a religion. The God they have created to satisfy their instinctive knowledge that every effect must have a cause, is the personification of a mother goddess called Nature. They need a “cause” and because of denying the evidence of a creator they have to create a goddess of their own.

Evolution’s attempt to circumvent Creation

Evolutionists have tried to circumvent the “creation” issue by asserting that as the universe is expanding, gravity is slowing the rate of expansion and it will ultimately stop and compress back to the dot and then expand again. This theory is known as “the oscillating theory.” However since that theory was proposed it has been tested and it was found that the rate of expansion is not slowing down but increasing and so there goes another attempt to avoid creation. Once again it is the scientist with his engineering skills and knowledge of mathematics that makes the discovery. The evolutionist can be anybody, because he is only a theorist, and relies on imagination as his tools. That is why there are scientists who are evolutionists and scientists who are not evolutionists. Science is not the deciding factor as to whether evolution is true or not, and so laymen are just as well qualified to judge the facts using common sense as a tool and their instinctive knowledge of “cause and effect, provided that they cease being overawed by the intellectual label that science has acquired. This does not downgrade the achievements of modern scientists but merely puts the matter into perspective. Objective examination of the available evidence, and not necessarily the conclusions of the discoverer which may simply reflect the beliefs of the discoverer, together with common sense are sufficient tools to qualify a person, because evolution, after all is merely an theory and and only reflects the opinions of individuals and like all other theories can be completely wrong just as theories in the past have been later shown to be erroneous..

Materialist’s Viewpoint and True Science

Now once we get a creator into the picture we don’t need evolution at all.  When I was a child it was fun to propose a riddle. One was supposed to be completely stumped by the question “Which came first the chicken or the egg?” If one said the chicken, then the answer was:-Wrong!  because it came from an egg and if one said the egg, one was also wrong because the egg had to be laid by a chicken. This is just materialistic reasoning.  Once we have proved to ourselves from the evidence that there is a creator then we know the answer. A full grown chicken is the answer. It laid the egg. The next question that would then logically follow is:- “Where did the full grown chicken come from?” The answer is that God (the word simply means “a mighty one”) created the first pair of chickens. Now the materialist would ask, “Who created God?” At this point one is supposed to surrender because the materialist feels you have no answer, but he his wrong.

The answer is that we don’t know, because that is where our science ends and we  will never know unless God tells us. Fortunately, if we are willing to pursue the subject it is possible to arrive at the answer, because there is evidence that the Bible is in fact the medium that God has used to communicate these answers to man, however that is a separate subject that cannot be considered in detail in this article.  According to the Bible God tells us that he has always existed and this is reasonable because common sense tells us that an intelligent creator is required. This answer cannot be contested because our science ends with the knowledge that the universe had to be created by an intelligent being. Any further knowledge can only result from revelation.  In fact would anybody ask the question “What came first the baby or the man”? The Bible has a simple logical answer. The man came first, then the woman was fashioned from a portion of the man, (the rib) and by doing so related the woman’s DNA with the Man’s DNA (a simple creative act from the point of view of a person who created the entire universe), finally the two persons were perfectly matched to produce, between them the baby and reared it to its full growth.

Now consider this fact, once we have a God in the picture, all we can learn by our own efforts about him, is by examining his creation. Any further knowledge would have to be based on reliable revelation. What does this examination of creation reveal to us? This is where science can really help us. All the research of science reveals that our creator is a master designer. Professor Einstein also theorized that energy and matter are theoretically interchangeable. The engineering feats in the construction of the atomic bomb and and other areas of  atomic research have proven the reliableness of this theory. How does this help us? Well if all the matter in the universe was converted back to energy then can you possibly Imagine just how powerful the creator was to be able to produce the universe.

Learning About a Creator

To accomplish creation our creator must be a boundless source of energy. Furthermore, before matter came into existence, laws governing the behavior of matter could not have existed and would have been unnecessary. As the creator of matter he himself must be in a form other than matter, because he existed before matter, and so basically he could not be confined to the material universe and is the source of all the energy required to produce it. When the Russian astronaught said that when he was circling the earth in his little space ship he found no God, he was in fact only demonstrating his ignorance of the facts. The Bible refers to God as being a spirit and this is an accurate description because the original words, both Hebrew and Greek refer to wind or air in motion. In other words God is an invisible person. I say “person” because we associate intelligence and the ability to make decisions with a person.  At the time of creation, God must have also formulated the laws governing the relationship and behavior of energy and matter. The wisdom and beauty in nature further testify to his love of beauty. Many of the other fine qualities we see in man such as love and justice suggest that these are facets of his personality because out of all the material life forms we alone are intelligent enough to have and appreciate these attributes.  The materialist will point to the pain and suffering in the world in an attempt  to bolster denial of a creator, but the presence of pain and suffering only require an answer that only God can give. Would it be logical and reasonable to expect that God has provided an answer? Of course! From our own experience we know that it is only natural for a person to want his creative work to be appreciated and since we,  his creation have these  expectations, it would only be natural to expect that God also wants to be appreciated for his creative works. Therefore it is entirely logical to expect that he would provide an answer for honest persons who were willing to search for the answer rather than haughtily condemn him for allowing the unhappy situation to exist.

Logic and Private Interpretation

I, personally have found that the Bible provides us with the complete answer to these questions. However once we consider the Bible, we will have to consider other questions regarding the presence of thousands of different religions, many of whom claim that they are based on the Bible. In my examination the only ones that truthfully and honestly base their ideas on the Bible are Jehovah’s witnesses. One reason for my answer is that the witnesses use a topical method of Bible study which other religions, do not do. Most other religions simply select scriptures from the Bible that they interpret to support their particular dogma. Here is an example of how they interpret the Bible.- To support the trinity doctrine  a person might quote a scripture, where Jesus says “I and my Father are one” as proof that Jesus is also actually God.

This they will do in spite of literally hundreds of references, where Jesus showed his subjection to his father. If you or I made that particular statement to anyone, would we expect the person to conclude that we were saying that you or I was our own father?  Common sense  would tell us that that was a nonsensical conclusion and so we would conclude that Jesus was merely saying that he and his father were in perfect agreement with each other. I am just using this example to illustrate how private interpretation comes into the picture. What the witnesses have done is derive the meaning that harmonizes with all the scriptures on the subject. In this way the Bible interprets itself.

I intend publishing articles on this website, showing that proceeding from the existence of a creator we can proceed logically and scientifically to the conclusion that the Bible is in fact an inspired revelation from God that will answer all other questions.

With regard to the theory of evolution, the theory received the deathblow in my opinion when the DNA code was discovered in the cell. The DNA is a complete program for the development and growth of a human creature. It governs our entire existence from birth to the grave.  Only a complete cell is capable of reproduction, and so able to pass on its genetic code and so the development of this code could not be passed on until the cell was completely formed. This constitutes positive proof of design by an intelligent Creator because the DNA code can be compared to a computer program produced by an intelligent prgrammer. Who ever heard of a computer program being generated by a lot of mistakes or accidents. Furthermore the DNA code is only one component of the cell. As such it could not be passed on before the developement of the complete cell. This has been proven as fact because a virus which appears to be a portion of DNA code is lifeless and needs a living cell as a host for it to replicate itself. Once one appreciates this fact, and begins to question evolution theory, many proofs of the theory’s failure will come to mind.

To illustrate this fact allow me to use one more illustration of how evolutionists deceive us. Evolutionists, when finding some skull will judge it as being primitive and lower in the scale of evolution, basing their conclusions on the size of the brain cavity. Of course the brain cavity relates to the size of the skull. How this theory dominated the thinking of the western world is shown by the fact that before world war 2 the Japanese were portrayed as being primitive and incapable of producing anything original. What a shock the world received when it came in contact with their zero aircraft during world war 2 and today they are known to be one of the leaders in the development of electronics. Yet when we consider that they are a very small people with correspondingly small heads, this assumption of brain size is clearly shown to be false.  So the mistakes that Darwin made at the beginning have simply been retained and added to by persons who desire to avoid answering to a higher authority and like our first forefather, desire unlimited freedom for themselves. What may sound plausible at first may simply be an imaginative fraud that can be exposed with honest application of common sense.

So in conclusion we can say:- Darwin produced his theory at a time when the knowledge that we have today was unavailable.  The cell was considered the smallest brick in living creatures and almost nothing was known about genes and the part they play in determining the species. Unfortunately many scientists who commited themselves to the theory have proved themselves reluctant to change their views when various aspects of the theory were proved wrong. Therefore modern science has once again proven the truthfulness of the statement: “In the beginning God created the heaves and the earth”

To Contact Us

If you wish to enter into correspondence with us, We can be reached in a number of ways. Our e-mail address is:- info@facethefacts.co.za We will reply to you and give you more information and answer any questions you might have.

You can also examine the links to other official sites and will then have access to answers to your questions in the form of articles and literature that are available on every conceivable subject.

If you wish to see a list of articles select this link.

Posted in Categories :- Evolution, Science, all