You are on page 1of 3

EVOLUTION IS A ONE MAN'S IDEA.

What is evolution? Whose idea is it? What has it got to do with man? All these and many
more questions have been asked with a few answers given to them, yet according to
what I have read and heard from scientists am convinced that evolution is not part of
science but other religion altogether. Before anyone can talk about Evolution, they
should be ready to specify which part of evolution they are talking about;

1. Cosmic evolution-The origin of time, space and matter, i.e. Big Bang.
2. Chemical evolution-The origin of higher elements from Hydrogen if the Big Bang
produced Hydrogen and Helium how did the other elements (105) come about.
3. Stellar and Planetary evolution-The origin of stars and planets.
4. Organic evolution-The origin of Life from nonliving material.
5. Macroevolution-Change from one kind to another kind
6. Microevolution-Variations with in a kind

The first five are all religious and it's only the last (6th) one which is Scientific so which
of these do the Scientists today uses to explain evolution? I bet they will all use the last
one because there are many examples on that yet today they talk about macroevolution,
the Big Bang Theory and at the end of the day leave many Questions in peoples' minds
including those they cannot answer themselves.

If Evolution is part of Science then I strongly can tell that it has failed to stand by what
Science is, this is how Scientists should do their work [the way science works]: Observe;
write a Hypothesis; Give supporting Evidence. Once a scientist fails to give evidence for
his claims then he does not operate in the world of Science but under faith and hence a
religion formed, no wonder many Science books have statements like "Scientists
believe that the universe began with a ..." Scientists believe that some dinosaurs
evolved into birds ..."(thus Macroevolution)
From the Science books I have read, I have found out that Charles Darwin talked about
Microevolution which refers to the variations with in Kind yet Scientists today have
attached these variations with in kind to Macroevolution which refers to changing from
one Kind to another Kind say from fish to amphibians, all this is to get people to believe
that there is no God hence Scientists believing that man is god and answers to no one
(Humanist world view) this is not true because Macroevolution is based on the claims
that mutations can produce not only new Species but also entirely new Families of
Plants and Animals that is not true because mutations change the Genetic Code thus
producing alternations in the descendants of Plants and Animals. Thus why
Macroevolution is resting on three main assumptions:

1. Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create New Species.


2. Natural Selection leads to production of New Species.
3. The Fossil record documents Macro evolutionary changes in Plants and Animals.

Why assumption and not facts? Scientists are truly working out of their
boundaries(Observe; write a Hypothesis; Give supporting Evidence) as Charles Darwin
explains in his book {"The Origin of Species By Means Of Natural Selection" or "The
Preservation Of Favored Races In The Struggle For Life"} (1895) that it's the changes
in Species (microevolution) that make them best suiting for their environment, the fact
that a given Species can change to suit the environment in which it is, does not mean
that it has changed to another Species as Scientists today put it under Macroevolution of
which they cannot give evidence for, If Scientists believe that man came from apes why
do we have a clear cut difference but the two and nothing in between to prove that apes
are changing to man. Which person who claims to be a Scientist today would tell the
world that if a rat from Uganda managed to survive in the hottest desert or at the coldest
place on earth would change in to a new Kind unknown to man?
The bottom line of Darwin’s Theory is survival for the fittest just like his title puts it
favored races in the struggle for life implying that he believed in every man (or
everything) on his (it's) own.

Scientist today try to get everyone to believe that Darwin’s theory is about
Macroevolution hence making him a Lair of what he put forward in his own theory how
could Charles have talked about Macroevolution when some of his studies were
conducted from some of the British Farms. Folks Charles Darwin’s Theory is based on
Microevolution hence Scientists today have diverted from what Darwin put forward in
his Theory simply because they do not want to believe that there is a Creator(God) of all
that we see today in the world, not that Darwin believed in God anyway.

Am not writing this to support or defend Darwin, because one thing I know he was a
Racist who thought that Natives were just advanced animals on wonder he is the cause
of all the commotion in the world today Like the U S President Theodore Roosevelt
believed that the Indians were Inferior races, The Trail of Tears 1838(many tribes were
forced from their lands due to racism), all this was because of Darwin’s Theory. Darwin
also thought women were Inferior He said,” A married man is a poor slave worse than a
Negro."(The Autobiography of Charles Darwin p.234) "...the average of mental power
in man must be above that of woman." (Descent of Man Charles Darwin p.586),
"biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, but they
increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary
theory."(Steven Jay Gould, Ontogeny and Phylogony, p.127-128, 1977)
I believe that Darwin is no great Scientist, he believed in inbreeding (married his
maternal father's grand daughter who was also his mother's niece) to produce a
"superior stock." They had ten children. Mary died shortly after birth. Anne died at the
age of 10. Robert was born retarded and died at 19 months. Henrietta had a serious
breakdown at age 15. 3 of his other sons were ill so often that Charles regarded them as
semi-invalids. (In the Minds of Men. Ian Taylor p.127, available from CSE)
Scientists are so confusing talking of the Big Bang how true is this, because from the
First Law of Thermodynamics:” Matter (and/or energy) cannot be created or
destroyed" this leaves us with two choices:

1. Somebody made the world-In the beginning God made the heavens and the earth.
(Genesis1:1)
2. The world made itself-Humanists regard the Universe as self existing and not
created (Humanist Manifesto 1, [1933] Tenent #1)
All this is because Scientists have failed to give answers to these basics four Great
Questions that man is asking:

1. Who am I? (What am I worth?)


2. Where did I come from?
3. Why am I here?
4. Where am I going when I die?

Thank God we have the answers to all these questions from the Bible

You might also like