The Death of Darwinism: Tautologies, Plagiarism, and "Religion Masquerading as Science"

The Death of Darwinism: Tautologies, Plagiarism, and "Religion Masquerading as Science"
Rhawn Gabriel Joseph

Darwin's Explanation for Evolution? God Did It

Darwin has been elevated to near deity status by NASA and the Western scientific community. And yet, very few people have actually throughly read Darwin's famous book "Origins of Species"; and this has enabled Darwin's defenders to lie about, misrepresent, obfuscate, obscure, dismiss, and explain away his belief in a "God" or that he trained to be a minister of religion and had hoped to prove the Biblical Gospels correct (Barlow 1959; Darwin 1892). Given the incredible, unceasing propaganda campaign to distort and hide his religious beliefs and the fact that Darwin was not a scientist, the record, nevertheless, is clear: Darwin was a religious man, he trained to be a theologian, and in his letters and famous book "Origins of Species" he repeatedly refers to "god" to "The Creator" to a"spirit" and to unexplained quasi-supernatural "powers" as being responsible for evolution and "natural selection."

Darwin (1892) began his career with a single minded-purpose: To make the Bible scientific and to prove that Jesus is God as described in the Biblical Gospels. Although late in his life Darwin rejected certain tenants of the Christian faith, such as the notion that non-believers would be subject to eternal damnation (Barlow 1959), Darwin states in his letters that he saw it as his mission to confirm, as factual, the Biblical Gospels and to spread the "good news" about Jesus Christ "our savior": "...for I can well remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans and manuscripts being discovered at Pompeii or elsewhere which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels" (Darwin (1892).

Darwin loved his "god" "Jesus Christ. " Eleven times Darwin attributes evolution or the origins of life to "The Creator" and "God" in his famous book, The Origin of Species. In fact, despite his private speculations about life's origins in an organic soup, Darwin (1860, 1872) paraphrases the Biblical Book of Genesis to support his view that "the Creator provided the breath of life" and thus created life. As preached by Darwin, "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one." Not surprisingly, Darwin's sentiments are identical to those described in Genesis: "Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being"(Genesis 2:7). "And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground--everything that has the breath of life in it..." (Genesis 1:30). And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life (Genesis 7:15).

Darwin claimed, in his book, The Origin of Species, that it is "God" "The Creator" who is responsible for life.

As summed up by Darwin (1938): "There is one living spirit prevalent over this world, (subject to certain contingencies of organic matter & chiefly heat), which assumes a multitude of forms each having acting principle according to subordinate laws..."

And what is this "living spirit" which Darwin claims is "subject to certain contingencies of organic matter"? According to Darwin the theologian, the answer can be found in Genesis 1: "And the spirit of god hovered over the waters.... Then God said, Let the land produce vegetation... Let the water teem with living creatures.... Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds...."

Darwin also explicitly attributed evolution to God and to"the higher workmanship" of "The Creator" who "is daily and hourly scrutinizing... and.. rejecting that which is bad, and preserving and adding up all that is good." As preached by Darwin (1860, 1872): "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." Darwin (1859, 1866) repeatedly claims that evolution progresses according to "the laws impressed on matter by the Creator"; a belief he also emphasized in the last paragraphs of his book.

Darwin, who was not a scientist, but a theologian, realized his claims that the spirit of god was responsible for evolution, might be dismissed as "fantasy", and so, in addition to Genesis, he relied on the teachings of St. Augustine who had said: "There was already present in all animated bodies, a certain natural force, as it were, preseminated, and as it were, the primordial beginnings of the future animals which were to arise according to the genera and differences of things, through the infallible administration of the unchangeable Creator who makes all things."

Darwin repeatedly and explicitly states that god "The Creator" is the guiding power responsible for evolution and that this "Creator... works for the good and fights against all that is bad" and thus will punish those who do not evolve according to His divine plan which are guided by supernatural powers. Moreover, Darwin states that "The Creator" concentrates all these supernatural forces in a power Darwin calls "natural selection." According to Darwin (1858): "I think it can be shown that there is such an unerring power at work in Natural Selection (the title of my book), which selects exclusively for the good of each organic being."

Therefore, according to Darwin, it is The Creator, who is responsible for natural selection, and it is The Creator who is doing the selection, so as to work for the good. In Darwin's mind, natural selection was a synonym for the works of god. According to Darwin (1866): "natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, the slightest variations; rejecting those that are bad, preserving and adding up all that are good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life."

Darwin, in fact, gives "natural selection" a supernatural omniscience which is little different from the Christian conception of Jesus Christ and a loving God who watches over and often exerts His Will over His creations by rewarding those who do good and punishing those who behave badly.

Darwin's apologists have claimed that these references to god, the creator, powers, spirits, and so on, were editorial errors which Darwin meant to excise, or that his wife made him do it. Its just not true. Even in the 6th edition of his book, "The Origin of species" Darwin refers to and glorifies "God" and the "Creator"; he does so eleven times! He even goes so far as to attack those who do not share his faith and belief in god The Creator who guides the trajectory of evolution; accusing them of blasphemy and "deception" for their "mockery" of "God" (Darwin, 1860).

Darwin's work, and especially his claims about "The Creator," were in fact mocked and rejected by numerous scientists, as not scientific. In reply, Darwin again retreated to the Bible in defense of his god and his beliefs. Darwin (1859) preached that the "Lord God" works in mysterious ways, and his works can not be understood by the mind of men. Darwin asks: "Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man?" Identical sentiments can be found in the Jewish and Christian Holy Books: "Who can fathom the Spirit of the LORD, or instruct the LORD as his counselor?" (Isaiah 40.13).

As to god's role in evolution Darwin (1859) states: "To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator." Darwin believed that God, the Creator, created life and placed his stamp on matter and life so that it would evolve according to God's plan which cannot be understood by "intellectual powers like those of man."

God, the Creator, according to Darwin (1860), is also responsible for extinction. Evolution and extinction are guided by god who destroys those which are "bad" and preserves those who are "good." Evolution and Extinction, according to Darwin are not "due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual.." but are "works of God." Darwin was incensed and enraged by those who rejected the role of the Creator in evolution and extinction or who proposed that "natural forces are responsible for the tendency to vary, both under nature and under domestication... It makes the works of God a mere mockery and deception."

Darwin's conception of evolution is heavily influenced by his religious training and belief in god, and by his own admission, his views are not scientific. The fact is: Darwin was not a scientist but trained to be a theologian. He made no scientific discoveries and he never conducted an experiment. As Darwin admitted, he was speculating, and his speculations do not rise to the level of science or even what could be called a theory: "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science....Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a phantasy" (Darwin, 1857, 1859).

Darwin the Plagiarist: Darwin Stole From A. R Wallace, Edward Blyth, Williams Wells, James Pritchard, Williams Lawrence, Charles Naudin, Georges-Louis Buffon, etc.

Perhaps a "cold shudder" should run through all those who embrace science and the scientific method. The fact is, what Darwin produced was not a theory, not even a hypothesis, but a mishmash of ideas developed by and stolen from others.

Charles Darwin was not the first to profess a belief in evolution for similar theories were espoused by many others, including Anaximander, a Greek Philosopher, some twenty six hundred years ago. Anaximander argued that humans descended from fish.

Over the centuries various scientists have come to similar conclusions and have written page after page that not only parallels the later work of Darwin but which Darwin repeated and incorporated into his book (sometimes without citation), including the works and lectures of Edward Blyth, Williams Wells, James Pritchard, Williams Lawrence, Charles Naudin, A. R. Wallace, and G.L.L Buffon. For example, when the obvious similarities between Buffon's 18th century treatise "Natural History," and Darwin's theory were pointed out, Darwin (1888) was forced to agree that "whole pages are laughably like mine."

Over the last 100 years Darwin has almost been deified by modern Western science and the Western media. Yet, because of the still smoldering controversy regarding the true authorship of his theory, some of his acolytes have also become his apologists, explaining away the obvious similarities between his writings and the theories and observations of his contemporaries and those great men who came before him. Thus Darwin is sometimes described as a "great synthesizer of existing information." The "existing information" that Darwin synthesized, or rather, borrowed, includes, in fact, the crux of the theory of evolution; i.e. natural selection--a theory first formally proposed and distributed, not by Darwin, but by A. R. Wallace.

Although glossed over by Darwin and his acolytes, Darwin had in fact abandoned the field of "evolution" early in his career. In fact, prior to receiving Wallace's land mark paper, Darwin's had spent 15 years studying and writing about barnacles, not evolution. However, upon reading Wallace's brilliant paper, Darwin proclaimed that he had been studying evolution all along, and had been writing an identical paper, and then spent the next 8 months rewriting, and in some places, repeating the works of others without citation, including the brilliant and revolutionary work of Wallace.

Although we can only speculate, Darwin may well have felt he had but no choice but to borrow liberally from the work and ideas of others. Although great things had been expected of him by his wealthy and well known father, and although his father's friends, including a number of well known scientists had also expected that he would some day make a name for himself, Darwin had repeatedly failed to accomplish anything of significance. After repeated failures he had become miserably depressed. Darwin had been forced to drop out of medical school when it became painfully apparent that he did not have the aptitude to become a medical doctor, and then he also failed at his next pursuit, which was theology.

And then he failed yet again in his attempts to establish himself as a "naturalist" and scientist, his writings and observations being dismissed as insignificant and mere repetitions of what was already well known--including his observations while voyaging on the Beagle.

Worse, after he was appointed "secretary" of the Geological Society, he subsequently claimed to have made a "significant" discovery and proclaimed that some "mysterious rock formations" at Glenroy Scotland were the remnants of "ancient marine beaches" which had been part of the mainland but had sunk into the sea. Darwin was quickly proved wrong. They had been carved by glaciers.

As fame repeatedly escaped him, Darwin became increasingly withdrawn and depressed. He dabbled in this area and that, and then spent 15 years devoted to the study of barnacles, about which he wrote four short papers. And then, on June 8, 1858, Darwin received a letter from Alfred Russel Wallace, accompanied by a 12 page summary of Wallace's ideas on evolution, i.e. natural selection. Wallace was a renowned naturalist and has published a number of papers on evolution which Darwin had read and expressed interest in. From an island near Borneo Wallace had forwarded his monograph to Darwin. The paper was utterly brilliant!

Darwin then claimed to have recently arrived at identical conclusions, and thus claimed Wallace's theory as his own. Darwin immediately abandoned the study of barnacles and began feverishly working on a book, a synthesis of the words of Blyth, Wells, Pritchard, Lawrence, Naudin, and Buffon: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection which he published in November of 1859, almost 18 months after receiving the paper by Wallace. Indeed, the crown jewel was in fact the paper by Wallace, "Natural Selection." As Darwin well knew, this "synthesis" and the theory of "natural selection" would garner him world fame.

Darwin, his well connected friends in the scientific community, and his acolytes have gone to extraordinary lengths to rewrite history and to spin myths regarding Darwin's' utterly insignificant observations when as a youth he sailed on the "Beagle"--observations which were little different from numerous naturalists writing and publishing at the time. Nevertheless, the facts of the matter are that up until receiving the paper by Wallace, Darwin had written absolutely nothing of significance on evolution, and had spent the previous 15 years studying and writing about "barnacles." Not evolution. Barnacles!

Although Darwin claims otherwise, it could also be argued that Darwin's claim to fame, and the crux of his thesis, the theory of "natural section," was devised, originated and first penned and distributed by Wallace and Wallace alone, which is why knowledgeable sources grudgingly credit Wallace as the "co-founder" of the theory of evolution.

Darwin's Depression

Darwinism is probably the greatest hoax of the 19th, 20th and 21st century. Prior to stealing the works of others, including A. R. Wallace, Darwin was considered a failure, even as a naturalist.

Darwin had so little understanding of biology that he had been forced to drop out of medical school when it became painfully apparent that he did not have the aptitude to become a medical doctor.

And then he failed yet again in his attempts to establish himself as a "naturalist" and his writings and observations were dismissed as insipid, insignificant, and mere repetitions of what was already well known--including his observations while voyaging on the Beagle.

Darwin and A. R. Wallace

Darwin desperately wished to become famous, to spread the good word about Jesus, and to make his father proud, and so he repeatedly claimed to have made great discoveries all of which were proved to be false and to border on the absurd. For example, Darwin claimed to have made a "significant" discovery and proclaimed that some "mysterious rock formations" at Glenroy Scotland were the remnants of "ancient marine beaches" which had been part of the mainland but had sunk into the sea. Darwin was quickly proved wrong. They had been carved by glaciers.

As fame repeatedly escaped him, Darwin became increasingly withdrawn and depressed. He dabbled in this area and that, and then spent 15 years devoted to the study of barnacles, about which he wrote four short insignificant papers.

Darwin, the utter failure, was miserably depressed. But then, on June 8, 1858, Darwin received a letter from Alfred Russel Wallace, accompanied by a 12 page summary of Wallace's ideas on evolution, i.e. natural selection. Wallace was a renowned naturalist and has published a number of papers on evolution which Darwin had read; and Darwin had written Wallace asking for advice. From an island near Borneo Wallace decided to send Darwin a copy of his as yet unpublished monograph on Natural Selection. Darwin realized the paper was utterly brilliant and then set about to take credit for Wallace's discovery.

Darwin immediately abandoned the study of barnacles and for the next 18 months set about rewriting the published works of Blyth, Wells, Pritchard, Lawrence, Naudin, Buffon, and A. R. Wallace and on November of 1859, published On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection --almost 18 months after receiving the paper by Wallace. Indeed, the crown jewel was in fact the paper by Wallace, "Natural Selection." However, Darwin could not escape his religious beliefs and training as a theologian, and thus this boring mishmash of the ideas of others was saturated with supernatural references to the "Lord God" "God" "The Creator" and on.

Why did Wallace receive only second billing? Why did so many 19th century scientists find it acceptable to attribute the work of Wallace to Darwin? First, perhaps it is true, as Darwin claims, that he had been writing an identical paper on "natural selection" where he made the same exact arguments and came to the same exact conclusions as Wallace, and was thus shocked and dismayed to discover that Wallace had came to the same conclusions. An amazing coincidence! Thus Darwin rightly deserves credit as being the co-discoverer.

However, if that does not seem plausible, the reader might consider the following: Darwin, the former secretary of the Geological society, was the son of a rich and well known man and part of a circle of exceedingly influential scientists. Wallace was an outsider.

In contrast to Darwin, Wallace was repeatedly struck by the fact that various faculties and anatomical structures had "evolved" and existed prior to the conditions that would make them necessary or useful--especially as pertaining to the "evolution" of woman and man. Evolution, as pointed out by Wallace (1895), is often characterized by the survival of certain animals who already possessed a trait, or physical characteristic, which enabled them to survive in response to changing environmental conditions. That is, these capacities existed apriori, well before they were naturally selected or useful, and to Wallace that suggested design, progress and anticipation of changing conditions. Moreover, Wallace argued that because this was particularly true of "man" his theory of "natural selection" should not be applied to human evolution.

To Wallace and at least a few of his contemporaries, such as pioneering paleontologist Robert Broom, the obvious evidence of progress, design, and the presence of advanced characteristics prior to their selection, particularly in regard to the evolution of humanity, seemed to imply purposeful anticipation or planning, as if the instructions had already existed apriori; as if human evolution were predetermined.

According to Wallace (1895) the emergence of humanity could not have occurred secondary to random variations or mutations. Evolutionary progress and adaptations made in advance of their utilization and thus before they were maximally adaptive and which have culminated in the emergence of humanity, suggested to Wallace, the presence of a "guiding hand," a "divine intelligence" which designed these features in advance and in anticipation of their later utilization. Wallace came to the conclusion that this "guiding hand" belonged to none other than God, and to combat "Darwinism" announced his belief to the world.

Darwin was furious with Wallace, and immediately fired off a letter announcing his displeasure: "I hope you have not murdered too completely your own child and mine" (Darwin, 1888).

It is because of Wallace's insistence on progress, design, and this guiding hand in the evolution of humanity--and in particular and especially his belief in God-- that subsequent evolutionary and genetic theorists have ridiculed and virtually ignored his work as well as the obvious implications of his observations; i.e. adaptive changes and modifications in structure prior to their usefulness suggests that their future employment was predesigned and predetermined.

Survival of the Fit. God the Businessman

Darwin also lay claim to the work of Herbert Spencer (1864). It was Spencer who first coined the phrase "Survival of the fittest" to describe his theories of economics, business, and war; all of which are a function of purposeful planning, the seeking of specific goals and outcomes and competition between those who use foresight and reasoning to achieve their goals. Indeed, within the capitalist business community, "survival of the fit" is the rule of success.

Darwin had already been promoting his belief that evolution was being guided by the "higher workmanship" of God who works for the good and destroys the bad, and Spencer's "survival of the fit" model for business, easily meshed with Darwin's belief that evolution progressed "according to the law impressed... by the Creator..." who was "daily and hourly scrutinising... the slightest variations; rejecting those that are bad, preserving and adding up all that are good; silently and insensibly working... at the improvement of each organic being." Likewise, those who run a successfiul business, do so with certain goals in mind which are intelligently considered and thought out, planned, purposefully modified, etc., to improve, strengthen and grow their businesses and wipe out weaker competitors.

Therefore, according to Darwin, The Creator was working according to a divine plan to destroy the bad and preserve and improve the good so that the fit would not only survive but improve and prosper, whereas the bad would become extinct (go out of business).


A major tenant of Darwinian and neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory, is that evolution is due to "random mutations" ("variations") and that there is absolutely no evidence of design. "Design is an illusion" we are told. Moreover, according to the more extreme elements of the neo-Darwinian school, the obvious progression from single cell, to Ediacaran fauna, to the Cambrian Explosion, to cartilaginous fish, to vertebrates, amphibian, reptile, repto-mammal, therapsid, mammal, primate, woman and man, is not progress, but "patterns without plans."

Nor have species become more complex and more intelligent. As neatly summed up by Harvard paleontologist S. J. Gould (1988, p. 319) "Progress is a noxious, culturally embedded, untestable, nonoperational, intractable idea that we must replace if we wish to understand the patterns of history."

Indeed, to bolster these arguments, some neo-Darwinians, point, for example, to the fact that much of the Earth's biomass consists of microbes and bacteria. Although, certainly, various strains of bacteria and species of plant, insect, and mammal, have remained relatively primitive or simple, so too has, for example, the cells of the skin vs the cells of the brain.

That relatively simple creatures have not disappeared and are abundant is not an argument against increasing complexity, design, or progress. Complex species, like complex body parts, are often comprised of, or depend on, relatively simple elements or relatively simple creatures, such as bacteria, in order to survive. We would not be able to adequately digest our food without the assistance of various intestine-dwelling bacteria. Conversely, these bacteria would not be able to thrive outside our stomachs.

Complex creatures and simple plants, insects, and animals are mutually dependent and maintain interrelated lives. For increasingly complex species to have emerged on Earth required that other species undergo relatively little change other than in the form of diversification; otherwise the environment and atmosphere which sustains us could not be maintained.

To point to the existence of, for example, single celled bacteria or simple plants and primitive insects, and then arrogantly state that the existence of these simple creatures somehow balances out and thus negates the obvious evidence of evolutionary progress, is philosophically naive and completely disingenuous. It is an argument which is not to be taken seriously. In fact, there is obvious evidence of progress not only among vertebrates (as detailed in chapter 5) but even among insects and plants.


Be it plant, insect, or animals, life on this planet has been characterized by a progressive metamorphosis where increasingly complex and intelligent species have emerged in a logical, step-wise, sequential pattern. There is nothing random about the evolution of plants, insects or animals, as demanded by Darwinian theory.

Nevertheless, not only do the more extreme neo-Darwinians argue against all evidence of progress, but they claim that evolution is completely random, and is due to coincidence, chance variations, and "random mutations"--mutations that just happen to be advantageous instead of killing the host (as is common).

Of course, it is also fair to say that numerous scientists who accept Darwin as a matter of faith, believe in progress and deny that variations, or mutations are random. Indeed, although the evidence and belief in progress conflicts with the neoDarwinian view of evolution, it is the utter predictability of evolutionary change which has enabled so many scientists to rely on the precise ticking of a genetic, molecular clock, to make predictions regarding the emergence and divergence of ancestral species.

The evolutionary metamorphosis of life on this planet has been genetically predetermined and is under precise genetic (as well as environmental) control.


With the exception of Wallace's theory of "natural selection," Darwinian and neoDarwinian theories are in fact tautologies which mask what is little more than circular thinking and which can only predict by hindsight and from the present to the past; i.e. Breeders breed. Survivors survive. The fit are fit.

Specifically, according to Darwin's theory 1) Species reproduce themselves. 2) Random reproduction errors and small variations lead to variations in the population. 3). If these copying errors and random variations are adaptive and provide "fitness," they are naturally selected and passed on to offspring, thus leading to the survival of the fit.

Hence, we know that a trait or a species is "fit" if those who have this trait survive, breed and produce offspring. However, there is no way to predict who is fit unless they survive, which really means: that those who reproduce are fit, and which also means that almost all females, regardless of species, are fit, whereas the majority of males are not fit. Indeed, almost regardless of species the majority of males never breed (Bateman, 1948; Cade, 1985; Carpenter, 1942; Clutton-Brock, 1987; Fedigan, 1992; Howard, 1978; Johnson, 1972; Lott, 1979; McCann, 1981; Thornhill, 1981; Trivers, 1976; Zuckerman, 1932).

Of course, if we examine Darwin's proposition from the standpoint of the species as a whole, what his theory then explains is that a species is fit until it ceases to exist at which point it is no longer fit. And those species who survive are fit so long as they survive. Once they cease to survive they are no longer fit. Indeed, what his theory really means is that those who survive survive, those who reproduce reproduce, and those who die die.

Disregarding the obvious circular reasoning of these tautologies and the fact that Darwin is playing word games where survive=fit, and death=unfit, let us consider the male spider who breeds and is then eaten by his mate, and whose progeny fails to breed because they die-- a common fate of infant spiders. Is this male spider who is eaten, and whose progeny die, more "fit" than the celibate male spider who grows fat and lives to an old age? Indeed, sometimes those who survive are not necessarily "fit" but only lucky, and ditto for those who breed, for among the animal and insect kingdom, the vast majority of males never breed (Bateman, 1948; Cade, 1985; Carpenter, 1942; Clutton-Brock, 1987; Fedigan, 1992; Howard, 1978; Johnson, 1972; Lott, 1979; McCann, 1981; Thornhill, 1981; Trivers, 1976; Zuckerman, 1932).

Non-breeding males are produced in staggering numbers. Is the animal who breeds and is eaten or who is injured and dies protecting his access to a sex partner, but who produces non-breeding progeny somehow more "fit" that those animals who never produce sons and daughters but still live to a ripe old age?

Or, consider Alois and Klara Hitler, father and mother of Adolf Hitler. By Darwin's definition, because Alois and Klara produced several sons and daughters they were more "fit" than those Germans who failed to breed. Nevertheless, the children of Alois and Klara did not breed, and the actions of their son, Adolf, resulted in the death of up to 40 million people including his relatives and millions of Germans. His birth resulted in the destruction of the German nation!

Of course, the Darwinians may counter that Darwin was referring to species and not individuals. However, this argument is equally illogical, as over 95...% of all species which have appeared on Earth, have become extinct (Rampino & Haggerty, 1994; Raup, 1991). If we apply Darwin's theory to the rise and fall of species, then species, as a rule, are not "fit."

It is perhaps true, as is evident within the capitalist business community, that "survival of the fit" is the name of the competition game and the rule of success. However, those who run these business do so with certain goals in mind. That is, the behavior of the successful company is characterized by foresight, the development of long and short term goals which are intelligently considered and purposefully planned and carried out, purposefully modified, etc., and so on. This is not Darwinism! If a business owner relied on Darwinism to run his business, he and his business would quickly become extinct.

As neatly summed up by one of the more prolific and vigorous defenders of Darwinism, Richard Dawkins (1987, p. 5) "the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for existence, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind, no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all."

As applied to business, or even every day life, Darwinism would be a disaster. Behavior is purposeful and so to has been evolution.

Despite dogmatic claims to the otherwise, Darwin's tautological theory is contradicted by logic, the obvious, and the nature of DNA. "Evolution" is not due to random mutations. Mutation always results in death or disability. Likewise, those who breed are not more "fit" than those who do not--as is evident among modern humans where those in poverty and who suffer ill health and an early death rate, have the highest birth rates and whose children are poorly fed and suffer from malnutrition, violence and disease, and who die at staggering rates before they are old enough to breed. This is "fit?"

Darwin's theory and neoDarwinian evolutionary theory, including the inexplicable statements of Gould where he argues against progress, are completely refuted by the patterns of history, the fossil record, and by everything we know about genetics. There is obvious progress in neurological and human evolution, and there is evidence of obvious progress and increasing intelligence and structural technological capability across different phyla over the last 600 million years. And there is absolutely nothing random about DNA organization or expression.

As per the amazing claim that evolution is based on "random mutations" let us consider the following:

Regardless of species, DNA displays a high degree of stability in regard to shape, form, organization, enzyme activity, composition, duplication and so on. The genetic code is, for the most part, universal (Strachan & Read, 1996; Watson et al. 1992) and there is no evidence or randomness in its organization or expression--as demanded by Darwin's theory.

Numerous genes and physical traits are shared by diverse phyla whose common ancestors did not posses the traits or the genes that each phyla supposedly randomly and "independently" evolved --a function, we are told by the Darwinians, of "coincidence" and "convergent" and "parallel" evolution where nature just happens to arrive at the same solution and creates the same exact gene; indeed perhaps the same coincidence which Darwin offers to explain the "laughable" similarity between his work and others, or the same "coincidence" that Darwin relies upon to explain how he just happened to come up with the same exact theory proposed by Wallace.

As per the "evolution" of the same genes and the same traits in different species and phyla, obviously the Darwinian explanation is not logical. Rather, these diverse phyla inherited the genetic instructions to create the same genes so as to create identical or similar body parts. Either that, or these genes were released into the environment and transferred between species (Joseph, 1997, 2000).

As previously noted, myriad life forms contain the same exact nucleotide sequence segments and "master regulatory genes" which code for the development of the heart, lungs, eyes and brains (D'Souza et al. 1995; Garcia-Fernandex & Holland, 1994; Ruddle, et al. 1994; Strachan & Read, 1996; Watson et al. 1992) --DNA that was independently inherited from common ancestors that had neither heart, lungs, eyes, or brains. In addition, the vertebrate Pax-6 gene cluster is organized and expressed in almost an identical fashion, differing by only 3-6%, in insects, worms, and mollusks (Quiring, et al. 1994; Zucker, 1994).

And, the human genome and that of the higher plants, share homologous DNA-promoters and binding domains (e.g. da and AS-C) including a similar "helix-loop-helix" motif which is involved in cellular division and neuron generation in vertebrates, as well as the production of ovaries and seeds in plants via CHS-A and -J promoters (Joseph, 1998c). However, the common ancestor for mammals and plants diverged well over 1.6 billion years ago; one billion years before the evolution, on Earth, of neurons, seeds, or sex organs (Joseph, 1996, 2000a).

It seems rather obvious that these traits and these genes were preprogrammed to emerge in diverse phyla and did not coincidentally evolve due to random mutations as is demanded by Darwinian theory. Rather, it appears that these genes and the genetic potential to create these genes and identical body parts, is a function of intronic generation of "genes within genes" and thus species within species (Joseph, 1997).

As also noted, however, it is also possible that these genes may have been acquired laterally--that is, through plasmid exchange. Plasmid exchange may well explain why members of a species often "evolve" as a group and thus collectively step forward as they ascend the evolutionary ladder. Plasmid exchange, however, also appears to be under genetic control, occurring according to precise genetic instructions--a view which is an anathema to Darwinian theorists.

If Darwin's theory were correct, the genetic code in no way could be "universal" and the genomes of diverse species from plant to human would not contain a single identical gene, except for those few that would have been passed on, intact and unchanged, from a common ancestor. If Darwin's theory were correct, members of each individual kingdom of life and each separate phyla would have genomes which were radically different from one another which is clearly not the case. If Darwin's theory were correct, and evolution were due to random mutations, it would not be possible to make accurate predictions about ancestral species based on a "molecular clock" derived from rRNA or the genes of different plants or animals.

Although there is nothing random about the genetic code or the emergence of new species, Darwinian and neo-evolutionary theorists insist on randomness in the expression of mutations, and insist on purposelessness, presumably because the alternatives are too discomforting to consider. Many scientists reject the obvious for fear of discovering the "guiding hand of god." Unfortunately, by plucking out their eyes and by demanding that we do likewise, they have blinded themselves to the important implications of what has occurred on this planet over the course of the last billion years. They have blinded themselves to the patterns of history.

In their eagerness to avoid any possibility of a life affirming "god" many have instead embraced a malignant process that typically results in death or severe disability. They preach that all life is random, purposeless, and a product of "adaptive" random mutations. As preached by Darwin's Temple Priests, random mutations, and not "god" are responsible for the miracle of life, evolution, and creation.

Nevertheless, by accepting this gospel they have failed to clearly see the patterns of history and its implications, which is that evolution is actually metamorphosis and all species have been produced in accordance with precise genetic instructions which are engraved into the molecular clock known as DNA.


According to neo-Darwinian theory, evolution is due to random mutations in the genome which just happen to be adaptive rather than killing or disabling the host which is a common consequence of mutation. Indeed, mutations, unplanned and random alterations, and other errors in the genetic code, result not in the creation of new species, but malignant cellular formation, susceptibility to disease, disability, tumors, cancer and death.

As mutations are so deadly, they are actively prevented by each and every DNA macromolecule which has at their disposal a variety of protective mechanisms to delete or correct these errors once they occur (Kim et al. 1994; Modrich, 1994; Sancar 1994; Strachan & Read, 1996; Watson et al. 1992).

Gene expression and DNA transcription are regulated by a number of counteracting forces and agents which oppose "unplanned" and random alterations in genetic structure. This includes an incredible number of duplicate and uncoded genes which can be readily inserted once and error is detected. Like teachers, policemen, and assassins, it is the nature of DNA to correct or arrest genetic errors, and eliminate mutations (Strachan & Read, 1996; Watson et al., 1992).

Be they created chemically, through radiation, or what not, an aberrant or mutated gene or base pair nucleotide, generally will not have an identical twin. Hence, it will be treated, at the level of the DNA, as an unplanned deletion or an erroneous duplication; the faulty duplication being possibly secondary to aberrant reciprocal translocation between genes and their sequences within the double helix (Strachan & Read, 1996).

And yet, even in regard to the production of a mutated duplication, the "error" is usually corrected , and/or it results in death and disability; that is, unless it is not an "error" or a mutation, but part of the genetic code. Moreover, the mutated error must include several adjacent base pairs of nucleotide sequences, for the genetic code is expressed in triplets (Strachan & Read, 1996; Watson et al., 1992).

Mutations, by nature of being mutations, violate the "Watson-Crick" pairing rules by creating unpaired bases within the helix -due to the presence of the unique mutation or the erroneous duplicate. Normally, however, the "cellular mismatch repair system" recognizes these mismatches, identifies the hopeful usurpers, and eliminates them from each and every strand of DNA (Modrich 1994).

Genetic stability is insured because damaged, unplanned, or altered nucleotides are removed and replaced by a normal base which is inserted as a complementary strand (Strachan & Read, 1996; Watson et al., 1992). Recall that there are thousands of duplicate and uncoded copies of most every strand of DNA (see chapter 3). It would be exceedingly easy to replace an error in the system with a correct duplicate; which is why most mutations are eliminated.

Normally each and every single gene contains redundant information which can be reinserted when errors or deletions occur; and they may be subtracted when duplications or mutations result (Sancar, 1994). This duplicate gene or base pair sequence, acts as a template from which correct copies can be made.

Hence, accept under abnormal conditions, these replication, duplication, and recombination errors are corrected (Modrich 1994; Sancar, 1994) such that the development of unplanned traits and cellular modifications and thus the random evolution of new species is actively thwarted.

In addition, mutations and "unplanned" alterations in chromosomal structure are actively negated by repressor and heat-shock proteins, and a special subclass of oncogenes. Mutations, be they "adaptive" or malignant, like all unusual cellular formations and abnormalities in chromosomal structure, are associated with aberrant oncogene activity. A malignant progression ensues (Kim et al., 1994; Modrich, 1994; Sancar, 1994).

Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory, however, requires that these mutated errors be allowed free expression, that all corrective mechanisms just happen to fail, that the numerous duplicate copies available be forsaken, and that these mutations miraculously turn out to be adaptive and life promoting.

Moreover, these chance variations (mutations) must occur during the same time period in at least one male and one female who are unrelated and who live in close proximity, so that at least one viable breeding pair is produced, so that they may produce a mutated offspring. In fact, neo-Darwinian theory requires that these mutations randomly and simultaneously appear by chance, at the same time period, in the same location, in at least two unrelated breeding pairs, so that numerous mutated offspring are simultaneously produced who can interbreed thereby leading to the establishment and propagation of new species. And what is the likelihood of a scenario such as this occurring randomly and by pure chance?

The only way this scenario can work is if the trait was in fact genetically predetermined acting as silent genetic potential. Again, consider the work of Rutherford and Lindquest (1998). According to these authors, these traits can only be dispersed in the population with a high degree of probability, if they were predetermined. "If a population containing ten independent additive determinants affecting" the expression of "the trait, each present at a frequency of 0.1, the probability of an individual having at least six of these determinants, and thus the trait, is 1 in 7,000.

However, if the repressor protein were deactivated or its threshold for release lowered, thus "lowering the trait's threshold" for expression "by just one or two determinants, the probability of the appearance of the trait increases to 1 in 600 or 1 in 78. Once the frequency of a trait is increased in this manner, given a moderate degree of fitness advantage, selection could increase the frequency of genetic polymorphisms affecting the trait" so that it becomes widely "expressed in the population (Rutherford & Lindquest, 1998, p. 341).

Although the theory of evolutionary metamorphosis is based on the existence of traits which exist prior to their expression--and for which there is abundant scientific support (e.g., de Jong & Scharloo, 1976; Dykhuizen & Hart, 1980; Gibson & Hogness, 1996; Polaczyk et al., 1998; Rutherford & Lindquist, 1998; Wade et al., 1997), Darwinian and neo-Darwinian theory rejects predetermination. According to these theorists, evolution is random and due to chance variations.

Again, for this Darwinian-mutated scenario to be successful requires that an error or abnormality in the genetic code not only go undetected and uncorrected but that the exact same mutation randomly, miraculously and simultaneously appear in numerous males and females who just happen to be living in close proximity, thereby allowing mutated mates to meet and to breed numerous progeny who also miraculously contain and express the mutated error. Darwinian theory, however, also negates this as a likelihood as these variations must occur by chance, and what is the chance of numerous identical variations appearing in the same group at the same time?

If the "mutation" did not simultaneously appear in numerous potential mates and in numerous surviving progeny, this new, mutated individual would die in a single generation and a new mutated species could not emerge; that is, unless this genetic change wasn't an error but genetically planned and part of the genome and was thus activated in numerous members of the same species.

According to neo-Darwinian orthodoxy, however, the production of new species is not genetically planned and is not encoded within the genome. Rather, the emergence of new species is the consequence of the production of random variations ("mutations") and thus "errors" in the genome which just happened to be advantageous to the organism, unlike other mutations which kill the host. We are "mutants" -so say the Neo-Darwinians.


"Progress is a noxious, culturally embedded, untestable, nonoperational, intractable idea that we must replace if we wish to understand the patterns of history." -S. J. Gould (1988, p. 319)


The progressive metamorphosis of increasingly intelligent and complex life on this planet, culminating in the emergence of modern woman and man, appears to have unfolded in a genetically predetermined, "molecular clock-wise" fashion. That "evolution" is regulated in accordance with the "ticking" of a genetic "clock" is evident from an examination and comparison of various genes and ribosomal RNA belonging to diverse species (e.g., Denton, 1998; Kumar & Hedges, 1998; Lewin, 1988; Wray et al., 1996; Woese et al., 1990).

Because this genetic "clock" appears to have been "ticking" at the same rate, simultaneously, among all branches of the tree of life (Denton, 1998), and as this "clock" on Earth, began to "tick" almost 4 billion years ago, it thus appears that the continued "ticking" of this same "genetic clock" has determined the successive emergence of increasingly intelligent and complex species (e.g., Kumar & Hedges, 1998), culminating in woman and man.

Just as the genome of the caterpillar is programmed to produce a moth or butterfly, or the DNA of a fertilized ovum gives rise to an embryo then a fetus... neonate... child... juvenile... adult, the metamorphosis and progression which characterizes life on this planet appears to have been preprogrammed into the DNA of some of the first Earthlings. It is this genetic predetermination which also explains why although the Earth has been five times struck by life-destroying meteors, that certain species immediately recovered, and why no new phyla have emerged since the Cambrian Explosion.

Because the emergence of H. sapiens sapiens, and all manner of species appears to have been genetically preprogrammed, this is referred to as "evolutionary metamorphosis" (Joseph, 1997, 2000a). However, rather than a 9-month gestation period, or the single seasonal metamorphosis which characterizes the transition from caterpillar to butterfly, humans are an end product, or perhaps a mid-way product of a process which takes several billion years to unfold; albeit in accordance and in parallel with suitable changes in the genetically engineered environment.

Thus, metamorphosis is not a one-step progression (caterpillar-butterfly) but a leaping, branching, multi-step progression involving numerous successive species, many of which are genetically preprogrammed to give rise to the next in a "molecular clock-like" fashion. The ticking of this genetic clock, however, also requires that the environment be genetically engineered in preparation for those yet to be born (Joseph, 1997).


A premise of the theory of evolutionary metamorphosis is that microbes and in fact all forms of life consist of packages of DNA which have manufactured an organism also interact with the environment. A fat hairy spider crawling along the ceiling is the product of DNA engineering, and each and every spider-cell contains a packet of DNA which created the cell and which contributed to the creation of the spider. The "spider" is merely a vehicle through which the DNA navigates its way around the world. The same is true of fish, frogs, reptiles, and so on. These are manifestations of DNA activity and every organism functions in accordance with specific DNA-instructions.

DNA strives for expression and dispersal. According to the theory of evolutionary metamorphosis, the DNA of diverse species are also interactional and together may be viewed as constituting a supra-DNA-organism which acts on the environment in order to promote DNA activation and dispersal. That is, DNA acts to genetically engineer the environment which in turn acts on gene selection which acts on the environment which leads to the expression and dispersal of additional DNA. Thus, just as DNA contains the instructions for creating and nourishing an embryo in parallel with the genetic alteration of the womb, DNA also contains the instructions for altering itself and the external environment so as to promote not just diversity, but the emergence of increasingly complex and intelligence animals, including the likes of woman and man.

Recognizing the role played by diverse species-and thus their DNA-- in the biological construction of the atmosphere, climate, and even the contents of the oceans, is integral to understanding evolutionary metamorphosis, including extinction, and the failure of some species to "evolve." Just as body parts or dead cells may be sloughed off or absorbed during embryonic, fetal, and neonatal, development (Joseph, 2000b), over the course of "evolution" some species have been sloughed off and become extinct once they were no longer needed. Just as some body parts remain relatively simple, e.g. the cells of the skin versus the nerve cells of the brain, over the course of "evolution" some species have remain relatively simple and others have become more complex--all are integral to the survival of the supra-DNA-organism.

Again, the DNA or diverse species can be seen as an interactional supra-DNA organism which acts on the environment. Once certain organisms have accomplished their genetic mission, they become extinct, whereas other cells, including simple organisms continue to thrive as their output is essential to maintaining and promoting life--that is, the life of the supra-DNA-organism. Coupled with unforeseen environmental catastrophes, the need to modify the environment in order to promote DNA dispersal and development, and the fact that the environment acts on gene selection and activation (e.g., de Jong & Scharloo, 1976; Dykhuizen & Hart, 1980; Gibson & Hogness, 1996; Polaczyk et al., 1998; Rutherford & Lindquist, 1998; Wade et al., 1997) explains the periodic lack of progress in complexity over eons of time, and then the sudden surges in progress and complexity, during different epochs of the Earth's history.


As depicted in Figures 82 through 87, simple animals similar to these modern day creatures were the dominant life forms until around 600 million years ago. Indeed, when considered from the perspective of bulk and sheer numbers, they may still be considered among the dominant forms of life on this planet; which, however, is not a valid argument against the overwhelming evidence for progress in evolutionary metamorphosis.


It is necessary that some species remain relatively simple and basically identical to their ancestors from billions of years ago. There is a genetic need to maintain certain environmental, climatic and atmospheric conditions (such as oxygen secretion). In consequence, certain species never progress.

In fact, there are specific repressor proteins and a variety of genetic mechanisms which act to prevent genetic change, even in response to changing environmental conditions. For example, regulator proteins referred to as "chaperones have been found in all organisms studied and protect against" genetic change or activation such as in response to changing environmental and climatic conditions and other stresses, such as alterations in oxygen levels (Cossins, 1998).

For example, a genetically manufactured protein, "Hsp90 is one of the more abundant chaperones. At normal temperatures it binds to a specific set of proteins, most of which regulate cellular proliferation and embryonic development. These signaling proteins form complex webs of molecular switches that allows signals both within and between cells to be transduced into responses... and act against genetic variation" and prevent the expression of silent characteristics (Cossins, 1998, pp. 309-310). For example, these proteins may prevent DNA expression by acting as a buffer between these silent genes and nucleotides and the environment, so that they are not expressed except in accordance with specific genetic instructions.

Again, consider Hsp90. Hsp90 targets multiple signal transducers which control and act as "molecular switches" which in turn control gene expression. Hsp90 "normally suppresses the expression of genetic variation affecting many developmental pathways" (Rutherford & Lindquist, 1998). However, Hsp90, also reacts to environmental stress including diet and fluctuations in temperature (Rutherford & Lindquist, 1998).

Indeed, as demonstrated by, Rutherford and Lindquist (1998, p. 341) Hsp90 acts as an "explicit molecular mechanism that assists the process of evolutionary change in response to the environment" and it accomplishes this through the "conditional release of stores of hidden morphological variation.... perhaps allowing for the rapid morphological radiations that are found in the fossil record."

However, in order for these repressor proteins and other regulating genetic mechanisms to be switched off or on, requires contact and exposure to specific environmental agents.

Initially, the new Earth was devoid and lacking these environmental agents, such as free oxygen, calcium, and so on. Hence, in order for certain genes and gene sequences to be activated, required that these products be liberated and/or manufactured. Hence, some species immediately began secreting oxygen as a waste product, which in turn acted on gene selection.

It is because of the genetic need to create a precursor product in massive amounts (such as calcium), which explains why some species emerge, thrive, alter the environment, and then become suddenly extinct. Some species emerge simply to produce a specific product and are then jettisoned. Just as the placenta is a nurturing biological construction that is jettisoned with the birth of the baby, there have been periods when much of the Earth's biomass served only to produce and secrete products that were fundamental for the metamorphosis of those yet to be born, such as calcium to build bones (Joseph, 1997). Once their genetic mission was accomplished, many of these creatures were jettisoned and became extinct.

Consider, again, the calcium carbonate secreting Ediacaran fauna. As oxygen levels increased in the atmosphere and in the sea, and as the planet again began to warm, oxygen breathing multi-cellular eukaryotes emerged (e.g. Brocks et al., 1999). By 2.3 billion years ago the Earth's land masses were covered with thick bacterial mats and other organisms. Moreover, many of these organisms secreted a variety of organic acids which in turn formed laterites (iron rich deposits) by leaching iron from the upper layers of rock and soil. However, as pointed out by Dr. Ohmoto, "in order for laterites to form, there must be organic material and atmospheric oxygen," substances secreted by and the residue of even earlier life forms.

By 1.6 billion years BP., the Earth's climate and environment had been dramatically altered and animals began evolving into different species (e.g., Hedges & Kumar, 1999) who in turn began to prepare the world for subsequent generations. Then around 600 million years ago the calcium carbonate secreting Ediacaran emerged in every ocean and sea, releasing materials into the environment which enabled shellfish and bony complex oxygen-breathing creatures to "evolve" and undergo metamorphosis.

However, the Ediacaran fauna and subsequent generations would not have been able to thrive if not for the thick layers of bacteria which had been building up for over 2 billion years --much of which then served to nourish the Ediacaran fauna and those who emerged during the early phases of the Cambrian Explosion--just as thick mats of blood cells sustain the ovum within the womb. One species served as the nutrients for a later appearing species who prepared the world for the next generation of increasingly complex organisms.



Ediacaran fossils have been discovered throughout the world, and date from 580 billion to 560 billion years BP. (though some authors have assigned them a date of 600 million years BP. ) These were soft bodied, leaf- and disk-shaped, plant-like creatures, consisting of only 11 or fewer cell types (compared with over 200 cell types for mammals). They ranged in size from over 3.5 feet to less than The emergence of Ediacaran fauna was not just a genetic experiment gone awry, as some scientists have speculated, for these creatures and their waste products altered the planet so as to make the next stage of metamorphosis possible. Because they secreted calcium carbonate, from which shells and bones are constructed, the Ediacaran fauna made possible the metamorphosis of shell fish and the skeletal system. Once their genetic mission was accomplished, the Ediacarans disappeared from the scene and there followed an explosion of life in every ocean, lake, river and stream--aptly referred to as the Cambrian Explosion as it took place during the Cambrian era.


"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive. slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." -Darwin, 1857.

With no history of derivative ancestral forms, all manner of complex life forms suddenly emerged with gills, intestines, joints, brains, and modern eyes equipped with retinas and fully modern optic lenses. These included organisms with a hard tube-like outer-skeleton consisting of calcium carbonate, and all manner of "small shelly fish" (Anabrites, Protohertzina), as well as sponges, jelly fish, mollusks, brachiopods, and the first arthropods (e.g. trilobites) which immediately sprouted legs and primitive brains. In fact, every phylum in existence today emerged during the Cambrian Explosion, including some phyla which emerged then became extinct.

The survivors, however, included the phylum Chordata; i.e. tunicates and the first jawless fish who possessed a notochord and simplified brain that consisted of a brainstem and limbic forebrain.

Hence, during the Cambrian epoch there was also a cerebral and thus a cognitive explosion as the first true brains were established, brain which would continue to undergo a genetically preprogrammed metamorphosis until finally ending up in human heads.

And yet, just as the Ediacaran fauna emerged, secreted massive amounts of calcium, and then departed the scene, an incredible number of phyla emerged during the Cambrian explosion, made their own genetically engineered contributions, and then became extinct--a pattern of sometimes inexplicable species extinction that has been repeated time and again. Again, just as the placenta is jettisoned after it serves its purpose, innumerable species have died out once they had made their contributions to the next stage of "evolutionary" development.

Thus, we see that major species have emerged, flourished, diversified, modified the environment, and then died out, only to be followed by yet another wave of "novel" species who followed the same pattern, releasing and secreting additional "waste" products and thus making their own contribution to the environment and the development of the next wave of diverse species, their descendants, before disappearing from the scene. However with each successive wave there has been not just diversity, but progress, environmental change, and increased complexity in design and intelligence, leading from simple cellular organisms to all manner of species, including woman and man.

Darwinism is Not Science. Darwinism Has Been Disproved By the Fossil Record Science is predicated upon predictable testable experimental results which can be replicated by other scientists. Darwin's version of evolution has completely failed this test. It is impossible to make predictions or to construct experiments which would verify his claims which rest upon his belief in a Lord God The Creator. Even if we ignore all his supernatural beliefs, what Darwin proposed and stole from others, can not be tested. Fact is, Darwin's claims, and all subsequent neo-Darwinian claims, are little more than a tautology based on a historical reconstruction and the accounts of evolution as described in Genesis.

Consider, for example, the fossil record. Darwin (1866) insisted on strict gradualism as an essential staple of his pseudo theory. Darwin preached: "Natural selection can act only by the preservation and accumulation of infinitesimally small inherited modifications, each profitable to the preserved being ... If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Darwin's pseudo theory can't be tested, but it has been disproved.

There is absolutely no evidence that "evolution" works by "slight modifications." Its just not true. The fossil record indicates long periods of evolutionary stasis followed by quantum evolutionary leaps such that there are periods of no change for tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of years, which are punctuated by rapid change (Joseph 1996, 2000, 2011); a phenomenon that Eldredge and Gould (1972; Gould 2002) described as "punctuated equilibrium." Indeed, there is no fossil evidence of gradual change from one species to another, and no fossil record of transitional forms acting as an evolutionary bridge between species (Eldredge and Gould 1972; Gould 2002).

Evolution, as demonstrated by the fossil record, occurs in leaps involving major changes in structure and function with no evidence of transitionary forms.

The "Cambrian Explosion" 540 million years ago, completely demolishes Darwin's theory, as thousands of species rather suddenly evolved modern eyes, skeletal systems, as well as a heart and central nervous system in the absence of intermediate forms or any evidence of Darwin's "small steps."

Not just the fossil record, but genetics refutes Darwin's religion-based theory which emphasizes "infinitesimally small inherited modifications" and which gives"natural selection" all seeing, infallible powers; a benevolent omniscience which makes god-like judgements about good and evil: "rejecting those that are bad, preserving and adding up all that are good."

Survival of the Fit Is A Tautology Darwin's speculations have not only been disproved, but they cannot be tested by the scientific method and can't be used to make predictions. Darwinian and neo-Darwinian theories are in fact tautologies which mask what is little more than circular thinking, and which can only predict by hindsight, from the present to the past.

Consider, for example, Darwin's (1869) claims about the "survival of the fittest" a theory he stole from Herbert Spencer (1964) and which Darwin used as a synonym for "natural selection" in relation to The Creator's divine plan.

What does it mean, that the "fit survive"? "Survive" what? Is one "fit" before, or after they survive? And, how many times must they survive to be fit? Is this science? Can it be tested? Fact is, all it means is: survivors survive because they are fit and the fit are fit because they survive. Its a tautology; circular reasoning. The fact is: 99% of all species have gone extinct. Were none of these species "fit"? Are any species fit?

The Dawkin's Delusion: Darwin's Apologists Many who defend and promote Darwinism, probably never read his book; and if they did, they didn't understand what Darwin was promoting. Consider Richard Dawkins (1987) whose bizarre, worshipful claims about Darwin and Darwinism are the stuff of fantasy.

Dawkins (1987, p. 5) makes amazingly ignorant statements in his defense of Darwin and Darwinism, such as: "the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for existence and apparently purposeful forms of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind, no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all."

Dawkin's claims are ridiculous. The written record proves that Darwin believed "There is one living spirit prevalent over this world... with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms... Natural Selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world... rejecting those that are bad, preserving and adding up all that are good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being..."

Darwinism is Religion Masquerading As Science Darwin's worshipers and acolytes have elevated him to the status of sacrosanct, unassailable demigod, even deleting passages from his letters and book to hide and cover up his religious beliefs. To question Darwinism, to propose alternate, science-based theories, has become tantamount to blasphemy and grounds for banishment, ridicule, and excommunication from the scientific community.

Darwinism is a crock, a hoax, which has been repeatedly proven false. Darwin was not even a scientist but trained to be a minister of religion, and he preached that a good, benevolent, loving Lord God, the Creator, created life, punished the bad, and rewarded the good, and was responsible for the creation, evolution, and extinction of life on Earth.

Darwinism is not science, but religion masquerading as science; and probably no man has done more to prevent the advancement of science, than Charles Darwin. His greatest achievement? Making a monkey out of the scientific establishment.