The Human Choice - 15
OUR MOST DEADLY MYTH.
Let me remind you again of the incredible suffering and misery being inflicted on mankind in the name of socialist ideology - an ideology based on humanist religious dogma which in turn is dependent on the myth of chance creation.
Let us also not forget that this libertine religion of chance creation already leads all other religions in bigotry and despotism as displayed in its socialist/communist development. The great pity of it all is that, in this age, the scientific knowledge is available to show it as misconceived.
The whole structure of socialism relies on chance creation to give it an appearance of rationality and a lot of blame for its persistence as a plausible theory must rest with those leading scientists who knew chance creation to be a fake but were (and to this day still are) afraid to speak out.
The facts are known and are available, but are not revealed to the public because of a naive commitment to ideology.
The majority of educators are not intellectuals; they believe what they are told to believe and neither know nor want to know that both Darwinism and socialism are scientifically dead. To admit the truth to themselves would mean having to face up to the selfishness and futility of the philosophy they support.
They fight to the last to preserve this crutch for their licentious life-styles and our schools, with government backing, still cripple the intellect of children with false teachings in order to serve ideological authoritarianism.
While they betray others, they also betray themselves.
It is now well established that there has never been a simple life form, even those forms that are considered as being the first to appear on earth are still fascinatingly complex. Nor is man the most genetically complex of life forms; a tree of life drawn on the basis least complex to most complex, would not agree with those drawn by evolutionists.
The fossil evidence fully supports the contention that life forms at first appearance were fully operational, complex and individual. All the touted evidence for chance evolution turns out on investigation to be contrary to both logic and science.
Many years of plant and animal breeding show that significant change results from genetic selection and the elimination of unwanted genetic load. In this way dormant or undeveloped features can be brought to the fore. Today, even deformities that would be eliminated by natural selection can be maintained by human intervention to produce 'new' breeds. But these marginal 'creations' are still the product of intelligence, not products of chance.
It is apparent that the twin mechanisms of survival of the fittest and random mutation (damage) give perfect explanation for cause and result of gene loss. Change within limits is explained, also the fatal consequence of over-specialisation. Evolutionary decay is entirely logical, it explains what is known of life on earth and is fully supported by the known fossil and scientific evidence.
All the hard evidence either indicates or proves that evolutionary simplification is the norm. There is no hard evidence that any evolutionary creation either occurs or has occurred by chance. There is no known mechanism or evidence-backed theory to support creative chance evolution. Evolution is both mathematically impossible and intelligently incredible.
This book could easily be filled with examples of intellectual prostitution. Just a few more quick examples:
Sir Julian Huxley, a dedicated proponent of chance evolution, nevertheless cannot deny the proven scientific evidence and had this to say about why so many creatures become extinct, quote:
They became overspecialised and could not adapt to the changing environment.
However the same Sir Julian also said; quote:
"The evolution of life is no longer a theory; it is a fact".
Can such people not see the direct contradiction between what they admit as science and what they promote as dogma?
Here is a revealing quote noticed in the book "Darwin Retried" page 216 from Professor Edward G. Conklin who suggests that:
.. the "Theory of Evolution" is a concept that "is very highly prized by biologists, for many of whom it is an object of genuine religious devotion.. End quote.
An example of the simple misrepresentation of fact so common in popular literature is found in a TIME-LIFE Pocket Book called "The Cell". Alongside pictures of the English Peppered Moth is the explanation that the moth was perfectly camouflaged in the conditions of pre-industrial England but there was an occasional mutation to black which made the unfortunate mutant easily seen by birds, and thus eaten. With the coming of the industrial revolution the sick and sooty vegetation favoured the black; the black moth then became the norm.
The context of the story clearly implies that we are seeing creative evolution in action - creation while you watch, so to speak.
The truth, of scientific necessity, is that the gene pool of the moth covers the mixture of black and white observed. So long as the environment suits a mixture of both or one or other alternatively, or both in different areas of habitation, this gene pool will be maintained. But should this moth become isolated in an area which is safe for only one of the colour alternatives, then other alternatives will, in time, be lost. If, after an alternative colour gene has been lost the environment should change to make essential the lost colour, the moth will be incapable of adapting and will become extinct.
That is the scientific truth!
Why are hundreds of straightforward deceptions allowed in popular literature and university textbooks if there is no powerful establishment creating a bias?
The known difficulty of re-creating a lost gene is indicated by the following quote from Nobel prize-winning Dr. Linus Pauling: quote:
..at some point in the evolutionary past the common ancestor of man and ape must also have had the capacity to synthesise Vitamin C, but lost it through mutation. End Quote.
Many people now take vitamin C supplement to overcome dietary deficiency and there is no doubt that today mankind would be better served had he a vitamin C gene; but according to creative evolutionists there was a time (by the ape/man idea of creation) when this gene was unneeded and lost.
People educated to believe in (or bow to) creative evolution cannot intelligently deny scientifically established fact. There is no known instance of getting back a gene once lost, but that does not agree with commonly taught evolution theory.
Another example of deliberate deceit popular some years ago and never exposed as fraud was the proposition that an infinity of monkeys playing with an infinity of typewriters over an infinity of time would create all books ever written - not true.
The monkeys and typewriters deception is based on the proposition that a random typing will eventually produce a work of creation; the fact is that a random typing will result in all keys being used almost equally over the number of key strokes needed to write a book. However no book is made up of an equal, or near equal, number of all typewriter characters, so random typing will never produce a book. Intelligent writing requires an intelligent selection of keys.
An article in the Weekend Australian newspaper (computer section Oct.1-2;1983) titled "Pure chance can deliver a Shakespearian sonnet - if you have the time" calculates that a 44 character sentence (count this line) on average would take 30 to the power of 44 random generations and would take his computer (even if it were a thousand times faster) "zillions of years" to assemble a simple sentence.
However the real problem, as mentioned above, was still not addressed. No extended writing uses a similar number of each character and is therefore, by chance, impossible.
Rational structures are created by rational intelligence.
Chance evolution is disproven by the laws of nature, by simple logic, by mathematics, by the fossil evidence. It is not, and never has been, a true scientific theory.
Argument for chance creation is childish and tautological.
It is in opposition to scientific principle.
Mathematics show that it couldn't happen.
Fossil evidence shows that it never happened.
Although this short review cannot lay out all the evidence, these few words should be sufficient to totally dismiss chance creation theory as either intelligent or scientific.
The theory is not just exposed as fraud but as world-wide fraud and therefore as a base for a deliberately created religion. The basic principles are invalid and this invalidity can be understood by any normally intelligent person willing to give fair weight to the evidence.
Such planned deceit has only one realistic purpose: social engineering for world population control and enslavement.
For a theory to be exposed as false it only needs one firm evidence of its implausibility. The theory of chance creation by evolution is exposed as false in principle, as mathematically incredible and as contradictory to the fossil evidence. Three witnesses, any one of which should be quite sufficient to prove the point to an unbiased intellect.
There is no need for further discussion. There only remains burial. The theory of creative evolution must be dead for all honest people. choice15.htm
.../Back to Contents Page