Evolution: A False Doctrine Essay, Research Paper

Evolution – A False Doctrine

by SIVAN TUMARKIN

April 1996

The Evolution Theory is a false doctrine devised by scientists lacking modern technology and

knowledge in an attempt to escape the aggressive confines of Religion, thereby forming a new

faith referred to as “natural selection”. Throughout time, evolution mechanisms have been

developed to account for many barriers facing evolutionists. From Lamarckism developed by

Jean Baptisete DeLamarck (1829) to Darwinism by Charles Darwin (1859) to The Mutation

Theory by Hugo deVries (1901) right up to the current theory of Neo-Darwinism, modifications to

this doctrine have evolved to include modern scientific principles of Biology, Anthropology,

Physics and Mathematics. The concept of “Evolution” as proposed by Charles Darwin does not

in itself present opposition to creation by a higher order of intelligence. Evolution simply implies

“gradual change through time”. Thus, a creator might have employed such means of creation

just as humans gradually design and build newer cars with an increased variety of shapes and

colors. The conflict arise when Naturalists insist that all life gradually evolved from non-living

matter by the process of natural selection which is a direct violation of The Law of Biogenesis1 .

Naturalistic evolution is considered and taught to be a fact rather than a theory by many

scientists and teachers. It is an everyday event to watch a television show such as the

Discovery Channel and constantly be reminded of how evolutionary mechanisms caused the

rise of life on Earth. Any inquiries questioning evolution are immediately suppressed or

answered with evolutionary terms such as “survival of the fittest” which is a tautology and hence

can not be disputed with out proper knowledge or deep understanding of the clauses used.

Although the theory itself offers abundant examples of “evolutionary paradoxes”, many scientists

choose to dismiss these confrontations and faithfully follow the evolution doctrine. Careful

biological examinations of various organisms prove that purely accidental evolution is definitely

unattainable and offer proof to illustrate why many built in mechanisms in animals are either fully

functional as a whole, or are rejected.

Mathematical probabilities defy all arguments presented by evolutionists and clearly disqualify

natural selection as being a credible scientific theory. Furthermore, The Evolution Theory finds

itself strangled when trying to dispute its rationale against physics laws which govern this

universe. Darwinists insult science by refusing to follow scientific regulations and forcing this

“faith” as a fact before endorsing it as a theory. It is accepted by many scientists as the only

explanation for the origin of life, consequently omitting all other theories including creation. “We

in NASA were often asked what the real reason was for the amazing string of successes we had

with our Apollo flights to the Moon. I think the only honest answer we could give was that we

tried to never overlook anything. It is in that same sense of scientific honesty that I endorse the

presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life and man in the science

classroom. It would be an error to overlook the possibility that the universe was planned rather

than happened by chance.” 2 The Evolution Theory is based on evidence gathered by “expert”

scientists to justify their claim of an evolutionary chain. In many cases, evolutionists use

strategies to shine their theory on to the public by means of media shows such as the famous

Scopes trial as well as secretly generating false “evidence” displaying skeletons of missing links

such as the Piltdown Man and refusal to claim responsibility for conclusions mistakenly made;

such as the case of Lucy. In addition, “evidence” supporting the evolutionary chain is invalid in

view of the tremendous lack of intermediate links between species as well as, all the evidence

pointing towards evolution is prominently based on the assumption that evolution has occurred.

Thus, once an assumption has become the evidence for the premeditated conclusion, it is

somewhat obvious to view that conclusion as the only logical explanation. One of the most well

known conflicts between Creation and Darwinism called the Scopes case, occurred in the

1920’s which was especially engineered to make a mockery of Creationism. The Tennessee

legislature had passed a statue prohibiting the teaching of evolution. Opponents of the law

engineered a case test in which a former substitute teacher named Scopes volunteered to be

the defendant. William Jennings Bryan, three-time Democratic presidential candidate and a

Bible believer led the prosecution. The Scope’s defense team was led by the famous criminal

lawyer Clarence Darrow. Darrow called Bryan to the stand as a Bible expert and presented him

with a tooth belonging to the Nebraska Man (prehistoric man within the evolutionary chain).

Darrow humiliated Bryan in a devastating cross-examination in which he showed that the

leading “scientific authorities” in the world confirmed the tooth belonged to a prehistoric man.

The “monkey-trial” was a triumph for Darwinism and had a powerful impact on the general

public. “However, years after the trial, the skeleton of the animal which the tooth came from was

found. As it turns out, the tooth on which the Nebraska Man was created belonged to an extinct

species of pig. The “authorities” who ridiculed Mr.Bryan for his ignorance, created an entire race

of humanity out of the tooth of a pig!”3 Such “authority figures” have been governing and

monitoring the media in an attempt to establish Evolution as a fact and not a theory. “It is

absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that

person is ignorant, stupid or insane!” 4 Nevertheless, not all scientists are limiting themselves

to one possible conclusion. There are those who openly admit flaws within this theory and try to

reasonably establish evidence to support their claims as true scientists. If they lack such

evidence, they permit criticism and act as respected scientists by drawing objective conclusions

based on their initial hypothesis and gathered observations. Such is the case with the founder

of the Theory of Evolution, Charles Darwin. “As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms

must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the

earth? The number of extinct species must have been inconceivably great!… not one change of

species into another is on record… we cannot prove that a single species has been changed!…

He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole

theory.” 5 Throughout the history of the Evolution Theory, many people have tried to help natural

selection “evidence” by engineering false proof that will in turn prove the missing link between

humans and apes. In 1912, Charles Dawson (a fossiologist) discovered some bones, teeth and

primitive implements in a gravel pit at Piltdown, Sussex, England. He took them to Dr. Author

Smith Woodward (well known and respected paleontologist) at the British Museum. The

remains were marked as being 500,000 years old. This new discovery generated mass media

coverage all over the world and “Evolution” became the primary theory for the origin of life. The

evolutionary link between man and ape was found! On October 1956, using a new method to

date bones based on fluoride absorption, the Piltdown bones were found to be fraudulent.

Further, critical investigation revealed that the jawbone actually belonged to an ape that had died

only 50 years previously. The skeleton, tested and confirmed by “expert scientific authorities”

proved to be a fake. This did not matter; the promotion of “Evolution” has been successful in

planting the idea that soon, the real missing link will be found, instead of generating an inquiry

as to the validity of this theory. “When it comes to the origin of life on the earth, there are only

two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (Evolution). There is no third way.

Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other

conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We can not accept that on philosophical grounds

(personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose

spontaneously by chance.” 6 Present day speculation about human evolution is mainly based

on a group of fossils called autralopithecines and in particular, a specimen called Lucy, a 40%

complete skeleton. During investigations conducted from 1972-1977 in a far area of Ethiopia,

D.C. Johanson discovered a skeleton later to be known as Lucy. This again, generated mass

media coverage as an evolutionary link between humans and apes was found. In a National

Geographic article (December 1976), Joahnson claimed that “the angle of the thigh bone and

the flattened surface at its knee joint end… proved she walked on two legs.” “However, evidence

regarding the actual discovery of the knee joint that was used to ‘prove’ that Lucy walked upright

was found more than 200 feet lower in the strata and more than two miles away. The knee joint

end of the femur was severely crushed; therefore, Johanson’s conclusion is pure speculation.”7

Anatomist Charles Oxnard, using a computer technique for analysis of skeletal relationships,

has concluded that the australopithecines did not walk upright (not in the same manner as

humans). Furthermore, there is evidence that people including Kanapoi hominid and

Castennedolo Man walked upright before the time of Lucy. Obviously, if people walked before

Lucy, than once again, this “evidence” is disqualified as an evolutionary ancestor. Thus, the only

scientific basis for concluding that Lucy was an evolutionary link, was the assumption that

evolution did occur. When lining evidence on the assumption that a theory is a fact, the only

possible conclusion which could be generated is that fact; “the fact of evolution” (closed circle).

“Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observations and

wholly unsupported by facts.” 8 One of the most serious blows to the Evolution Theory is the

absence of transitional forms. As Darwin was honest enough to admit the defect in his theory

regarding these intermediate links, his assumptions were credible. “The explanation lies,

however, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.” 9 In 1859, this explanation

drove geologists to vigorously search for fossils of these “links”. Although it has been over 100

years since Darwin’s time, we now have fewer samples of “transitional forms” than we did back

then. Instead of heaving more samples, we actually have less because some of the old classic

examples of evolution have been recently discarded due to new information and findings, and no

new transitional forms have been found. “The fossil material is now so complete that the lack of

transitional series cannot be explained by the scarcity of the material. The deficiencies are real,

they will never be filled.” 10 Nevertheless, evolutionists still maintain their determination to put

their faith before the evidence. It is not with fa cts that evolutionists argue against the

theory of creation, but rather, with tentative assumptions based on faith and inability to explain

the paradoxes in nature. When confronted with questions such as “who came first, the chicken

or the egg?”, they reply with philosophical answers containing no shred of evidence. Throughout

the natural environment, organisms have been discovered and examined revealing clear

evidence of defiance to the Evolution Theory. From the ingenious design of the human eye, to

the magnificent relationship between symbiotic organisms, right to the marvelous design of body

structures and color variation in nature, the notion of “it” happening by “mere coincidence” is

completely preposterous and a ridiculous theory for science to acknowledge. In addition to the

visual beauty in nature, DNA serves as an impenetrable shield to the Creation Theory and a fatal

weapon against the Theory of Evolution. “Take the human body alone-the chance that all the

functions of the individual could just happen, is a statistical monstrosity!” 11 Evolutionists are

helpless when trying to explain the step by step evolution of the human eye. As one of the most

intriguing organs of the body, it contains automatic aiming, automatic focusing, and automatic

aperture adjustment. The human eye can function from almost complete darkness to bright

sunlight. It sees an object with a diameter of a fine hair, and makes about 100,000 separate

motions in an average day. Then, while we sleep, it carries out its own maintenance work. The

human eye is so sophisticated that scientists are still trying to understand how it functions.

When objectively questioning his own theory, Charles Darwin confirmed that “to suppose that

the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for

admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration,

could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest

possible degree… The belief that an organ as perfect as the eye could have been formed by

natural selection is more than enough to stagger anyone.” Nonetheless, evolutionists still stick

to their “faith” and a paralyzed answer, “it happened somehow, somewhere”. It is hopeless to

try and explain how the eye evolved step by step because, it is either a complete structure

(including all other organs such as brain to perceive the information and then analyze it like a

computer, as well as all other organs such as heart, blood vessels, etc.), or it is incomplete, in

which case it will be rejected by the organism. It either functions as an integrated whole or not

at all. Darwin has stated that “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.” However, the human eye is just the tip of the iceberg.

Evolutionists’ problems are further complicated by the fact that hundreds of different eyes exist in

different organisms. These different eyes are built with absolutely distinct designs. A squid’s

eyes are structurally different than a human’s eyes or a crab’s eyes, etc. To compare the

structures of these eyes is like comparing a radio’s design with a computer’s design. Both

receive and output signals but have completely different architectural designs. Such a case of

evolution, of many different eyes, each astonishingly designed and crafted, is surely a dilemma

an evolutionist must face. To illustrate, the Trilobite eye; unlike the lens of a human eye, which

is composed of living, organic tissues, trilobite eyes are composed of inorganic calcite. Unlike

human eyes which are composed of a single lens, trilobite eyes have a very special double lens

design with anywhere from 100 to 15,000 lenses in each eye (depending on the sub-species).

This special design allows the trilobites to see under water perfectly, without distortions.

Sufficient knowledge of Abbe’s Sine Law, Fermat’s Principle, and various other principles of

optics are fundamental in the design of these lenses. They appear to have been carefully crafted

by a very knowledgeable physicist.

Astonishing symbiotic relationships between organisms found in nature, mock the Evolution

Theory. There are many instances where organisms of different species are completely

dependent upon each other for survival. For instance, “the Pronuba moth lives in a cocoon in

the sand at the base of the Yucca plant. Pronuba moths can only hatch on certain nights of the

year, which are also the only nights that Yucca flowers bloom. When the Pronuba moth

hatches, it enters an open Yucca flower and gathers pollen12 . It then flies to a different yucca

plant, backs into the flower and lays its eggs with the Yucca’s seed cells. It pushes the pollen it

had gathered into a hole in the Yucca flower’s pistil, so the pollen will fertilize the Yucca’s seed

cells where the moth laid its eggs. The moth then dies. As the moth’s eggs incubate, the yucca

seeds ripen. When the eggs hatch, the moth larvae eat about one fifth of the Yucca seeds.

They then cut through the seed pod and spin a thread that they use to slide down to the desert

floor. They proceed into the sand and spin a cocoon and the cycle continues. There are several

kinds of Yucca plants, each pollinated by its own kind of moth that is the right size to enter the

particular flower. The Yucca plant and the Pronuba moth are dependent on each other for

reproduction, thus survival.” 13 Another example of a symbiotic relationship is found between

large fish and usually smaller fish and shrimp. Many large fish feed on smaller fish and shrimp.

However, once these large fish find that their mouths have become littered with debris and

parasites, they swim to places were smaller fish and shrimp clean their mouths. When the

large fish opens its mouth and gill chambers, baring vicious-looking teeth, the little fish and

shrimp swim inside the large fish until they finish their job of eating all the debris and then swim

out unharmed and the big fish swims away. Both parties involved in this relationship benefit and

override the instincts developed by “Evolution” for self-preservation to eat the smaller fish and

shrimp, as well as, for the cleaning animals’ unnatural suicidal tendency to walk straight into the

mouth of this large fish. This relationship is not limited to fish. The bird Egyptian Plover is

designed to freely walk into the mouth of the Nile crocodile to clean out parasites and leaves

completely unharmed. Such relationships challenge the Evolution concept of each animal’s

instinct for self-preservation. However, such a relationship can occur if the organisms had

implanted information within their genetic program for them to act out and follow. A computer

will do whatever it is instructed according to the program it runs by. It will not display feelings or

change course out of will. It will only act as it was programmed to act. As stated by Charles

Darwin, “if it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed

for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have

been produced through natural selection.” Therefore, the evidence of the Pronuba moth and the

Yucca flower clearly present a relationship in which not just one particular part of a structure of

an organism is necessary for the survival of another specie, but they are both completely linked

in a reproductive cycle in which both species had to “evolve” at the same time absolutely

annihilating the concept of “gradual evolution” by “chance”; a paradox equivalent to the famous

question of “who came first, the chicken or the egg?” Another paradox is “who came first, male

or female?” If the male or the female evolved first, then why would nature complicate itself by

allowing for that organism to “start evolving” two genders that have to be 100% compatible with

each other, as well as, each gender be attracted to the opposite gender, and many other

considerations to be taken in order to assure reproduction. It would be ridiculous to even

consider the possibility of both genders (in every specie containing two genders) evolving at the

same time with such complexity and compatibility. “The explanatory doctrines of biological

evolution do not stand up to an in-depth criticism.”14 Another fine example of such paradox in

nature is the Bombardier beetle. The Bombardier beetle is a small insect that is armed with an

impressive defense system. Whenever threatened by an enemy attack, this organism ejects

irritating and odious gases, which are at 2120F, out from two tail pipes right into the face of its

predator. Hermann Schildknecht, a German chemist, studied the Bombardier beetle to find out

how he accomplishes this chemical achievement. He learned that the beetle makes his

explosive weapon by mixing together two very dangerous chemicals (hydroquinone and

hydrogen peroxide). In addition to these two chemicals, there is a third chemical known as the

“inhibitor”. The inhibitor prevents the chemicals from blowing up and enables the beetle to store

these chemicals in his body. Whenever the beetle is approached by a predator, such as a frog,

he squirts the stored chemicals into the two combustion tubes and, at the precisely right

moment, he ads another chemical (an anti-inhibitor). A violent explosion occurs right in the face

of the attacker. When analyzing the “evolutionary process” that allowed the Bombardier beetle

to develop such a chemical weapon, we are forced to speculate that first, there must have been

thousands of generations of beetles improperly mixing these hazardous chemicals in fatal

evolutionary experiments, blowing themselves to pieces. Eventually, we assume, they have

arrived at the magic formula, but what about the development of the inhibitor? There is no need

to evolve an inhibitor unless you already have the two chemicals you are trying to inhibit. On the

other hand, if you already have the two chemicals without the inhibitor, it is already too late, for

you have just blown yourself up. Obviously, such design and pre-meditative arrangement would

have to arise from intelligent foresight and planning. Nevertheless, assuming that the beetle

somehow managed to simultaneously develop the two chemicals along with the important

inhibitor. The solution would offer no benefit at all to the beetle, for it would just sit there as a

harmless mixture. To be of any value to the beetle, an anti-inhibitor must be added to the

solution. So, once again, for thousands of generations we are supposed to believe that these

poor beetles mixed and stored these chemicals for no particular reason or advantage, until

finally, the anti-inhibitor was perfected. With the anti-inhibitor developed he still can’t touch his

predators because he still needs to “evolve” the two combustion tubes and a precise

communications and timing network to control and adjust the critical direction and timing of the

explosion. So once again, for thousands of generations, the beetles blew themselves up to

pieces until they finally mastered this long range plan. Such a defense mechanism requires

vast amount of knowledge to design and construct. To argue that it all just evolved

instantaneously is absurd and to suggest that for thousands of generations, “natural selection”

aimed to achieve this specific and remarkable design is not within the Evolution Theory’s

capabilities. 15 In addition to the superb design of structural engineering, nature, is filled with

magnificent varieties of colors arranged in geometric shapes and sizes. Many organisms exhibit

such architectural designs clearly showing intelligent pattern. Butterflies, fish, flowers, birds,

and many other types of organisms have color decorations as a part of their genetic makeup.

An animal such as the Zebra, contains an intelligent design of black and white stripes makes it

a very easy target for hunting (see cover page for illustration). Furthermore, these stripes on the

Zebra are composed of billions of cells, each have the proper chemicals to produce that specific

color in the specific location. When demonstrating how an evolutionary mechanism could have

developed the Zebra’s patterned looks, the process can be paralleled to programming a

computer to randomly produce colored pixels on the screen and waiting to see if a pattern such

as black line, white line, black line, white line, etc. would occur. Furthermore, it is not enough to

hope for the black and white lines to appear (orderly), how can they possibly be genetically

integrated into the Zebra’s coded DNA? Would a computer for no reason, program itself to

display these lines on the screen if you smash it everytime it didn’t? Because of the Zebra’s

patterned look, it can be seen from vast distances and killed. Evolutionary thinking is so

focused on what is practical and what is required for self-preservation, that when presented with

such a widespread of beauty which in many cases serve no purpose except for decoration, they

must either capitulate or ignore the facts. Such is the case with the fish, Rhodicthys.

Rhodicthys is of a bright red color. Yet, it lives in total darkness, 1.5 miles below the surface of

the ocean. Likewise, the deep-sea Neoscopelus macrolepidotus is vividly colored with azure

blue, bright red, silver spots, and black circles! Even the eggs of some of the deep-sea

creatures are brilliantly colored. Furthermore, naturalists’ obsession for defending evolution no

matter what, has produced absurd and absolutely senseless statements regarding animals

such as the peacock.

“Do the creation scientists really suppose their Creator saw fit to create a bird that couldn’t

reproduce without six feet of bulky feathers that make it easy for leopards?”16 It seems to me

that a peacock is just the kind of animal an artistic Creator would favor, but an “uncaring

mechanical process” like natural selection would never permit to develop. “I reject evolution

because I deem it obsolete; because the knowledge, hard won since 1830, of anatomy,

histology, cytology, and embryology, cannot be made to accord with its basic idea. The

foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long

deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rooted in the hearts of man.”17

Ultimately, DNA is without a doubt the strongest weapon to hinder the Theory of Evolution. “Now

we know that the cell itself is far more complex than we had imagined. It includes thousands of

functioning enzymes, each one of them a complex machine itself. Furthermore, each enzyme

comes into being in response to a gene, a strand of DNA. The information content of this gene

(its complexity) must be as great as that of the enzyme it controls.” 18 DNA is the coded

language on which the foundation of life is based on. Unlike electronic devices built by human

beings employing the rules of electricity (on, off) , DNA is an extremely more complex and

mystifying method for transmitting ordered information for it is founded on four acids (4 parts)

which make up a language far more detailed than that of two parts. DNA molecules can only be

replicated with the assistance of specific enzymes, which in turn, can only be produced by the

controlling DNA molecule. Each is absolutely necessary for the other and both must be present

for replication to occur. Thus, we can conclude that the basic grounds on which “evolutionary

mechanisms” operate, are in themselves, a paradox on the molecular level. “The capacity of

DNA to store information vastly exceeds that of modern technology. The information needed to

specify the design all the species of organisms which ever lived (known) could be held in a

teaspoon and there would still be room left to hold all the information in every book ever written.”

19 Such extraordinary sophistication can only reflect super-intelligent design. In addition,

computer scientists have demonstrated conclusively that information does not and cannot arise

spontaneously.20 “The Information Theory has shown that mistakes cannot improve a code of

information; they can only reduce a code’s ability to transmit meaningful information.

Information results only from the expenditure of energy (to arrange letters and words) and under

the all-important direction of intelligence.” 21 DNA is information. The only logical and

reasonable conclusion that can be drawn is that DNA was formed by intelligence. The

paradoxes facing evolutionists are unconquerable simply because, what used to be their most

convenient answer “we had millions of years for this to happen”, is no longer valid for answering

questions such as, “who came first the chicken or the egg? Male or female? Pronuba moths or

the Yucca plant? DNA molecule or the enzymes responsible for its development? and so forth.

“To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of

chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the

facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely

complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically

and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest.” 22

Mathematics is the backbone of science. It constitutes a system which can be perceived by

humans rather than try to visualize concepts, unfeasible to the human mind. Evolutionists insist

that through gradual processes of natural selection, highly complex living organisms consisting

of numerous inter-relating components can develop and co-exist in an environment which has

evolved equally through time. When trying to mathematically conceptualize how such

developments could occur, the numbers are uncomprehandable because of their gigantic

proportions. For instance, examine a chance development of a very simple system composed of

200 integrated parts (simple compared with living systems). The probability of forming s