The Delusion of Evolution

  • Published on

  • View

  • Download

Embed Size (px)


Latest scientific evidence supports the theory of Intelligent Design. Updated and expanded edition.


  • PB 1

    The design revolution

    INSIDE What your biology teacher never told you p7

    Natures nanotechnology shows every sign of design p10

    Richard Dawkins confesses he cant prove evolution p13

    So-called apemen skulls found to be modern humans p1

    New research shows mutations dont cause evolution p25

    Evidence leads top atheist to reject his faith in evolution p27

    The Delusion of The Delusion of EVOLUTIONLatest scientif ic evidence supports the theory of Intelligent Design





    d and



    EvolutionBooklet_ThirdEdition.in1 1 01/08/2007 15:30:22

  • 2 3

    2 3

    EvolutionA house of cards

    The Design Revolution | House of cards

    The academic establish-ment is blindly pro-evolution the theory that life arose by chance but it is fighting a losing battle to maintain the crumbling facade.

    Time after time evolution-ists answer questions about their evidence with outdated, highly improbable, intel-ligence-insulting school text-book examples. Or they hide behind an arrogant, patronis-ing we know the world looks designed, but only intellectual pygmies or religious fanatics believe it really is.

    Oh, yeah? Tell that to the PhD-level scientists who are developing Intelligent Design

    Theory because they have long ago seen the impossibil-ity of explaining the mind-boggling complexity of life through chance. Not only that, they have looked into the code for life, DNA, and realised that only an intel-ligence could have written that code. Its made up of

    information and informa-tion can only be created by intelligence.

    Now the new researchers have asked evolutionists to provide a logical explanation for how their theory could

    actually work and exposed the fact that even the great-est professors of Darwinism cannot prove that evolution has actually happened. They just assume it has and then impose that theory upon the evidence, rather than letting the evidence speak for itself. For if even the simplest organic cell could speak, it would shout Im designed!

    If evolution were allowed to be subjected to the same rigour of investigation that other sciences have to en-dure, it would be rejected. It could not survive in any other sphere of science. It does not have enough scientific basis to even qualify as a theory in reality the most it can be described as, under normal

    scientific rules, is a hypoth-esis. And a flimsy one at that.

    But for a century-and- a-half evolution has been paraded as a fact of earths history by the Media and biologists. And in a sinister suppression of the truth, evolutionists refuse to allow any informed debate on the issue. Almost all academic journals are a totally closed door to anyone no matter how highly qualified who dares to question the theory.

    Its time for evolutionists to put up or shut up. Einstein said that the harmony of natural law reveals an incred-ible intelligence behind the universe, and hundreds of scientists around the world now agree.

    In this booklet we give just a taste of the revolution taking place. Its a battle for freedomof thought. And for the rightto search for a proper scien-tific method of discovering the truth about lifes origin rather than settling for the pretence of the atheistic phi-losophy of evolution.

    Its all a big con. But the house of cards is falling. And it may happen sooner than you think.

    Andrew HallowayEditor

    Even the greatest profes-sors of Darwinism cannot prove that evolution has actually happened.

    If evolution were to be subjected to the same rigor of investigation, it would be rejected .

    There is a war brewing in academic circles and it affects everyone from the roadsweeper in Rotherham to the systems analyst in Seattle. Its a battle for control of the minds of everyone in the world. And the fact is all of us are being lied to.

    EvolutionBooklet_ThirdEdition.in2 2 01/08/2007 15:30:36

  • 2 3

    2 3

    I WELL REMEMBER my school days and the content of my scientific education. Cer-tainly the overriding impres-sion was that macro-evolution (grand scale evolution) was the epitome of good science.

    In fact, evolution from my geology teacher was synony-mous with science itself. No alternative theory was ever put to us and any other sug-gestion was met with scorn. I have spoken to many people from teenagers upwards and discovered that my own experience in this is commonplace.

    Even in many academic circles where we congratulate ourselves on our educational freedom, evolution is all too often assumed to be true and people are consistently kept in ignorance by a biased scientific establishment. Yet Darwin-ian evolution in all its current modes is only a hypothesis and one which is in consider-able scientific trouble.

    All scientific theories by definition must be tentative and always open to change as new evidence comes to light. If the scientific community makes a theory into a self-evi-

    dent truth it then becomes anti-science and a fixed box into which all evidence must be fitted.

    Was my geology teacher right? Is evolution basically syn-onymous with pure science? Now some scientists will argue that as a scientific hypothesis, evolution is conceivable, but the idea that it is one of the established truths of science

    (if there is such a thing) is simply not true.

    Science itself operates in two broad categories operational science and histori-cal science. The first concerns our present technological progress, where we increase our understanding of how to manipulate certain material elements for our own use e.g. silicon chips.

    However, historical sci-ence. which hypothesises about the past, is a different thing altogether. The two types of science cannot be regarded in the same way.

    As an example, we do not blast people into space based on a strained hypothesis that the rockets will work properly. The technology is rigorously tested and proven. But how

    Just about any David Attenborough programme and many other series on nature are hugely popular, tapping our curiosity both about the natural world around us and where we came from. But in this country, until recently, they have been saturated with evolution allowing no other view on origins a look-in. Yet the case for evolution is far from established whatever the TV tries to brainwash us into believing. Evolutionism is as much a faith as any religion, says author and lecturer Joe Boot.

    Thinking outside the boxDont believe everything you see on TV!

    Thinking outside the box | The Design Revolution

    Too often evolution on TV is fantasy dressed up as fact

    EvolutionBooklet_ThirdEdition.in3 3 01/08/2007 15:30:47

  • the universe began, the origin of our space-time continuum and how people came to be on the planet earth is not test-able in the same way.

    We cannot experimen-tally test or observe the mechanism, or the power that brought the universe into existence. Much of the popular confusion with regard to sci-ence lies in confusing these two areas of investigation and giving them the same weight.

    My mobile phone works brilliantly we say, as does my email and palmtop (most of the time!). So when the BBC screen Walking With Dino-saurs and talk as though its a known fact that the earth is bil-lions of years old, during which time life spontaneously evolved from a primordial soup, we assume that these assertions must work equally well scien-tifically but they dont!

    As these assumptions are so frequently heard they appear to be authoritative. Add to that the deep voice of the narrator

    and the impressive computer graphics and we are convinced. Yet the evidence simply does not establish these claims.

    Scientific knowledge has very real limits. The things we state with confidence because they are accepted today, may not be tomorrow. Science is essentially a tool for acquiring knowledge about realities. It seeks to investigate, as best it can, what exists and arrive at objective facts based on observation.

    Every theory in science requires basic assumptions that cannot be proved and all investigation proceeds from these assumptions. These are metaphysical (beyond phys-ics) assumptions or beliefs and we must all believe certain things before we can speak of science. For example, the belief that the universe can be understood.

    All of our science proceeds from assumptions that seem plausible to us. Empirical science therefore, has nothing absolute about it and we would do well to remember that. In the light of this my well-meaning school-teacher who equated evolution with science itself profoundly misunderstood the nature of scientific knowledge.

    The idea that physical evidence speaks for itself is a fallacy. It must be interpreted according to a framework or worldview. Within this framework we theorise about the past and seek to gather evidence that will support a given theory.

    The evolutionists world-view assumes that every-thing in the universe can be explained through a closed system of material causes and effects, without reference to

    We take the side of science (naturalistic) in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs... in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just so stories, because we have an a priori commitment to materialism and that materialism is an absolute for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door.

    Professor Richard LewontinLeading geneticist

    Darwinian evolution is only a hypothesis and one which is in considerable scientific trouble.

    The Design Revolution | Thinking outside the box

    EvolutionBooklet_ThirdEdition.in4 4 01/08/2007 15:30:51

  • any creator or intelligence. The data collected through scientific enquiry is therefore filtered through this lens. But someone else may analyse the observational evidence and conclude that it is most logical to see a creator behind the universe because there has to be a first cause. Nothing can create itself . So there must be a creator.

    So we see that underly-ing this question of random evolution is a philosophical belief that must be acknowl-edged. Is the evidence being assessed reliably to test these two frameworks? Are non-evolutionary models given a fair hearing?

    Science writer Boyce Rensberger admits, The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like to think. Most scientists get their idea about how the world works not through a rigorously logical process but through hunches and wild guesses.

    This is to be expected. Scientists are only human after all and sometimes a hunch pays off. But are hunches admitted to by the scientific community when questioned about their guarded theory of

    evolution? Generally speaking, absolutely not!

    Evolution is often assumed as self-evident without so much as a footnote concern-ing its flaws. But in a refresh-ing moment of intellectual honesty, geneticist Professor Richard Lewontin wrote the following:

    We take the side of sci-ence (naturalistic) in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just so stories, because we have an a priori commitment to materialism.

    It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but on the contrary, that we are forced to by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce

    material explanations, no matter how counter intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door.1

    This is an astonishing admission. But from a leading evolutionary scientist it makes absolutely clear what many philosophers, scientists and lay persons have been saying for years evolution is an en-trenched dogma that has been so jealousy guarded that it is practically immune to all criti-cism, scientific or otherwise.

    The supposed scientific key to the origin of man and the universe has become itself anti-science. Consider the words of the late anthropolo-gist Dr C Custance, author of the ten-volumed The Door-way Papers, Fellow of the Royal Anthropological Institute and Member of the New York Academy of Sciences:

    Virtually all the funda-mentals of the orthodox

    evolutionary faith have shown themselves to be either of extremely doubtful validity or simply contrary to basic are these erroneous assumptions that the whole theory is now largely main-tained in spite of rather than because of the evidence...

    As a consequence for a great majority of students, and for the public, it has ceased to be a subject of debate. Because it is both incapable of proof and yet may not be questioned, it is virtually untouched by data which challenge it in any way. It has become in the strictest sense irrational...

    Information or concepts which challenge the theory are almost never given a fair hearing. Evolutionary phi-losophy has indeed become a state of mind one might almost say a kind of mental prison rather than a scien-tific attitude... To equate one particular interpretation of the data with the data itself is evidence of mental confu-sion.2

    Anyone taking the time to look into this matter in any detail will quickly discover that at the very least evolution-ism is as much faith as any so-called religious position. The main difference being that evolutionism puts a blind faith in chance, granting creative power to time itself, while others look at the evidence and see design behind the universe. Reason is surely not on the side of blind faith.

    Virtually all the fundamentals of the orthodox evolutionary faith have shown themselves to be either of extremely doubtful validity or simply contrary to fact... so basic are these erroneous assumptions that the whole theory is now largely maintained in spite of, rather than because of, the evidence...

    Dr C Custance Fellow of the Royal Anthropological Institute and Member of the New York Academy of Sciences

    Evolutionary philosophy has become a state of mind rather than a scientific attitude.

    Thinking outside the box | The Design Revolution

    1 BillionsandBillionsofDemons, NYTimesBookReviews,9/1/19972 Evolution:AnIrrationalFaith,inEvolution orCreation?,Vol.4TheDoorwayPapers, Zondervan,1976

    EvolutionBooklet_ThirdEdition.in5 5 01/08/2007 15:30:53

  • 6 7

    6 7

    BEFORE EVOLUTION was a twinkle in the eye of Darwin, most scientists believed that the world was created. After Darwins rise to success, those who still believed in a Designer were pushed to the margins. Billions of pounds have been spent to try to find evidence for evolution in the 150 years since yet nothing solid has shown up. In fact, modern evolution theory is far re-moved from Darwins original idea because it has had to be revised so many times to try to get around the sheer lack of evidence.

    But once so many peoples careers and reputa-tions rested upon the theory, vested interests meant that few scienti...