"Deep river,
  I must cross over Jordan...

        The position represented here should not be misconstrued as being a defense for shallow ‘big-man-in-workshop’ type Creationism, where a Supreme Being individually crafts each species independently of each other, such as a toy maker might design individual toys.  Indeed, simplistic religionist views offer little to stir the imagination and even less respect for the Grand Designer of creation. The scientific truth is that we who peer in with our microscopes and out with our telescopes here from spec-of-dust Planet Earth into the vast universal Cosmos of what was, what is and what apparently will be, in reality do not know very much at all about how it all works, as many modern scientists are only very recently beginning to admit.

        There exist logically, processes and forces invented by and put in place by a Creator, which apparently cause everything from collisions of great galaxies of stars on down to changes in species and changes in weather patterns, including the individual courtship rituals of fireflies, formation of individual snow crystals and the unique characteristics of even much smaller entities.  It remains unclear just how frequently the Master Designer ‘plays’ with Creation and likewise, unclear how intimately involved the Creator is with what we in the 21st Century call “nature”, “forces of nature”, “laws of nature” and “natural” changes.  Whether or not modern evolutionary theory is essentially correct in the observationally unfounded and rather shaky insistence that all life on our planet evolved from a single primary source, does not excuse the far larger scientific blunder of refusing to allow for consideration and open discussion of alternate theory and even greater error of blindly attempting to separate overwhelming evidence of design from Designer.  Avoiding evidence of God clearly mirrored in Creation by using terms such as "nature" and "natural" does not in any way, change the observable reality, nor is claiming that "God is not a question for science" an example of anything even remotely honest, let alone 'scientific'.

        What is crystal clear to any honest and rational being is that there is overwhelming evidence of a Grand Designer (or Designers) behind the great Cosmic Grand Design of whatever exists, the vast majority of which in all probability, our species remains entirely unaware of (several astronomers and physicists now believe there are probably many universes and at least eleven dimensions).  The evidence for Cosmic Design is far greater than all other evidence known to modern science combined.  One of the greatest misfortunes our species has inherited here on Planet Earth at the dawn of the new millennium is the ongoing evolution of a pseudo-science, which seeks to deliberately separate and eliminate Designer from Design, refusing to examine and even to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence for a Creator.  Inventing instead a moronic fairy tale, which attempts to explain the Cosmos through an irrational, propped up, intellectually juvenile and entirely unsatisfying Natural Selection “self-organizing” hypothesis of complete silliness, devoid of any sanity, rhyme or rationale as to how and where and why and for whatever reason, it all began.

        Would modern proponents of random chance hypothesis (more accurately, outright guesswork based on evidence-less mythology) consider it rational to theorize how the pyramids of Egypt, the Taj Mahal and the skyscrapers of modern civilization randomly appeared without any aid from designers and laborers?  Of course not, such 'scientists' readily assume that someone pieced together these comparatively simplistic earthly structures without even considering a self-organizing alternative.  Yet these same intellectual Neanderthals fail to see the Grand Canyon-sized black hole of irrationality in attempting to formulate a much less plausible genesis theory of grade-school 'quacker-jackery', postulating the grand assumption of a Designer-less universe, propped up by an idiotic contradicting fabrication of laughable invention entirely devoid of empirical science and any form of logic or sound reasoning!

        A strong proponent of modern evolutionary theory once spent several days of emailing back and forth attempting to convince me that Natural Selection:  1) Is not required to explain origin---one might reasonably ask what kind of theory pretends it can explain how engines cause automobiles to move down the road but has no explanation for how the road came into being, who designed it, or where the material came from that the road consists of; 2) Works by some sort of mystical self-organization process devoid of any Designer---belief in such brainless astrology requires way too much acceptance by faith for a jaded soul such as myself to con jour up;  and 3) Is an absolute true fact of modern science---apparently, physical evidence weighed in the balance of the “scientific method” is no longer the requirement it once was, as even the most ardent advocates of Natural Selection admit, that due to the postulated extreme time it requires for even small changes in species to occur, modern inventions of "selective-mutational" self-organizing processes cannot be proven by any currently known scientific method.  On the contrary, there are several known severe conundrums, including human sight functionality, which bring into serious doubt the entire theory of evolution by Natural Selection. ¹

        Other hypothesis possessing far more rational validity than such a non-provable assumption as 'naturally' occurring phenomena of "grand design" lacking Primary Cause and which also can not be proven by scientific method, have been readily discarded. ²  But not only does the shaky superstition and outright guesswork of Natural Selection hypothesis remain, it has somehow evolved into the fundamental sacred cow of the old time religion of modern science, given absolute canonization status of fundamental theory, irregardless of what any true definition of scientific theory supposedly is.  As noted in the chapter entitled The Myth of Modern Science, there is currently no evidence whatsoever supporting postulated evolutionary changes outside of basic "Family" types (taxonomic category).  Notwithstanding, there is considerable evidence that such evolutionary change may in fact, not take place (see credits and footnotes below).  Any 'scientific' theory proposing such is merely guesswork devoid of empirical science and utterly fails to meet "Scientific Method" criteria.

        Through lengthy email after email it was patiently dissected and pointed out to this lover of wayward baboon speculation, that if a concrete truck operator were to propose that the ‘pos’-enhanced, air-entrained, color-accentuated and various and sundry other confections of modern-day concrete, somehow appear on their own by unguided processes that do not require a plant batch operator to carefully formulate and blend into a mix, the entire Teamster’s Union combined would be unable to adequately protect the employment of such an obviously deranged and mentally unbalanced individual, even though it is common knowledge that this particular labor organization has established an unchallenged reputation for being able to defend virtually any member brother’s job, regardless of how serious the alleged offense against some overbearing and entirely unreasonable company boss may be.  And yet today it is the unfortunate observable reality that modern ivory-towered charlatans posing as scientists and educators, supported by the hard-earned tax dollars of Teamsters and other American wage earners, somehow remain exempt from normal workplace penalties for exhibiting delusions of manifest insanity.

        Some modern atheists claim that one has to first prove that God exists before the “God Question” can be considered a rational endeavor of science and that the burden of proof rests on the believer in God.  This is a most fundamentally flawed position, however, as all current theory of science was (at least theoretically) carefully considered prior to being accepted as valid. Therefore, in seeking to be logical and scientifically correct, the truth remains the exact opposite.  Since all of the known evidence indicates design, God by default exists until it can rationally be proven otherwise.  The modern scientific method is supposedly an experimental process basing verified conclusion (i.e., hypothesis to theory) on the observable evidence---not on theorized randomly appearing elements and presumed "self-organizing" processes entirely unsupported by any known logic and/or observable evidence.  In a true and honest scientific comparison of the abundant evidence for design weighed against what today passes as scientific fact based on similar indirect and much less physical evidence (radio waves, black holes and quarks, for example), there is no scientific fact of the physically unseen more certain than the existence of a Grand Designer or Designers.

        There never has been any acceptable proof presented for atheism and against the existence of God, or any valid scientific method proof for "selective mutational", self-organizing Natural Selection.  Neither is it remotely scientific to base one’s belief on the unfounded superstition that there is no Creator, rather than on the overwhelming evidence of “Grand Design” that proves there is a God as much as we have scientific proof for the existence of ourselves, the earth, the sun or anything else commonly believed to exist by rational deduction using our five senses (as well as our common ‘horse sense’ ³ ).  Atheism, in order to be considered true, is required to prove a negative, which most modern intellectuals agree to be an impossibility of rational logic---not that atheism and rational logic would naturally be expected to appear (as it were) within the same “advanced” species.

        Quite similar to Natural Selectionism zealots, as though they are two peas from a common superficial pod of nearsighted superstition, there are the onward conservative Christian soldiers of political, social, scientific and educational misfortune, who roundly and soundly take time to condemn my own perceived blasphemous soul to eternal damnation, claiming to “accept by faith” their various and sundry revered canonized and untried in the real world, misassumptions of specious superficiality.  One can endure meaningless and boring sermon after fickle sermon concerning the alleged difference between religious faith and provable science, expounded on by dubious theological degree holders of doctrinal sophistry approved by piously revered stain-glass religious cemeteries for the myopically disadvantaged and otherwise, feeble-minded.  Yet there is very little satisfaction (honestly, actually none) to be found in such convoluted diatribe of the devout, as it remains, similar to the modern conservative religion of Natural Selectionism, entirely devoid of reason and without merit toward any known positive benefit, being based on neither the physical evidence nor the troubling reality of our all-too often, non-affirming daily experience. *

        Meanwhile, back on the other hand of the same trivial body of twisted vicious reasoning, a great many modern ‘scientists’ of dubious doctorial degrees claim that God is not a question for modern science, as if they have somehow evolved past the necessity for actual examination of the obvious reality, that the scientific method is somehow beneath their dignity and consequently, there is something fundamentally wrong or unscientific about examining evidence for or against the existence of a Creator.  Being possessed of somewhat more open-mindedness than some of these narrow thinking educational Neanderthals, the late Carl Sagan once stated on public television: “I would like to believe in God but I fail to see any evidence” (at least he had the “evidence” part right).  To which one might more than fairly respond, based on the same 'reasoning' of current convoluted evolutionary theory by self-organizing mysterious processes of Natural Selectionism of extremely doubtful existence and entirely unexplained origin, “I would like to believe in modern science, but I fail to see any evidence”. (See The Myth of Modern Science for more information).

        Modern-day astronomers classify the somewhat famous distant galaxy, NGC 2997, as “a grand design spiral galaxy”.
4   And some of the same scientists who claim to not be able to find any evidence of a Creator sometimes refer to the Cosmos as the “Grand Design Of The Universe”.  Arguably, most children and other beings of somewhat normal intelligence would presume, based on most (actually all) known theory of logic, as well as common monkey sense, that grand design indicates Grand Designer(s).  Though given enough erudite and important sounding degrees attached to one’s name, apparently normal logic no longer necessarily applies.  Likewise, these same scientists who claim to believe in black holes, 5  the invisible spectrum (radio waves, for example), more than three dimensions, quarks, dark matter, dark energy, vacuum energy, anti-matter, Natural Selection, self-organization, selective-mutation and various and sundry other exotic entities mixed in with outright inventions which they cannot actually see, but “believe” to exist based on far less (and often zero) evidence than there is for a Grand Designer, continue to argue that God is not a question for science because we can not actually see the Creator. 6

        Although most people, including myself, have no idea who designed the various buildings that make up greater “Times Square” in New York City, nor have the majority of us ever witnessed any of these buildings actually being constructed, one would risk being branded a lunatic if he or she were to propose that the physical reality of Times Square appeared over a long period of historical time by randomly accidental, selectively-mutating, self-organizing, naturally selecting processes, devoid of any aid from laborers, carpenters, building contractors and architectural designers.  Nevertheless, many modern theorists claim that the entire observable universe, containing overwhelming evidence of a Grand Designer from super clusters of galaxies on down to individual snow crystals and much smaller obviously designed entities, evolved over a long period of time through mysterious self-organizing processes by “Natural Selection”, without any input from a Creator being or beings.  (There is a rather great mystery as to where the ‘stuff ’ to select came from and how the cosmic blueprint and various processes originate, thus “mysterious”.) **

        Even though no one has ever observed anything on our planet developing all by itself, whether a living organism such as a cockroach or an inanimate object such as a soap box, many modern cockroaches posing as scientists and educators of somewhat dubious credentials continue to spout, from their rather shaky soap boxes and very slippery slopes of convoluted reasoning, the utter insane nonsense that everything we can relate to and observe with our five senses came about in a purely by accident, random chance self-organizing fashion.  And then of course, there is the theory of random mutations, which purports to somehow empower the mystical process of Natural Selection (“and may the random force of science fiction be with you, amen”).  Some modern theorists have largely discarded terms such as “random” and “chance” in favor of hopefully, more palatable descriptive fabrications, such as “selective-mutation” and “self-organizing”, to which any normal and rational being, organized or otherwise, would logically and fairly and most undoubtedly scientifically correctly respond, “what complete and utter monkey shit!!!”

        One of the main arguments in favor of the mystical religion of Natural Selectionism is mutation theory mentioned above, which postulates that random mutations (i.e., aberrations to the norm in DNA structure) over a very long period of time cause, through totally inexplicable processes of self-organization (the existence of such self-organizing processes having less credibility than Superman, Spiderman, Batman and the Incredible Hulk combined), all of the diverse flora and fauna on our planet to appear as the grandly designed species that in fact, all of the observable evidence indicates they actually are. Unfortunately, no one has survived long enough to be able to adequately measure much evidence for such an irrational fairytale, so even the most ardent believers in random chance speculation admit that self-organizing selective-mutation theory remains non-provable by any known empirical scientific method (or common monkey sense acceptance).  The possibility of a Creator manipulating the processes at the genetic level is never considered, even though the observable reality of design makes this a far more logical conclusion.

        Some scientists argue that there is nothing particularly mysterious about Natural Selection, but this is a rather perilously postulated position having no basis in the physical reality, for modern evolutionary theory has no viable explanation of what is ultimately behind the cause of, or where the blueprint came from for, Natural Selection through self-organization by random (or "selective") mutations, even if such hypothetical speculations were indeed somehow, the actual reality.  Unlike modern religionist zealots of Natural Selectionism, most theorists of the past generally insisted that true science must consist of explanation for both Cause and Effect.  (Compare theological anfractuous theory of faith above to see the fundamentally precise similarity between conservative fundamentalism and modern evolutionary theory by Natural Selectionism.)

        It would appear that, just as theologians have no particular clue as to why a rational person would believe what the self-righteous claim to “accept by faith”, likewise modern science has no particular answer as to where Natural Selection itself or the stuff from which to select came from and perhaps to be fair to theologians, modern science fundamentally lacks primary Cause for Effect (while those who believe in God do not).  In other words, how can Natural Selection appear or exist if there is nothing from which to select?  And if there is something from which to select, then where did it come from?  Did the mystical processes of Natural Selection and self-organization exist prior to there being any primordial soup from which to select and organize from and if not, from whence did such processes evolve?  How could processes of design just randomly appear out of nothing from nowhere?  How can any logical science postulate that the grand design of the Cosmos appeared out of nowhere from nothing and began self-organizing into the observable grand design universal reality all by itself?  Can utterly foolhardy speculation of self-organized processes producing a Grand Design devoid of a Designer be any more acceptable than irrationally organized religionist quackery of similar monkey-brained illogical dogma?  Perhaps one can begin to see why using terms such as “twisted”, “irrational” and “convoluted” when discussing the 'reasoning' of modern atheism is not particularly all that unfair.

        Twisting all known logical rational by pontificating upon preconceived bias, some modern atheists try to argue that a Creator has nothing to do with the process of design simply because the universe and everything in it appears over a long period of time, as if the Creator’s time were somehow short, so to speak.  Likewise, they laugh to scorn anyone who would suppose that a Creator could be intimately involved with snow crystal design, weather patterns and similar “acts of nature”.  Conclusions such as this are far less rational than a one-celled organism claiming that an advanced being such as Leonardo DaVinci could not both design large physical structures and also intricately mesh the careful perspective and delicate detail of the Mona Lisa.  A position which claims that a Being great enough to design the universe would somehow, not be intricate enough to be involved with snow crystal design and weather pattern changes, is truly a foolish and baseless argument.

        Even overly mundane, mentally simplistic and morally backward 'natural selectionists’ who have somehow, managed to randomly appear within our own unfortunate species, sometimes possess a certain rudimentary ability to create both very large and very small intricately-designed objects in comparison to their own minute spec-of-dust size.  And to be fair, no one has yet determined just what size (or how many) dimensions our Creator might be, although if God “sits in the heavens” as the authors of the Bible claim is the case, then the Grand Designer might just be one exotic grand Giant Being indeed.  Why is it any less plausible for our planet and its inhabitants to "live and move" within God
7  than for small microscopic organisms to live and move within our own bodies?

        Just as our normal lifespan is very long compared to that of certain fruit flies, whose generations can be measured in minutes, so the apparent fact that the universe came into being over a long period of time (from our perspective) in no way proves or even suggests that there is no Creator.  Is it in any way reasonable to conclude that we human beings cannot create both large cities and tiny microchips, just because some beings are much smaller than us and exist for only a few brief moments?  And is it rational for parasites living in our intestines to argue that a huge exotic creature with creative abilities such as the architect Frank Lloyd Wright could not exist, just because they cannot see him or are otherwise, unaware of his presence?  Neither is it any more logical for societal parasites of random chance cosmological astrology hiding behind the ivory towers of our modern universities to claim that there is no Creator or, that God is not a question for science.  To attempt to separate God from science, that is, the blind separation of Designer from design, is arguably even less rational than concluding that there is no God.  Even if there were no God, one would suppose a logical and ethical science would be prudent and honest enough to examine evidence for the Creator’s existence, one way or the other.

        Modern atheists also like to put forth the argument that there could be no God because of all of the calamity, starvation, thievery, rape, murder, war and rumor of war that exists on our planet and within our species.  All this mentally warped position manages to do is to prove that atheists and other backward members of our species make some very bad choices, as well as come to some rather obviously unsound conclusions.  If God stepped in and prevented everything God did not like, then how would there be any freedom of choice? And if we choose to be evil, shiftless and lazy children of our Father in heaven, than how is this God’s fault?  Apparently the rigorous robotic parrots of modern intellectual dogma somehow can not comprehend the concept of free will, perhaps because they have given up their own choices to such a mythological monkey-brained lie as self-organizing Designer-less unnatural and entirely illogical, Natural Selectionism.  There is no valid argument in favor of atheism---there never has been and there very most likely, never ever will be. ***

        And speaking of fruit flies, both Thomas and Julian Huxley (intellectual gods of sorts in their own convoluted right) and many busy scientists randomly appearing after them, have labored for unknown hours upon countless hours in taxpayer supported laboratories, conducting torturous experiments on thousands of generations of rather unlucky fruit flies for the express purpose of proving that the theory of modern evolution by Natural Selection is correct. Unfortunately, every experiment conducted so far has only lent credibility to that famous story found in the Old Testament book of Genesis, which insists over and over again that creatures appear in abundance “according to their kind”.
8 Oh give thanks for the lowly fruit fly, which brings the great Babylonian whore of accidental random chance theory crashing to her clay-jar knees of foolish and baseless assumption, planted in the rootless quicksand quagmire of an egotistical mutant and mystical narrow-minded astrology of fatuous and entirely irrational intellectual perversion!  And the mighty angels of unseen dimensions and baboons with half a brain, naturally select “amen” for their answer, as they bow low to the great I AM of Cosmic Grand Design infinity wonder and only logical primary postulate of true science and Primary Cause for all observable (and far beyond observable) effect. **** ***** ****** ******* ********

FROM A VIEW INSIDE THE BOWL:  It may be a fairly safe bet that what is probably occurring in true universal reality is that the Creator behind the scenes, in ways beyond our finding out, is continually manipulating overall physical and other circumstance reality from Logos perspective (i.e., the Creator’s true ‘outside-the-fishbowl’ perspective), which in turn, down the line cause slight changes to occur within species favorable to survival and in turn, new species thus arise.  It may even be fair to state, as modern science now claims, that the observable process (actually from true Logos perspective, result) is from human view, a naturally selecting process which again from our view, appears as being somewhat on automatic pilot and/or as a result of reproductive survival competition.  It is also possible that the Creator sets a universe in motion from a totally preconceived grand design and, once the initial conceived process is in motion, an abundance of change occurs ‘naturally’ without further or only rare Designer input.
        What is purposefully ridiculed in the above article is not the mechanical correctness or incorrectness of modern evolutionary theory but rather, the insane assumption of many that the overall grandly designed observable result somehow, appears all by itself without any input from a Grand Designer(s). The weakness of current theory noted above, in the notes below and in the companion chapter The Myth of Modern Science, is included to point out that the accuracy of modern science theory is not nearly as proven or even as provable as many modern intellectuals would have us believe.  The truth from the view of any honest human being is very plainly, we know extremely little of both what is actually and what is ultimately, true.  [ repeated from Chapter 15 ]

 ...I must cross over to campground"

$10,000 Reward Challenge

The Jane Goodall Institute

DEDICATED TO:  Jane Goodall, whose life work observing, trying to protect and attempting to instill a little respect for our supposed ancestors, clearly leaves an evolutionary doubt in the author's mind in favor of the chimpanzee.   (Thank you, Mr. Clemens.)


1. A major problem with Natural Selection which is rarely addressed (if ever), is the necessity of very great amounts of time for even small changes in species and especially, theoretical changes from species to new species, to occur.  Most scientists strongly believe that the earth has only been here 4.5 billion or so years at best and that the requirements for life have existed for less time, not to mention the apparent several major cataclysmic events which have theoretically destroyed most early species.  And according to modern theory, it takes millions and millions and millions and millions and millions and a great many more millions of “rare” mutations (aberrations from the norm) for species to evolve from the postulated primordial soup to relatively advanced one-celled organisms and on up to intricate in-living-color eyeballed “advanced" species such as our own.  Thus, very arguably there has not been nearly enough time for all of the millions of species on our planet to have evolved from a simple (modern biologists would argue, not at all simple) one-celled very, very, very great-grandmother in such a time-consuming manner.  In fact, there is a very good argument for the entire known universe not to have been in existence long enough for such a multitude plethora of changes to have occurred and self-organized into the immense variety of known species. And modern science has concluded that most species on earth were completely wiped out less than 250 million years ago.  The necessary time span for the observable reality would be much shorter if earth’s species have arisen from many primary sources rather than from just one.
       Another problem with Natural Selection is its lack of ability to rationally explain why ours and other species continue to harbor devastating disease.  Although many proponents of modern evolutionary theory will argue to the contrary, explaining that disease-causing organisms fight for survival as much as other species do, a primary postulate of Natural Selection clearly breaks down; fundamental to the theory of Natural Selection is that changes within species are overall, toward positive reproductive advantage.  If this were true, then one would suppose after millions and millions of mutational changes, species would begin to break away from that which inhibits the ability to effectively reproduce and thus over time, disease free (or at least, more disease free) species would begin to appear.  Also, it would seem, species that have been around for a very long time such as cockroaches would eventually become free of disease, which they do not and likewise, "highly advanced" species such as we imagine ourselves to be, would over millions of years advance away from that which inhibits our survival instead of remaining riddled with disease.  (See Chernobyl nuclear reactor accident worm example discussed in chapter entitled The Myth of Modern Science for further details regarding contradictions in theory of undesirable gene trait elimination.)
        And then there is the fundamental problem of attempting to explain why there is such a thing as disease in the first place.  In other words, why do species emerge from a theorized singular primordial beginning bearing organisms in conflict with reproductive progress within their own beings?  It would seem logical that if the driving mechanism behind the observable plethora of species were reproductive advantage, then species from the primordial outset would not evolve as hosts for reproductive-inhibiting viruses and other organisms.  How can the current harsh reality of the natural world of species in constant survival conflict with each other be logically explained as natural selection powered by reproductive advantage?
       Still a third problem is the fact that species found at very great ocean depths display, what appears to the rational mind to be, both deliberate design and coloration.  Natural Selection postulates that apparent design and the great variety of coloration we see spread throughout the natural world exists solely for reproductive (including survival) purposes.  If this fundamental postulate of modern science is true, then why do species at ocean depths where there is no light (and often no eyes) for other species to detect varying coloration and design, continue to display design and color diversity?  Modern proponents of Designer-less evolution are quick to claim that the huge multi-diversity of coloration displayed by shallow depth ocean creatures, such as brilliant reds in particular, acts to filter out light reflection and thus, helps protect species from predators.  These same rather contradictory examples of our "highly advanced species" are not nearly so quick to explain why creatures found well below the "midnight" ocean depth line also have diverse design and coloration; one such creature found at a very great depth actually changes from red when young to white as an adult. Explanations such as deep water jelly fish having pigmented internal organs to hide luminescent creatures after they swallow them do not even begin to explain the multiplex coloration and design diversity found at many thousands of feet (photosynthesis of plants becomes impossible around five or six hundred feet, where light is less than 1% of that on the surface and below one thousand feet, the percentage of light is so miniscule as to be essentially non-existent). For example, certain plantlike tubeworms found at depths of 1500 feet and more are grayish-yellow in color on the outside and open to bright red and other color interior parts.  Coloration underscoring significant external design markings on various ocean creatures well below the “midnight” depth level includes green, blue, red, yellow, orange, aqua and purple; explanations that these colors appear differently at dark ocean depths than near the surface where there is light cannot satisfactorily account for such immense design and coloration diversity.
        Apparently certain rather narrow-thinking 'one-trick-pony-minded' theorists cannot grasp the simple logic of the overwhelming evidence that species display seemingly limitless design and color variation for a variety of reasons, among them reflecting the glory of our Creator, camouflage protection and reproductive inducement.  Also, exactly how creatures evolved from a single original primordial source to be now found surviving at both high mountain altitudes and extreme ocean depths remains a mystery beyond all hope of rational explanation. Unsatisfactory argumentation of species migration does not explain the existence of deep-sea species that do not migrate and, due to extreme depth, pressure, temperature and other habitat differentiation, have no logical hope of having ever migrated from shallower ocean depths (or upward in reverse); certain creatures living at very great depths do not even require sunlight to exist as more familiar surface species do and thus, are not even remotely similar to land plants and animals.  The perhaps more probable scenario that species emerge from many points of origination forming 'locked-in' Family types, as the known evidence indicates (see fruit fly experimentation noted above), is dismissed without consideration by modern evolutionists hell-bent on an irrational unholy quest to eliminate Designer from the overwhelmingly obvious reality of design.
        Which opens up a Darwinian Pandora's "black box" to a frustrating fourth problem.  Many evolutionary biologists admit that the extremely intricate human sight system poses a severe dilemma to the entire theory of evolution by Natural Selection, human sight functionality being an irreducibly complex system that appears to be unaccountably much farther advanced than the rest of our body parts and theoretically, would have taken a truly astronomically immense number of generational mutations to evolve as such from a simple primary organism.  Also for the sight system to be such an overwhelmingly complex advanced product of selective mutations, there logically would have had to be gaps in the process where the eye and corresponding brain interaction mechanisms would have been in stages of complete uselessness.  Human sight functionality is an irreducible complex system consisting of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the overall sight process.  Slight alteration of one of the parts causes the entire system to cease functioning.  Such an irreducibly complex system cannot be produced by slight mutational modifications, because even a slight alteration of the complex whole causes total system failure.  Pieces of the human eye evolution puzzle initially assumed by Darwin himself have been proven entirely inaccurate in the light of modern biological knowledge and some biologists are now claiming that random or selective mutational processes by Natural Selection cannot hope to account for the complexity of human sight.  Thus, a relatively insignificant small portion of a being called "human" causes the entire theory of evolution by Natural Selection to be brought into serious question.

2. A good example of an hypothesis readily discarded, not because it has been proven to be false but rather, because there is no known way to prove that it is correct, is a previously held (by some) speculation that the universe is surrounded by water, which would help to explain why hydrogen is so abundantly found in the universe while other elements are much more rare by comparison (there are also other explanations of why hydrogen is abundant). Several scientists, including the late Carl Sagan, have spent some time considering this idea of a great cosmic ocean in which our universe is an expanding bubble, which the authors of the Bible claim to be the case (both in Genesis and Psalms---see Random Chance A-Z Primer of Science and the Bible for more information).  There is currently no way to scientifically prove that the existence of a great cosmic ocean is either true or that it is false.  In other words, it does not qualify as an accepted theory of science because it fails to meet certain scientific standards, requirements that have been entirely discarded for the extremely weak Natural Selection hypothesis.
        Natural Selection, in the light of accepted scientific method, does not qualify as a scientific theory and most definitely does not merit the modern paramount status it has for whatever reason, randomly achieved.  It is probable that Natural Selection has been given such sacred fundamental theory canonical status because it helps excuse modern science from having to examine the overwhelming hard-core evidence of a Grand Designer.  Or at least many scientists it would seem, vainly imagine it exonerates them.  One would assume it is rather doubtful that the Creator excuses such irrational occultism, after all, how would we be likely to react if scientists and educators kept telling our children that we do not exist or perhaps far worse, that it is not important whether or not we do in fact, exist.

3. Samuel Clemens is said to have remarked that he did not believe that evolutionary theory could possibly be correct, as it does such a great "disservice to the ape."  W.C. Fields is rumored to have said “horse sense is what a horse has that keeps him from betting on people”. To which of course, us much-beleaguered souls of the 21st Century might fairly add, “logic is what the true skeptic has that keeps him from betting on science and what a baboon has, that keeps him from believing that people somehow evolved from his more advanced and obviously more rational ancestors.”

4. Online Astronomy Picture of the Day Calendar; August 4th, 2002.

5. Some scientists have very recently began to question the existence of black holes, claiming that the evidence might in fact, be interpreted in other ways.  ALL scientists, however, very strongly believe that there are a great many invisible entities located throughout the known universe.  Most of these same 'scientists' who do not believe in or otherwise, examine evidence for the existence of a Creator, are being entirely dishonest regarding evidence, the scientific method and the reality of knowledge, truth and perception, as well as common horse sense. Note also that some scientists readily admit that evidence can be interpreted in more than one way.  It would be refreshing if these same scientists admitted likewise concerning the evidence for possibilities other than "self-organizing" universal design from chaos and how creation actually might function; i.e., what might easily be true rather than evolution by Natural Selection from a single primary source, based on the same observable evidence.  A 'science' or 'education' system that refuses to consider alternate possibilities to the sacred cow of what has mutated into an extremely narrow and conservative theory of evolution by Natural Selection, is no more reasonable or acceptable than modern conservative religious fundamentalism, nor does it have any particular value for the enlightenment and improvement of our violent, irrationally proud and often contradictory species.

6. It is far more reasonable to conclude that people are not a question for science because a parasite inside a goldfish cannot actually see the child who feeds the fish than it is to argue with the same twisted logic concerning the unseen Creator.  And to be completely honest, it makes more sense to believe that we do not exist than to imagine that there is no God; there is no rational Cause for the observable Effect if there is no Creator, though if we as a species with our modern science manage to blow ourselves to kingdom come, life and the universe and our Father in heaven will more than likely go right on existing just fine without us.

7. Acts 17:28; see also Psalm 2:4.

8. One theory is that aberrations from the DNA norm are caused by mutations induced by cosmic rays.  Unfortunately, this does not explain where cosmic rays originate other than to say they are from ‘star stuff’ which of course, leaves us short of explanation for where star stuff comes from and so on back to or prior to the theorized “big bang”; i.e., does not explain Primary Cause, nor where the primordial ‘stuff’ of the big bang came from.  Those who argue that Natural Selection is not required to explain origin are those who do not understand the meaning of terms such as “honesty”, “logic”, “truth” and “science”; i.e., it is not honest, logical, truthful or scientific to believe in something that has no basis in reality, the reality of existence requiring Cause for Effect.  It would seem that the only true rational explanation for Primary Cause is the “before Abraham was, I AM” concept handed down through Moses, for if the Creator has no beginning or ending, then Primary Cause is rationally satisfied by "I AM". Any other explanation leaves Primary Cause unexplained and unexplainable and thus, fundamentally unscientific and most definitely, completely unsatisfactory.
        Because we have a beginning and ending and likewise, the known universe appears to have a beginning and an ending, it does not necessarily follow that God has a beginning and an ending.  Scientists two hundred years ago would have utterly laughed to scorn anyone who suggested exotic concepts such as the great size and scope of our modern view of the universe, black holes, quarks, anti-matter, dark matter, alternate dimensions and other universes.  Not possessing the knowledge of what our modern technology allows, it would have been far easier two hundred years ago to accept the existence of an eternal being than to attempt to believe what modern scientists now readily accept.  If one thinks it through carefully, it is really not an irrational or difficult idea to believe in the existence of an eternal Designer, especially in the light of our modern cosmological conception and evidence.  On the contrary, it is arguably irrational to believe otherwise as, for if there is no eternal Creator, then there is no rational or satisfactory explanation for anything at all.

*FootNote:  According to the Bible, in contradiction to what both modern religion and modern science and education profess, true faith is based on “the evidence of things not seen” and/or fully understood, for now we “know in part”, seeing as “in a mirror, very dimly”.  The Bible states that the unseen Creator is mirrored in creation, just the same as modern science “believes” in invisible light based on the mirrored (indirect) evidence.  There is absolutely no scientific difference between believing in God based on the evidence than there is believing in radio waves, black holes or quarks based on the evidence.  None of these can be seen, but the argument for the existence of them all has high credibility based on indirect observable evidence.  The obvious difference being, that the evidence for a Creator is much greater than for the invisible spectrum, black holes and quarks combined.  Again, an ‘educator’ who instructs otherwise is falsely misrepresenting the “scientific method”; i.e., what modern science is supposedly based on.  Jesus and the authors of the Bible were opposed to any kind of superstitious nonsense postulating something is true just because a priest, educator or scientist (or every scientist) says so.  True faith and true science are ALWAYS based on EVIDENCE.  The remainder of what we assume to be true should be counted "as dung" (modern terminology; "bullshit"), fit for the enhancement of none and the ridicule of the Jay Leno/David Letterman/Saturday Night Live crowd, accordingly.

**FootNote II:  Some modern scientists believe that modern evolutionary theory by Natural Selection is the most valid explanation for how the Creator creates.  Although the author does not particularly agree with this view, as Natural Selection leaves more than a little to be desired and is rife with contradictions of the known evidence, nevertheless the author has no particular quarrel with this type of scientist, as at least the overwhelmingly evidence for design is not being ignored.  The author believes very strongly that alternate explanations should be thoroughly examined, including the very strong possibility (in the author’s opinion) that multiple species (or Genus or Family) originate independently spread throughout the earth, rather than from a single primary source.  This would help explain why in the fossil record, there is abundant evidence of micro-evolution, changes within species, very little if any evidence of macro-evolution, the ‘advancing’ or changing from one species to another and absolutely no evidence of evolutionary 'advancement' beyond Family types.
       Modern evolutionary theory since Darwin has insisted, without much compelling evidence (and most certainly without any real scientific proof), that all life forms on our planet evolved from a single primary source.  One argument in favor of this is that we have similar DNA to apes and other mammals and some rather distant seeming similarities to certain marine life and other more "primitive" species.  A second argument is that fish appear in the fossil record well ahead of Homo erectus.  Apparently modern evolutionary theory has no qualms forcing one plus two to inarguably equal forty-seven; in truth, there are several ways to rationally interpret the same evidence.  The known evidence is probably more supportive of the idea that life appeared all over the place on our planet and that species come from many if not hundreds or thousands of primary sources.  In other words, what causes life may be common rather than rare as science postulates.  There is no proof at all that life is a rarely occurring phenomena, such a conclusion being only baseless assumption due to modern science’s failure to examine whether or not there is a Creator; i.e., if there is no Creator, it is thus assumed that life must be accidental and therefore, conditions for life arising, very rare.  If there is a Creator however, what causes life to be brought "forth abundantly" may be quite common and prevalent both on our own planet and throughout the greater Cosmos.
       Why may it be more plausible to conclude that life appeared in many different originating places on our planet rather than from one primary source?  Because this would explain why there are very few if any “cross-over” species as Darwin postulated must abundantly exist in the fossil record.  And, it is entirely logical to conclude that the reason we share DNA and some similarities to other species is because that is the best way, according to the Creator's wisdom, for species to survive and multiply in our mutually shared planetary habitat.  Likewise, the changes that a human fetus experiences going through a 'gill-like' stage in early development may be the best way for it to survive rather than an indication that we were once numbered among the fish.  Because a house constructed first is different than an office building constructed later, yet similar in both design and structural parts, it does not rationally follow that the office building evolved from the house, rather than the far more likely conclusion that they were created independently of each other by the same Master Builder using similar materials and structural parts.  And the apparent fact that marine life were ahead of us in line for creation in no way proves that people evolved from fish, that being only one of several plausible explanations---maybe we were just created later, similar to as the office building in the above example was formed after the house.  Scientists believe that marine and other species are still evolving on our planet.  If this is true and if the fossil record were to be examined ten million years from now, would it be correct to conclude that later appearing insects, fish and birds will have evolved from us because we appear first in the fossil record, simply because they share similar DNA and other structure to ourselves?  Perhaps one can begin to see what might be wrong with a theory that blindly accepts unproven and non-provable hypothesis and does not allow for divergent opinions and alternate plausible explanations.  A theory of science that prostitutes itself against known contradictory evidence, refusing to allow for alternative possibilities, is nothing more than a poorly contrived fairytale of juvenile 'b-grade' science fiction at best.

***FootNote III:  The case for atheism is entirely without merit, as there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there is no God.  Anyone claiming that there is no God is an utter liar, postulating a baseless assumption without foundation in the physical reality and thus, is no wiser than the conservative fundamentalist who claims to believe what the Bible says just because the Bible says so.  Agnosticism, although more honest than atheism, is also scientifically unfounded and can be fairly equated to religious superstition; all of the known physical evidence mirrors design and thus, indicates Designer.  Since all of the known observable evidence indicates Designer(s), the correct scientific position based on the evidence, is that there is a Creator God or Gods until someone can rationally prove otherwise. There is no evidence whatsoever for "self organizing" or "random" processes resulting in universal order from chaos.  Accepted theories of science are theoretically based on the most logical conclusion possible after examination of the known observable evidence.  A reprobate ‘educator’ attempting to convince students otherwise is sniffing down a bottomless sewer of archaic mysticism and baseless blind superstition.  As stated in Note #7 above, the most correct scientific postulate to have yet emerged within the known record of our species is that handed down through Moses in the Old Testament book Exodus, which correctly postulates I AM as the Primary Cause for all observable Effect.  There is no other satisfactory explanation for the observable evidence, nor is there likely to be found a better one within the next several “billions and billions” and a great many more billions of years.  If God has always existed, than "I AM" makes perfect rational scientific sense.  If there is no Creator or if the Creator is finite and has not always existed, then there can be no hope of a rational explanation for the observable reality.

****FootNote IV:  Most Christians seem to assume, based on unfounded religious tradition, that the Bible teaches God created the heavens and the earth and then apparently, more-or-less retired.  Most modern evolutionists, in no small part because of such baseless Christian tradition, argue against the idea of a Creator having created (past tense) the universe because of the overwhelming evidence of species continuing to change, die out and new species taking their place.  The Bible very clearly in several places claims that God created in the past, continues to create as we live and breathe and that God will continue to create in the future, long after we are no longer here.  All of the known evidence overwhelmingly indicates that this is true.  Fundamentalist Christianity and the more-or-less, equally narrow-minded religion of 'Natural Selectionism' both fall very far short of possessing a conclusive and satisfactory explanation for the observable reality.

*****FootNote V:  Biblical Geneology Timeframe from Jesus to Adam Confirmed by Recent Modern Science Research.

******FootNote VI:  Not touched on in this article is the fairly new argument arising among some scientists and historians and educators of both, regarding disturbingly contradictory evidence in the historical record of our species, which indicates that modern evolutionary theory may at best, be only half right.  An accurate theory of science postulating singular motivation, such as Natural Selection attempts to do (i.e., that our sole primary motivation is reproduction), by necessity must explain why we do what we do as a species in the historical and current reality and not just be content with explaining the physical reality itself (see The Myth of Modern Science for further explanation).  A major difficulty prevalent in the Western world today is that our systems of knowledge tend to divide and fragment various disciplines rather than to teach the search for truth as a cohesive whole, dividing rather than interlacing disciplines of history, science, language, art, religion, psychology and others into a singular quest for what is true.  Because of this shallow fragmented approach, modern ‘educators’ have been able to shove discussion of God under the narrow carpet of comparative religion and thus, have cleverly spared themselves the embarrassment of having to deal with the overwhelming evidence of the Designer’s existence in the science classroom (see The Tree of Knowledge for further explanation).  Individuals claiming to be educators who are not willing to examine and discuss evidence of God are charlatans and frauds and We The People should keep such destructive liars far away from our impressionable children, as well as demand that the government, which supposedly represents our interests, revoke their licenses to teach. (Also for related information, see Random Chance A-Z Primer of Science and the Bible and Adam and Eve’s Apple.)

*******FootNote VII:  There is much discussion in the modern 21st Century politically correct world about whether or not God should be referred to as “He”, “She”, “It” or in some other fashion.  There are some indications in the Bible that God has no gender, at least as we think of gender from our earth-spec-of-dust perspective.  In certain passages, God addresses both male and female members of our species as if they are beings different than ‘He/She/Itself’ in that we have gender.  Jesus referred to God as “Our Father in heaven”, howbeit, creation itself teaches us, asexual reproduction and the male-bearing seahorse for example, that it is not necessary to have a mother in order to be a father (the seahorse does need a female for fertilization).  Likewise, father in the sense that Jesus taught, may refer to Primary Cause rather than to gender.  God could rationally quite well have “fathered” the universe apart from any other being.
        Nature appears to be a rather dependable schoolmaster for the unseen Designer, as it consistently reflects the three-in-one nature of the Creator Being everywhere throughout the physical earth:  The earth has three major visible parts---water, air, land; we have three parts as well---head, torso, appendages as do other land-based animals; birds have three parts---head, body, wings, as do also various marine and plant organisms.  Note that this physical reality is three-in-one, i.e., three parts interlaced together and not distinctly separate sections with clearly defined borders.  (See Like a Tree Planted for a description of some of the evidence of the three-in-one nature of God as reflected in creation.)  The Bible long ago portrayed the Creator as an extremely advanced way-beyond-all-knowledge grand exotic Three-In-One Being who simply spoke and the universe came into existence, much as if God conceived of the entire universe and all of its intricate ongoing grand design all at once in LOGOS (i.e., God's mind) before causing it to become a physical reality.  Today our modern science is slowly catching up to the realization that there probably exist a great many universes and dimensions and exotic beings far beyond all ability of our finite minds and technology to comprehend.  Recently, some highly respected scientists are beginning to refer to the Cosmos as “creation”, due in large part one would assume, to the awe-inspiring grandiose far-beyond-belief infinity wonder of it all.

********FootNote VIII:  In spite of what evolutionary biologists having long insisted could not be the case, Scientists at Howard Hughes Medical Institute and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston have recently conducted experiments indicating that life may originate in soil, just as the Bible claims.


'Click Here' To Purchase This Book

'Click Here to eMail the Author

Copyright © August 20th, 2003 by Richard Aberdeen.

       No part of this material may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including printing, photocopying, recording or by any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher and signed by the author. Inquiries: Freedom Tracks Records or requested via eMail.  Essays entitled Revolution and Revolution ~ Side B are open copyright and may be reproduced and distributed as desired.