The Faith of the Darwin Messiah

In the year 1829, Charles Darwin took a trip around the world in The H.M.S.
Beagle. Darwin was very interested in the type of improvements that farmers obtained by
crossing their best sheep (the ones with more wool), and picking the better grain to sow
so that the next generations would be better then the last. He believed that the
characteristics, if found in both parents mated, would pass down to the next generation.
In his trip around the world Darwin saw many different kind of animals. He formulated
from this trip his theory of evolution. This theory claims that all creatures come from a
common ancestor. That the environment and other conditions made a change in the body
that made that species more fit to adapt and survive. This was called the survival of the
fittest. Darwin also believed that the same way that a farmer selected the best of its kind
to progress, nature had a similar motor. He called that motor natural selection. This motor
was fueled by hunger. If the specimen with certain traits had an edge on the food
available, then he would survive passing on his traits to future generations
From artificial selection, he theorized natural selection. The human intention and
intellect was now substituted by hunger. This doesn’t exactly make a right fit. If a
princess kisses a frog and it turns into a prince, we call it a fairy tale but if the frog takes
millions of years to turn into a prince, we call it evolution. And they shall turn away their
ears from the truth, and shall be turned onto fables (2Ti 4.4).
The purpose of this essay is to demonstrate that Darwin’s theory is not
scientifically supported, and that above all, that most people believe in evolution by faith
and not by evidence. Most people cannot even clearly define what evolution means. That
is because the term is generally left unfalsifiable. It is used to refer to a change in diet, in
habitat, and it’s even used is most cases to refer to the unevidenciated changes that takes
one species to grow a more complex anatomy or to change into a totally new species. I
must make it clear that for a species to by different it must not be able breed outside of its
species. In other word, different races do not make different species. Another important
thing to have in mind is morphological changes are not macroevolution (the change
between one species and another) because the change in size or shape does does not make
it a different species.
What is science?

The truth is that not everything that has been accepted as science is really science.
For a claim to be scientific it must have certain characteristics. First of all and most
important is that the claim must be formulated thru the use of the scientific method. This
means, that before the claim is presented, you need evidence that are obtained not only by
mere observation, but is also backed up by investigation (I say investigation and not
experimentation because contraire to popular believe, experimentation in not the only
way to get “facts”). The scientific method is made up of five steps, in other words it is a
procedure. The first step is to observe the situation or phenomenon. From there you
proceed to formulate a hypothesis. A hypothesis is just an opinion of the cause of the
phenomenon, at this point is not a “fact”. The third step is the recollection of data; this is
what most people think of experimentation. The next step is the analysis of the data. Here
is where the scientist is to organize the recollected data in a way it makes sense. And the
fifth and final step is the interpretation of the data. In other words this is the point where
the investigator draws conclusions.
A few very important things to realize is that the lack of respect for the evidence
or data makes any statement made by the use of the invalid or nonscientific. Another
thing is, as you may already imagine is that recollection of data can be manipulated, thus,
again invalidating the statement. Another thing is that, to be able to study any given
phenomenon, it must by isolated from all other variables that may effect the outcome of
the investigation. This is impossible in a whole, but the investigator must try his or her
best to affect the data as little as possible from variables other the one in question.
It is my duty as responsible man of society, and as a future educator, that their are
many forms of knowledge. And each person must have the consciousness to admit that
no form of knowledge is greater or better then any other. Philosophy is the search for
wisdom thru the sequent questioning of ideas. Science is limited to the interpretations of
phenomenon in terms of natural causes. Religion is concentrated on the matters of the
soul, the things that cannot be explained in natural terms: the natural man receiveth not
the things of the Spirit; for they are foolishness unto him (1 Co 2.14).
Is evolution science or faith?
As said before, I intend to prove that evolution is nothing more then a hypothesis
with no support, nothing more the a mere opinion like the Greek philosopher, Plato, said:
“to have an opinion without being able to give a reason; don’t you know that this is no
wise, for science should be founded on reasons”. Their have been many text books, if I
dare not say all, that teach that evolution is a proven fact and that it is foolish not to
accept this fundamental “fact”. Throughout the investigation prior to this essay, I checked
over one thousand one hundred (1,100) different books on evolution at different popular
bookstore databases. Out of that search, I found that less then 2% of those books were
against evolution and contained investigations from people that did no adhere themselves
to the evolution dogma although some of the authors were evolutionist. Please remember,
not because 98% of the authors have an opinion it doesn’t necessarily mean that it is
right. Better put in the words of Robert Green Ingersol: ”in the realm of thought,
majorities don’t count”.

Proofs of evolution
In the upcoming paragraphs I will deny several of the most mentioned “proofs” of
evolution as a fact. This part might bring back old, bad memories. You know, back in
middle and high school, with that old biology teacher. I am pretty sure that most of the
example that I will mention will ring a bell in one way or another.
First lets start out with the great experiment conducted by Bernard Kettlewell
with peppered moths. In this experiment, Kettlewell demonstrated that the population the
light colored peppered moths had reduced by a disturbance in there natural habitat. These
moths lived on a type of tree that was naturally covered by white lichen. When the
industrial revolution began in England, the pollution from the factories killed the lichen
and the bark became dark. As a consequence, the light colored peppered became visible
to predator, and the dark colored moths became the dominant population. Since the
beginning of the 20th century, this situation became “proof” for natural selection. The
problem was that when this situation was simulated in an experiment the findings were
different. The experiment was not replicable. First, peppered moths are nocturnal
creatures; the birds that were preying on these moths are day creatures. Second, peppered
moths do not stand on the bark of the trees suck Kettlewell tried to pull off, they rest
under the branches of the tree, unseen by predators. Third, the list of birds that were
eating these moths do not normally eat moths. Finally, somebody found a way to make
experiment work. It had to be totally manipulated. If the moths were placed on the tree
trunk during the day, they will stay put. If birds see easy food, even if it is not there
normal died they will eat it. As you can see some people will do anything to be right.
In 1953, Stanley Miller created amino acids in a lab by passing a spark thru a
chosen mix of gases. The conclusion was that, since amino acids are the base for proteins
which are the bases for cells, that life could have arise from nonliving matter. That
conclusion was a bit to rushed. The truth about this experiment is that with the amino
acids, which were a 2% of the product, was also produced a large amount of tar. In the
beginning the tar would destroy the amino acid. To solve this a valve was installed so that
the amino acids could be separated from the rest of the mixture. Science is supposed to
explain phenomenon in natural term, and I have never seen such a valve in nature. The
rest of the conclusion drawn was that since amino acids now existed, they would link
together and form proteins. This whole experiment gave way to the theory of the
primordial soup. This theory says that in one time the oceans were full of chemicals, and
lightning provoked the creation of amino acids, which linked together and formed cells.
This does not happen. To amino acids to link together they need to be told where to link
and what order. This is done by DNA. Another thing needed is that that amino acids be
all left-handed. The ones created in the lab were half left and right handed. There is no
known living organism that accepts the amino acid formed in the experiment. Not only
does tar destroy the amino acids but water also deteriorates amino acids and proteins.
Finally, cells need more then just amino acids or proteins. They need lipids, DNA, RNA
and other such materials.
Another well mentioned “evidence for evolution” are what are called rudimentary
or vestigial organs. These are organs that are present in the body but have no use. In
another evolutionary stage it might have been of use but as the environment change they
fall into disuse. Some of the examples are the pelvis of the blue whale, the human
appendix, and the human tale bone (coccyx),. When Darwin started his theory they was a
list of over one thousand vestigial organs form different animals; today, that list is
narrowed down to about a hundred. What happened? All those supposedly useless organs
were found to have a use. In the case of the blue whale pelvis, it turned out to be a
support structure for the whale’s penis. If the whale did not have that pelvis, it could not
have an erection and thus could not be able to procreate. The human appendix is
necessary in the fetal and early child stages to process food and nourishments. The
human tailbone has nine muscles adhered to it, it works as a muscular support point. Like
in the past 170 years, we will probably find what the rest of the “vestigial” organs are for.
Another piece of evidence for evolution is what is called the Ernest Haeckel
drawings. These drawings demonstrated how an embryo relived its evolution. The
drawings had remarkable similarities in various parts of the gestation period. This was
proof that in facts all living creatures come from a common ancestor. Using modern
technology we now know that these drawings were nothing more then just a speculation.
With special optical instruments we can see the actual form of the embryos. We know
that the Haeckel Drawings are all wrong in many ways, and that animals do not have
great similarities in their gestation periods. In the human embryo we see small folds by
the side of the head. Some use this to say the humans evolved from fish because these
folds look like gills. But these folds are not gills. They are the formation of the parts of
the neck and jaw bone.
Finally lest finish this set of evidence with the fossil record. There have been
several findings that show that man evolved from primates. These are fossils of ape-men
in different stages of evolution. Lets start from the bottom and work our way to modern
man. The oldest known ape-man fossil is popularly called Lucy. The scientific name for
this ape-man is Australopithecus. This was thought to be great for the evolutionist of the
world but later analysis proved that Lucy was actually a three-foot chimpanzee. The
Heidelberg ape-man was reconstructed from a jawbone, which by it self is not enough
data to draw a conclusion as to how the whole body looks. Later studies came to the
conclusion that that jawbone was actually human. The Nebraska ape-man was an even
more careless conclusion. The whole body was recreated based on a tooth, a single tooth;
this was truly the most shameful moment for evolutionist. The rest of the body turned up
about a hundred feet from where the tooth was found. The tooth actually belonged to an
extinct race of pig. Professing to themselves to be wise, they became fools (Ro 1.22).
How do make a pig look like an ape-man? You give a tooth to a desperate evolutionist
researcher.
One to most talked about ape-men talked about is the Piltdown man. This one was
recreated from a complete skull. For 50 years people believed Piltdown’s testimony, until
someone noticed file marks on the lower teeth. Some one had used a chimpanzee skull
and put a human jawbone in the jaw line. Then filed the human teeth so the lower teeth
would fit with the upper teeth. Until now this is still known as one of the greatest hoaxes
of all time. The ape-man of Pekin was a nice looking piece of evidence but all the
evidence is lost. How convenient. The Neanderthal man was concluded by some to by a
human with some rheumatic disease, possible arthritis. The truth is that I understand why
Darwin drew such a conclusion that man is the descendant of an ape. I mean, if I woke up
every morning and saw that face in the mirror, it is probable that I would have drawn the
same conclusion.

New theories
Evolution requires that organs become existent by slight changes making it more
elaborate and that over time the added effect creates a new species. Darwin said so
himself: “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”. It is because of this that evolutionist come up with new
ideas to try desperately to save Darwin’s theory.
Some of you might have heard the latest theory that evolution can also be caused
by mutations. Mutations are small transcription errors in DNA. In other words what it
refers to is that an organism gains an extra par of wings or the ability to see at night.
Scientist have been successful in cross brooding fruit flies until they are born with an
extra par of wings. But these wings are useless. The DNA in the fly does not know how
to use them; the truth is that they actually bother the normal set of wings. If a wing
mutation was to be successful, it has to include the blood vessels for the wings, the
muscles, the wings themselves, and the part of the brain that coordinated the movement
of the wings. All this is in interesting but the bottom line until now no mutation is
beneficial. 98% of mutations cause genetic diseases such as Down Syndrome, Kri Du Sha
Syndrome and Osteogenesis Imperfecta.
Another new theory is that RNA was created by chance. From this it created DNA
and thus the whole cell. RNA controls the production of proteins in the cell. It also
creates copies of the DNA for new cells. Is this possible? Only in the perverted
imagination of someone that really wants it to be true: thy Wisdom and thy Knowledge, it
hath perverted thee (Is 47.10). There is no evidence that this possible. No one has ever
been able to create a nucleotide in a lab let alone DNA or RNA. RNA can synthesize
proteins, but it needs information from the DNA to know were those Proteins go. Each
protein has a specific location in the cell. Also DNA knows when enough of any one
protein is enough. If too much of a protein is produced then it could kill the cell. So you
might think that DNA came first. That has less probability, for DNA does not synthesize,
rather it orders to do so.

Science against science

Science is mainly ruled by laws that are unbreakable. Some of these laws these
are: gravity- everything that goes up must come down, movement- any still body will
remain still until another force acts over it. Two laws I would like to discuss are the
Second Law of thermodynamics, and the principle of Biogenesis.
The second law of thermodynamics or the law of entropy says that all systems
tend to deteriorate from order to disorder. This means that the energy in a system will
reach a point where it is useless to the system. The energy will become from any active
form (ex. work) to an inactive form (ex. heat). So, to consider that a slow gradual process
gave way to the highly complex and extremely well organized body is to go against this
law. Some believe that since the Earth is an open system, the energy from the sun
replaces the energy lost. But this does fix the contradiction with entropy. First, all
systems are open for the concept of a closed system is an ideal illustration; a technique
used to visualize isolation, which in reality is impossible. Second, entropy does not refer
to lost of energy, it refers to the change of state of the energy in a body from active to
inactive.
The principle of biogenesis is a law of biology taught in most textbooks. The law
states that life can only come from pre-existing life. Two hundred years ago people
believed that life could come from nothing. An experiment with meat gave way to the
principle. Three pieces of meat; one in a closed canister, one in an open canister, and one
with a micro net over the canister. The only one that did not grow carrion worms was the
closed one. This experiment showed that life does not emerge from nothing that is not
alive. The carrion came from flies. To Darwin’s theory to succeed, it needs to have
broken this principle at least once, something that is unevidenciated. And if it breaks it
once, why cannot if break it a few times, and if so, why is there still we ever seen this and
there’s no evidence.

Given enough time, anything is possible…right?

Time is one of the bases of the Darwinian theory. The theory requires that the
changes be gradual and pass thru a trial and error test (natural selection). This is millions
and millions of years in the process. What Darwin didn’t know is that time was his worst
enemy. The bible registers the Earth as of having aprox. 10,000 years of age.
Evolutionists believe that the Earth is millions of years old. This believe is based on that
creatures are dated so. This circular thinking, also called begging the question. The theory
is based on the old Earth theory. The old Earth theory is based on the Darwinian theory.
Both theories are based on things that have no fundament or evidence.
Old Earth theory is disproven in many ways. Once again, evolutionists try to go
against physics. The Earth has a magnetic field around it. All bodies have magnetic
fields, but there strength will depend on their size, having field to great will destroy the
body in question because it would created to much heat. The Earth can only have a
magnetic field so strong. These types of field tend to deteriorate over time (eradiation) at
a steady rate. At some point, the field will reach what is called an equilibrium point, a
point where the field will not longer deteriorate. This rate of deterioration can be
calculated using certain calculus formulas. The magnetic field of the Earth was calculated
when in the 1950’s and again in the beginning of this century were measured. The
calculation determined that the point of equilibrium would take 30,000 years to reach.
The surprising parts is the magnetic field of the Earth is still deteriorating thus it is less
then 30,000 years old.
 The geological strata is another way tat evolutionist believe that the Earth is old,
but the dates for the strata where placed arbitrarily so the dates could fit the data that was
all ready collected. The strata are supposed to have a certain order. But they don’t. In the
Grand Canon, Colorado, you can see various sectors where there is precambric rock high
over what is supposed to be newer rock. In the Washington Mountain Ridge there is a
150 mile long, 20 mile wide, and 5 mile deep extension of cambric rock of the surface of
the land. Evolutionist say it was pushed up by volcanic activity, but according to
physicist such a movement would have collapsed the mountain. Many other places in the
world don’t have the geological strata in order and even some don’t have all the strata.
Carbon dating is another strong for evolutionist. It is used to tell the date of fossil
by measuring the amount of radioactive carbon (isotope Carbon14) in the bones. Using
this method can tell how many thousand or millions of years old is a fossil. Is this method
accurate, and evolutionists acknowledge that. What they don’t acknowledge is that the
method those not work. In science accuracy is everything. A very small margin
uncertainty is acceptable. How can you trust a method that says that live snail died
10,000 years ago? Many of the carbon dates go against the strata date, and both methods
are accepted. Mammoths have been tested, and one area gives a result and another part of
the same specimen gives a totally different result. Human fossils have been dated to be
from pre cambric era. If this was true, humans could not have come from apes. Also two
tests to the same specimen might give two totally different results. Evolutionist jest really
want to hang on to some thing that is definitely not there.

Karl Marx and social Darwinism

I would also like to mention the social effect this has given in modern society.
Karl Marx is an English philosopher that brought up the idea of anarquism. This is an
idea of a world with out government. He taught that people were subject to the laws of
evolution of Darwin. Man was to progress in the order of survival of the fittest. This
would excuse the horror committed in war because it was a mechanism of eliminating the
people that were not fit to survive. Also since life was conceived by chance, then it as no
problem to destroy life for in had no value, it was an accident. In Dan Browns novel,
Angels and Demons the camerlengo gave a speech against science. He says that science
has taken away the moral guidelines of man, that it has not provides answers but has
provoked an emptiness in the human soul. The bible says: the vile person will speak
villainy, to utter error against the Lord, to make empty the soul of the hungry (Is 32.6).
Can the evolutionist conscience create such an empty society? I believe so.

The Darwin Messiah

The only thing that we can say is true about evolution is the concept of
microevolution. These are the small changes we see inside organisms of the same
species. This includes the size of a bird’s beak, the colors of flowers and the size of an
animal. These type of changes cannot explain how a fish became a bird, or how a parasite
became an elephant. It is the only thing true because it is the only we have evidence.
Science has greats augmenting power, but some misuse that power to make
people believe what the want. These people trick other that do not even ask if such a
claim is possible they only accept the authority. Both, the people that lie and believers by
ignorance or arrogance (those who refuse what I say because they cannot lose) are guilty
of giving science a poor name: avoid profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of
science falsely so called (1 Ti 6.20).
The ignorance and the need to run and hide from a God that shall judge when to
time come: And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books where
opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead where
judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to there works
(Ap 20.12). this why people prefer to believe in an atheist theory that leaves out the
fearful word of judgment. They would rather ignore the evidence for creation. They
continue to contradict themselves by saying one thing, and propose laws that null the
thought. They say live things can only come from already living things and don’t believe
they come from a living God.
As you can tell, I am a man of faith and you might want to fight and argue with
me for brining such evidence against evolution. But as Socrates once said “it is simple to
argue against me, but it is impossible to argue against the truth”. I have done nothing else
then only to play the game by your rules (since science cannot prove anything rather its
object is to disprove claims) to show you that you have been taught facts that are not real:
Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteths itself against the
knowledge of God (2 Co 10.5). I believe a man by the name of Jesus Christ. He left me
word of love, righteousness, and hope that you cannot disprove. You believe in Darwin
with his with his heathenistic lies. Jesus said: I am the way, the truth, and the life (Jo
14.6). You believe a theory that Darwin himself confessed in that beginning of his first
book he did not believe. I put my faith in someone that even if I don’t see, I can feel in
the deepest, and at once, most lonely corner of my heart. You put your faith (yes faith, for
you cannot see the proof, and hypocriticly confess that you do) in the word of this man.
Your Messiah is Charles Darwin, and your religion is Evolution. A religion of fools.

* All cites from the Bible are taken from Authorized King James Version

Francisco Velazquez Salas

June 3, 2005
 Reference

Chick, Jack T. (1994). Los Cruzados. ¿El hombre primitive?. Chick Publications.
Vol. 306.

Chick, Jack T. Tract. ¿Abuelito?. Chick Publications.

Chick, Jack T. Tract. En el Principio. Chick Publications.

Cruz, Antonio. (2004). Darwin no mato a Dios. Editorial Vida. (1st ed.).

Darwin, Charles. (1979). The Illusttared Origin of the Species. Mc Graw-Hill Ryerson
Ltd, Toronto.

Evolution Cruncher. Scientist Speak. Part 1. http://www.evolution-facts.org/Ev-

Cruncher/c23a.htm

Evolution Cruncher. Fossils and Strata. Part 1. http://www.evolution-facts.org/Ev-

Cruncher/c12a.htm

Evolution Encyclopedia. Fallacies of Evolution. Vol.3. http://www.evolution-

facts.org/Ev-v3/3evlch38.htm

Heinze, Thomas F. (2002). Answers to my Evolutionist Friend: How Life Began. Chick
Publications. (1st ed.).

Heinze, Thomas F. (2003). In the Beginning… Soup? Did Life Really Arise from the
primordial Soup?. Chick publications. (1st ed.).

Heinze, Thomas F. (2005). The Vanishing Proofs of Evolution. Chick Publications.

(1sted.).

Huse, Scott M. (2001). El Colapso de la Evolución. Chick Publications. (3rd ed.).

Johnson, Phillip E. (1995). Proceso a Darwin. Editorial Portavoz. (3rd ed.).

Lorenzo, José H. (1989). Principios Fundamentales Psicología. ¿Cómo reinvestigan los

fenómenos psicológicos?. Publicaciones Puertorriqueñas, Inc. (pag.20-37).

Malone, Bruce. No Chance of life Life by Chance. http://drdino.com:8080/

QandA/index.jsp?varFolder=CreationEvolution&varpage=nochance.html
Morris, John D. (2005). Institute for Creation Research. Can the Small Changes We See
Add Up to the Big Changes Needed for Evolution?. http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-
b/bgt-161b.htm

Morris, John D. (2005). Institute for Creation Research. Does the Geologic Column
Prove Evolution?. http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/bgt-0067b.htm

Morris, John D. (2005). Institute for Creation Research. Hasn’t Life Been Created in he
Laboratory?. http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/bgt-152b.htm

Morris, John D. (2005). Institute for Creation Research. Is Creation or Evolution More
Empirical?. http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/bgt-076b.htm

Morris, John D. (2005). Institute for Creation Research. Is There Evidence Against
Evolution?. http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/bgt-006b.htm

Morris, John D. (2005). Institute for Creation Research. What is the Difference Between
Macroevolution and Microevolution?. http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/bgt-094b.htm

Morris, John D. (2005). Institute for Creation Research. Who or What Was
Australopithecus Ananemsis. http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/bgt-084b.htm

Tripp, William B. The Secret is Safe. http://drdino.com:8080/QandA/index.jsp?varFolder

=CreationEvolution&varpage=probabilities.html