Teaching “Natural Selection” In Government Schools Is Pure Deception!

Empedocles (493 - 435 BC) is called “The Father of Evolutionary Naturalism”. He said that chance “was responsible for the entire process” of the evolution of matter into humans. He concluded that spontaneous generation, natural selection and survival of the fittest fully explained the origin of life and that all organisms had evolved by the trial-and-error re-combination of animal parts.

Charles Darwin is thought of by most non-scientists as the greatest promoter of Empedocles’ evolutionary concepts. While his parents, Robert and Susannah Darwin, wanted Charles to become a third-generation medical doctor, he neglected his studies at the University of Edinburgh to follow his interest in nature, specifically marine invertebrates. Charles learned basic evolutionary views from the writings of his grandfather, Erasmus, and his father. 

He left Edinburgh and eventually graduated with a B. A. from Christ’s College, Cambridge in 1831. Although an amateur naturalist he was recommended to be the volunteer naturalist and Captain’s companion on a planned two-year voyage of the research ship HMS Beagle. The voyage began on 27 December 1831 and lasted five years, taking the crew all the way around the world.

The Captain, Robert Fitzroy, gave Darwin a copy of Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology, Volume 1. Lyell is famous for his promotion of uniformitarian concepts in geology – the view that geological changes occurred slowly and gradually over millions and billions of years of time. Lyell’s writings completely persuaded Darwin to drop any idea of a recent creation. He adopted evolutionary deep time in his thinking and writings for the rest of his life.

After reading Lyell’s book on the HMS Beagle in 1834, Darwin explored the lower Santa Cruz River valley in Argentina for 16 days. Darwin wrote:

“At the first glance of the basaltic cliffs on the opposite sides of the valley, it was evident that the strata once were united. What power, then has removed along a whole line of country, a solid mass of very hard rock, which had an average thickness of nearly three hundred feet, and a breadth varying from rather less than two miles to four miles? The river, though it has so little power in transporting even inconsiderable fragments, yet in the lapse of ages might produce by its gradual erosion an effect of which it is difficult to judge the amount.”

Darwin, C. 1839. Voyage of the Beagle. London: Smith, Elder. Quoting from Chapter 9 dated April 26, 1834.

In his son’s edited biography of Darwin, Charles reflected on his time in South America:

“Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite Orthodox [behaving like an English Christian gentleman was supposed to act] … But I had come, by this time (1836 - 1839), to see that the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rain-bow as a sign, … and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian.”

“... thus, disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted for a single second that my conclusion was correct. I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished.”

“And this is a damnable doctrine ...” 

Charles Darwin in The life and letters of Charles Darwin edited by Francis Darwin, 1887.

Obviously, Charles Darwin adopted a seriously anti-Christian philosophy for his worldview.

From September 15 to October 20, 1835, Darwin collected 13 varieties of Finches, often referred to as “Darwin’s Finches”, on the volcanic Galapagos Islands. Modern genetic studies have proven that they can interbreed with each other. They are not 13 different species but are merely 13 varieties of one specie, one “kind” of Finch. Darwin knew nothing about genetics, but if he had he might not have believed in the tenets of evolution.

As Darwin was ignorant about the Laws of Genetics, when he returned to England he would write his most famous book, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. In the book he would write these statements:

“Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight, successive variations. She can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps.” [Emphasis added]    

“It may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers.” [Emphasis added] Darwin, C. 1866. On the Origin of Species, 4th ed. London: John Murray, 232.

Note that Charles Darwin personifies (a metaphor that gives human qualities to non-human things) “nature” as a thinking rational intelligence capable of purposeful thought and able to make “selections”. From these statements Darwin would go on to make a great but false faith statement:

“It is a truly wonderful fact [?] … that all animals and all plants throughout all time and space should be related to each other …” [Emphasis added] Darwin, The Annotated Origin: A Facsimile of the First Edition of On the Origin of Species (Harvard University Press, 2009)

I placed the question mark inside the quote because evolution is not a fact, it is highly contested by scientists. Evolutionary believing scientists argue amongst themselves and cannot agree on the methodology for rocks becoming alive by random chance, much less how amoebas became Man. Evolution theories are at best merely unproven working hypotheses. Darwin said that it was a “fact” as a personal opinion in order to support his agnostic/atheistic religious worldview. 

It is an interesting dichotomy that while Darwin believed 100 % in evolution, he also recognized that that there had to be a god that started things going.  The last chapter of Darwin’s Origin of the Species is titled, “Recapitulation and Conclusion”. He summaries the concepts of evolution as an exaltation of death, pain, and disease. 

“Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” [Emphasis added] Darwin, C., On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, Chapter 14.

Please note that Darwin does not separate human beings as superior to animals, but instead includes us as “higher animals”. His description of the “war” that occurred in nature was influenced by his contemporary and fellow agnostic/atheist, the poet Alfred, Lord Tennyson, who coined these lines:

“Who trusted God was love indeed

And love Creation's final law

Tho' Nature, red in tooth and claw

With ravine, shriek'd against his creed”

Canto 56, In Memoriam A. H. H., 1850. 

The use of the word “red” refers to “blood” in the poem. To evolutionists nature is a bloody, terror filled place where animals kill and eat each other; yet the process supposedly causes an upward increase in intelligence and complexity by random chance.

Darwin never doubted his conclusions about evolution and wrote condescendingly:

“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.”

With typical bravado his next sentence said:

“But I can find out no such case.” Darwin, Origin of the Species, 1859, 158

In Darwin’s mind he could justify anything in order to make evolution palatable. It is why evolutionary theories can accommodate anything - except a Creator God. It is why evolutionists can have their cake and eat it too. They can invent any fairy tale for adults in order to cover any situation.

Darwin was self-deceived into believing that evolution in nature was true due to his atheistic biases. He had no scientific evidence to support it. Instead of doing carefully designed experimentation he used observation and storytelling to support his views. 

In the 1,700s and 1,800s there were great advancements being made in developing purebred domesticated animals and plants for commercial benefits or for sport. Breeders were manipulating animals and plants, carefully crossbreeding or eliminating genetic information through physical means, as laboratory genetic engineering had not yet been developed. This activity is called Artificial Selection. 

Artificial Selection occurs when people decide which male and which female will mate in order to achieve a desired result. There is no new information being added in the process. What actually occurs is the moving of information or the elimination of information. 

For example: if you want a dog with long legs like a Great Dane, you do not add the genetic information for long legs, you eliminate the information for short legs, thereby leaving only the information for long legs. If you want a dog with short legs like a Dachshund, you cannot add the information for short legs, you may only eliminate the information for long legs. No new information is “created” in this process, only previously existing information is removed. This is why purebreds often suffer from congenital defects and are less able to fight off diseases, they have less genetic information in their genome than the original stock. In an unfortunate sense, they are incomplete, more fragile, and “defective”.

What Charles Darwin observed occurring around him was Artificial Selection. He knew that if he used the term Artificial Selection to try and deceive people into believing his ideology no one would believe him. Therefore, he reversed the logic and called it “Natural Selection” in order to make his case that random selection would cause an increase in complexity or intelligence without the input from an outside Designer, Creator, God.

Christian creation believing scientists have no problem with the concept of Artificial Selection. Artificial Selection is observable, it is scientific, and it is a biblically sound concept.

There are hundreds of nuances for the word “evolution”. The base meaning of the word is “change over time”. As cities grow, adding new streets, houses, and businesses, they are “evolving over time”. In biology, there are two major usages - “macroevolution” and “microevolution”. 

Macroevolution refers to the unproven concept that minor random changes over time will accumulate and produce major changes, such as from one specie to another. Macroevolution has never been directly observed, it is not scientific, and it is not biblical. You have to accept it by faith, it is part of a religious belief system.

Microevolution is a perfectly valid scientific term to describe observable variations within a kind; to describe the variations of gene frequency within a gene pool; to describe variations within a kind; and to describe why no two people are exactly alike but they are all people. 

Microevolution will never produce macroevolution!

Evolutionists use the term “evolution” and apply it to everything in order to try to deceive people into believing in it. They will use terms like: cosmic evolution, chemical evolution, stellar evolution, planetary evolution, organic evolution, and macroevolution. None of these has been directly observed, they are only believed in by faith. Only microevolution has been directly observed. Only microevolution is scientific.

What is the monstrous error that is being promoted in schools today? Students are being given one definition of the word evolution, such as “descent with modification” (which is true), to get them to start believing in evolution. This is where the “word meaning switch” begins!

Then the “real” meaning of evolution is slipped in as students continue to be “educated.” They are led to believe that “cosmic evolution,” “organic evolution,” etc., are also part of evolution theory. If the students object, they are told that they just do not understand “science!”

Some evolutionists claim that macro-evolution is just micro-evolution occurring over longer time periods. However, in 1980 about 150 of the world's leading evolutionary theorists gathered at the University of Chicago for a conference entitled “Macroevolution.” Dr. Roger Lewin, is the author of 20 books promoting evolution. He co-authored three books with Dr. Richard Leakey. 

Dr. Lewin was an attendee at “The Chicago Conference” and wrote an article to report to his fellow evolutionists about the findings of this conference. The article may be found at: “Evolution Theory under Fire,” Science. Vol. 210, 21 November 1980. p. 883-887.

He wrote: “The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.”

Is Macro just Micro adding up the smallest over long periods of time? NO! Evolutionists know this to be true, but because it flies in the face of their belief system, they deny it publicly, while acknowledging it amongst themselves. 

No one has very seen a dog produce a non-dog. You have to imagine that it happened long ago in a galaxy far, far away. Such a conclusion must be accepted by a religious faith; it is not science. There are natural genetic barriers to prevent it from happening. Besides, who would the partly “evolved” dog marry?

The word “Evolution” has dozens of definitions - it is used in the biological sciences, geological sciences, architectural sciences, social sciences, and the list goes on. There are six common scientific uses for the word, but only one that has been scientifically documented! For example:

1. “Cosmic evolution” – Supposedly dealing with the origin of space, mass and time from a “Big Bang”.

2. “Chemical evolution” - Supposedly dealing with the origin of higher elements from Hydrogen.

3. “Stellar and planetary evolution” - Supposedly dealing with the origin of the stars and planets.

4. “Organic evolution” - Supposedly dealing with the origin of Life.

5. “Macro-evolution” - Supposedly dealing with the origin of “complex” life forms from “simple” life forms. [Actually, there is no such thing as a “simple life form! Even single celled creatures are incredibly complex.]

Despite all of their claims, storytelling, and fairy tales for adults; no one has ever actually seen nor documented any of these five. You have to believe they happened by faith. This is religion, it is not science.

6. “Micro-evolution” – Referring to minor variations within a kind. This is the only scientific definition that has been observed and documented!  

Variations do occur within living organisms. Creatures may get bigger or smaller, but this does not demonstrate one kind changing into another kind. Variations in size, color, and hair type are simply the expression of the genetic information that was already there either by chance recombinations, or because of the intentional manipulation of genetic information by an outside intelligence. This human activity is called “Artificial Selection”, but there is nothing natural about it.

It is important to understand that there are natural limits to variations within a kind. Artificial selection may take the biggest male and female horse, breed them to each other, and get a still bigger horse, or they may not. The gene pool has limits. Once you have produced the biggest horse, you hit the wall; you have reached the edge of the envelope. Moving in the opposite direction, if you were to take dogs and breed them to get smaller and smaller dogs eventually you would breed an invisible dog. No, that doesn’t happen either. There are limits that cannot be crossed. If you breed a dog too small, you reach a point where the female is ripped to shreds by the litter developing within her and she and her pups will die.

Please login or register to comment