The Pope & Islam

A lot of fury and verbiage is flying around since the pope’s comments concerning Islam these days.

In my view he merely spoke the historical truth, as we know it, about the “prophet” and should never have made any apology for his words. And once again mulsims have proven it to be still true!!

Again political correctness rules – even in the Vatican!

Islam has shown itself over and over again to be a dangerous, bloodthirsty religion of conversion by the sword. Convert or die is practically all we hear these days. And yet the idiotic politically correct agenda still insists that all religions are equal and Islam is not all bad – just a minority group of radical fundamentalists within it.

Minority? On the contrary! All we see in the world today are muslim demonstrations, threats, riots, and threats of slaughter, terrorism, war, abuse of women and children, cruelty, torture…..

When will the inane media makers wake up and smell the blood? Only when it becomes their own I fear.

History clearly tells us that the “prophet” was a desert bandit who pillaged, murdered, raped and tortured. Then he made a religion out of it to justify his crimes and build up a huge army of fanatics who wished to profit from the same.

That’s what history tells us whether we like it or not.

Jesus Christ receives more verbal abuse, ridicule, hatred and mockery in the world than any other “religious” leader ever. But do we see great crowds of christians out on the streets breating forth threatings and slaughter for it all? For even one small Christ abasing cartoon or comments by muslims or even the abasing words of the Quaran concerning Him? No.
Jesus, on the contrary, tells us to love our enemies, bless them that curse us and pray for them that persecute us. He says, “do as you would be done by” – the golden rule.

Which do you refer? The sword hanging over your head requiring conversion to Allah on pains of death or a free will choice – with future consequences yes – but still free? Christ offers reconciliation and peace with God on a free choice basis.

Do you want to see what the Quaran teaches? Look at these short refs:

Koran: Husbands may beat their wives. (Surah 4:34)

“Do not take the Jews and Christians for friends”
(Surah 5:51)

“fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness”
(Surah 9:123)

“fight those who do not believe in Allah”
(Surah 9:29)

“and fight them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah”
(Surah 8:39)

“fight them; Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace”
(Surah 9:14)

“Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them”
(Surah 9:30)

Just a small sample but you ought to get the idea. But the worst part is that as soon as anyone steps outside the politically correct boundaries and speaks the truth, inevitably a majority of muslims will step out and prove it!

Steve Centanni, the Fox News reporter freed overrecently by his captors in Gaza said, “We were forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint…”
Yet still the mass media refuses to speak the truth – all in the name of tolerance – right to the idiotic extremes of our post-modern world wherein if the truth hurts it must be squashed and it’s proponents persecuted. We must not “hurt feelings” or some other such brutally foolish notions are now more important than truth – even in the once “all powerful, infallible” Vatican!

I ask, when did one ever witness Christ apologizing for speaking the truth? Never. And yes we crucified Him for it and I have no doubts would do so again if we could! Many are still doing so verbally with no qualms or reasoning at all.

Forced religion is no religion at all.

The pope should feel no shame in having spoken the historical truth and no apologies should have been made. No apology for telling the truth, under such circumstances, should ever be made by anyone anywhere. Including any truth spoken by a muslim.

We may be mistaken sometimes when we think we are speaking the truth but are in fact unwittingly uttering false information. But no shame is ever to accepted for speaking the truth. And no apology should be made for reciting history and recognizing it’s message.

I am no fan of popery, but this situation is an outrage against freedom of expression and indeed against truth itself.

More on Intelligent Design

New and intersting articles at ID The Future

Q: Does it matter what anyone says is the truth in this matter?

A: Not to the average Darwinian fundamentalist.

They will find a way to squirm out of the evidence as usual – now matter how many principles of logic must be broken or bypassed to do so.

The universal answer to all Darwinism’s serious problems is “selection” – the evolutionist’s magic wand.

Like Dawkins, the recipe is tyically – take the data, add a cup of quaint just-so stories, mix with a pint of poorly thought out double talk, add a billion years or 2 and Presto chango we have entirely new, fundamentally different (morphologically), species with previously unfound traits and complex, concurrent, synchronized functionalities! Mutational Concurrency is the chief problem in virtually all Darwinian path way scenarios.

Just like the faery-taled frog to prince, this molecule to human morphing is easy with time and random mutations! Only in Darwinian thought of course since no empirical evidence or proof of this ever having occurred is available. Darwinists use circular reasoning to get around this though: “It must have occurred since there is no other materialist explanation”.
Forget that most mutations are negative or neutral and that negative mutations are always detrimental and often lethal. Forget that randomness never ever produces ordered functionality in anything at all. Forget that there are known limitations to any species’ ability to adapt or morph. Forget that all the time available is still vastly insufficient for the standard macro-evo model to produce anything like a hundred million different complex life forms. Forget the fact that recent studies suggest that at current estimates of mutation rates the human race could never have evolved to our current state from molecule, given the level of bad mutations (bugs in the genetic code). Forget the fact that NO macro-evo mutational pathway from molecule to complex, reproductive life form has ever been rationally, much less empircally, demonstrated.

None of this matters. Darwinism must be true because we simply cannot allow a possible Intelligent Agent in the door. Why? Because it has deep metaphysical implications. For the adamant evolutionist neo-Darwinism must be true – no matter how much the evidence points to some super intelligence behind life – because they want it to be true – because metaphysical explanations (except the more subtle Darwinian kind) are to be ruled out from the start all the way to the finish.

This is why we now have “designoids”. A quaint invention of Dawkins to deny any possibility of intelligent design in nature. It is in reality an irrational substitute for any empirical evidence against design. Designoids – things that supposedly only “look like” real designs! Incredibly foolish when you stop to reflect on the implications of this – “appearance of deisgn but no real deisgn”?!

Proof? No. Just more “explaning away” to avoid the obvious and most simple explanation. Occams razor come to mind?

ll the evidence points to design. Otherwise why does the great Darwinist high preist have to invent designoids in the 1st place?! Isn’t it perfectly clear? If it looks designed, and fills all the criteria of deisgn detection methods, then it most likely is designed!
Humans have the ability to instinctively recognize things that stand out as design versus natural random patterns. So Dawkins’ designoids are in fact an irrational response to what we intuitively see as design by abductive reasoning.
Darwinism says, “If it looks designed it is a mere illusion since we cannot allow it to actually be designed because we don’t permit any metaphysical implications (except our own) in our materialist science.”
All too obvious for an unbiased observer.

As the apostle Paul wrote “science falsely so-called” – applies well here.

See also my articles on SETI and ID, Information in DNA etc.

More Darwinian discrimination tactics

An excerpt:

Biology professor alters evolution statement for recommendations; justice ends probe – News and Comment – Michael Dini, Texas Tech University

Larry TaylorThe U.S. Justice Department has dropped its investigation of a complaint that a Texas Tech University biology professor was discriminating against students who did not believe in evolution.

The department announced April 22 that it had ended its probe after Professor Michael Dini eliminated the evolution belief requirement from his recommendation policy and replaced it with a requirement that students be able to explain the theory of evolution.

The Justice Department had earlier said Dini might be discriminating against students with certain religious views because he excludes from consideration a letter of recommendation for students who will nor affirm a personal belief in human evolution.

All of this began in September of 2002 when a university student needed a letter of recommendation from a biology instructor to apply for a program at Southwestern University’s medical school. The student, a devout believer in creationism, stated he had no problem learning about evolution but had to draw the line when informed that to receive a letter of recommendation from Dini he must “truthfully and forthrightly” affirm belief in evolution. The student felt he was being discriminated against because of his belief in biblical creation.

Dini listed three criteria that must be met before receiving a letter of recommendation. The first stated that the student must have earned an “A” in at least one class taught by Dini. The second stated that the student must be known by Dini. The third (the one in question) stated that if you cannot answer the question “How do you think the human species originated?” with sincere reference to evolution, then a letter of recommendation from Dini would not be forthcoming.


Reading Dini’s ridiculous conclusions on this (rest of article) is sad and would be laughable if not so serious.

Of course, macro-evo fundamentalist darweenies will find some reason to call Dini’s original practice “good”. The general public can see more clearly than that – it’s discrimination and while it is treated as religious it is not necessarily so.

Lots of non religious scientists doubt the macro-evo theory. And not on religious but on purely scientific grounds. Statistical probality methods and good old simple logic suffice to cause one to doubt that the billions of amazing complexities, with the “appearance” of design (to quote Dawkins), in the universe are the results of random mutations + the darwinists magic wand “selection”.

I doubt the discrimination will stop soon. Not till this weed of a “theory” is finally rooted up and something much better, more scientific, more logical replaces it.

It will happen.  It’s just a question of time + mutations + selection! 😉

Do Intelligent Design scientists publish in peer reviewed journals?

This post is entirely dedicated to edarrall – the commentor who persistently and obstinately claims that only 2 papers have ever been published by creationist or ID scientists.

This post answers with David Buckna’s article (2006) on the subject and shows just how blind Darwinian fundamentalist believers can be – again!


The article:

Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals?

© David Buckna. All Rights Reserved. [Last Modified: 09 March 2006]

In his book The Monkey Business (1982) paleontologist Niles Eldredge wrote that no author who published in the Creation Research Society Quarterly “has contributed a single article to any reputable scientific journal” (p.83). Apparently Eldredge couldn’t be bothered to glance at the Science Citation Index or any other major science bibliographic source.

Developmental biologist Willem J. Ouweneel, a Dutch creationist and CRSQ contributor, published a classic and widely cited paper on developmental anomalies in fruit flies (“Developmental genetics of homoeosis,” Advances in Genetics, 16 [1976], 179-248). Herpetologist Wayne Frair, a frequent CRSQ contributor, publishes his work on turtle systematics and serology in such journals as Journal of Herpetology, Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Science, and Herpetologica.

In their study of creationist publishing practices (“The Elusive Scientific Basis of Creation ‘Science’,” Quarterly Review of Biology 60 (1985): 21-30), Eugenie Scott and Henry Cole surveyed the editors of 68 journals for the period from 1980-1983, looking for creationist submissions. Out of an estimated 135,000 submitted papers, Scott and Cole found only 18 that could be described “as advocating scientific creationism” (p.26).

Scott and Cole were not looking for papers like the following: In 1983, the German creationist and microbiologist Siegfried Scherer published a critique of evolutionary theories of the origin of photosynthesis entitled “Basic Functional States in the Evolution of Light-driven Cyclic Electron Transport,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 104 [1983]: 289-299, one of the journals Scott and Cole surveyed. Only an editor who had a complete roster of European creationists, and the insight to follow the implications of Scherer’s argument would have flagged the paper as “creationist.”

How many papers did Scott and Cole miss? Let’s look at 1984, one year past the end of their survey. Would Scott and Cole have turned up “Enzymic Editing Mechanisms and the Origin of Biological Information Transfer,” by the creationist biochemist Grant Lambert (Journal of Theoretical Biology, 107 [1984]:387-403)? Lambert argues that without editing enzymes, primitive DNA replication, transcription, and translation would have been swamped by extremely high error rates. But the editing enzymes are themselves produced by DNA.

It’s a brilliant argument for design. Lambert understandably counts on some subtlety and insight from his readers, however. Lambert doesn’t “explicitly” wave his creationist banner, leaving the dilemma as a“n unresolved problem in theoretical biology” (p.401). By Scott and Cole’s criteria, such papers don’t really count. By any other reasonable criteria, however, they do.

Dr. D. Russell Humphreys, a physicist working for the prestigious Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico (who is involved with the laboratory’s particle beam fusion project, concerning thermonuclear fusion energy research) is a board member of the Creation Research Society. He has about 30 published articles in mainstream technical journals from 1968 to the present. In the last eight years a lot of his work has been classified, so there has been less of it in the open literature.

His most recent unclassified publication is a multiple-author article in Review of Scientific Instruments, Vol. 63, Number 10, October 1992, pp. 5068-5071, “Comparison of experimental results and calculated detector responses for PBFAII thermal source experiments.” I understand that a more recent unclassified article will be published in the near future.

Here is just a sampling of some of his earlier articles:

“Inertial confinement fusion with light ion beams,” (Multiple-author) International Atomic Energy Agency, 13th International Conference on Plasma Physics and Controlled Nuclear Fusion Research, Washington D.C., 1-6 October 1990.

“Progress toward a superconducting opening switch,” (Principal author), Proceedings of 6th IEEE Pulsed Power Conference (Arlington, VA June 29 – July 1, 1987) pp. 279-282.

“Rimfire: a six megavolt laser-triggered gas-filled switch for PBFA II,” (Principal author),Proceedings of 5th IEEE Pulsed Power Conference (Arlington, VA June 10-12, 1985) pp. 262-2265.

“Uranium logging with prompt fission neutrons,” (Principal author) International Journal of Applied Radiation and Isotopes, Vol. 34, Number 1, 1983, pp. 261-268.

“The 1/gamma velocity dependence of nucleon-nucleus optical potentials,” (Only author) Nuclear Physics, Vol. A182, 1972, pp. 580-592

Creationists such as Humphreys have extensive publications in mainstream journals on non-creationist topics. As mentioned previously, the article by Scott & Cole was a search for articles openly espousing creationism, which is a different matter altogether. Creationists who publish scientific research in mainstream journals have found that they can publish articles with data having creationist implications, but will not get articles with openly creationist conclusions published. When they attempt to do this, their articles are usually rejected. Those who are well-known to evolutionists as creationists have more difficulty even with articles which do not have obvious creationist implications.

In the summer of 1985 Humphreys wrote to the journal Science pointing out that openly creationist articles are suppressed by most journals. He asked if Science had a “hidden policy of suppressing creationist letters.” Christine Gilbert, the letters editor, replied and admitted, “It is true that we are not likely to publish creationist letters.” This admission is particularly significant since Science’s official letters policy is that they represent “the range of opinions received” (e.g., letters must be representative of part of the spectrum of opinions). Yet of all the opinions they receive, Science does not print the creationist ones.

Humphreys’ letter and Ms. Gilbert’s reply are reprinted in the book, Creation’s Tiny Mystery, by physicist Robert V. Gentry (Earth Science Associates, Knoxville, Tennessee, 2nd edition, 1988.)

On May 19, 1992 Humphreys submitted his article *“Compton scattering and the cosmic microwave background bumps” to the Scientific Correspondence section of the British journal Nature. The editorial staff knew Humphreys was a creationist and didn’t want to publish it (even though the article did not contain any glaring creationist implications). The editorial staff didn’t even want to send it through official peer review. Six months later Nature published an article by someone else on the same topic, having the same conclusions. Thus, most creationist researchers realize it is simply a waste of time to send journal editors openly creationist articles. To say that a “slight bias” exists on the part of journal editors would be an understatement.

The Institute for Creation Research published a laymanized version of Humphrey’s article in their Impact series [No. 233, “Bumps in the Big Bang,” November 1992]. Reference 5 of that article contains information about the Nature submission.

In the 70s and early 80s physicist Robert Gentry had several articles with very significant creationist data published in mainstream journals (Science, Nature, Journal of Geophysical Research, etc.), but found he couldn’t publish openly creationist conclusions. Gentry had discovered that granites contain microscopic coloration halos produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium. According to evolutionary theory, polonium halos should not be there. Some believe that the existence of polonium halos is scientific evidence that the Earth was created instantaneously.

When Oak Ridge National Laboratories terminated Gentry’s connection with them as a visiting professor (shortly after it became nationally known he is a creationist) the number of his articles slowed down, but he continues to publish.

Russell Humphreys said in a 1993 interview: “I’m part of a fairly large scientific community in New Mexico, and a good number of these are creationists. Many don’t actively belong to any creationist organization. Based on those proportions and knowing the membership of the Creation Research Society, it’s probably a conservative estimate that there are in the US alone around 10,000 practicing scientists who are biblical creationists.” (“Creation in the Physics Lab”, Creation Ex Nihilo 15(3):20-23).

Additional information on Dr. D. Russell Humphreys:

Dr. Humphreys was awarded his Ph.D. in physics from Louisiana State University in 1972, by which time he was a fully convinced creationist. For the next 6 years he worked in the High Voltage Laboratory of General Electric Company. Since 1979, he has worked for Sandia National Laboratories in nuclear physics, geophysics, pulsed power research, theoretical atomic and nuclear physics, and the Particle Beam Fusion Project. Dr. Humphreys is an adjunct professor of Geophysics and Astrophysics at the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, a Board member of the Creation Research Society and is president of the Creation Science Fellowship of New Mexico. He is also the author of the book “Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe,” Master Books, 1994 (ISBN 0-89051-202-7) which details his white hole cosmology theory.
One other ICR Impact article by Humphreys can be viewed at: The Earth’s Magnetic Field is Young
NOTE: A companion video for Creation’s Tiny Mystery entitled “Fingerprints of Creation,” Video Cat. No. VFINCR (34 minutes) can be ordered at
Another prominent creationist who publishes in mainstream journals is Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, professor of mathematics at the U. S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland.

See also the biographies of Dr Don Batten, Dr Jonathan Sarfati and Dr Pierre Jerlström
NOTE: A companion video for Creation’s Tiny Mystery entitled “Fingerprints of Creation,” Video Cat. No. VFINCR (34 minutes) can be ordered at
Another prominent creationist who publishes in mainstream journals is Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, professor of mathematics at the U. S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland.

See also the biographies of Dr Don Batten, Dr Jonathan Sarfati and Dr Pierre Jerlström for examples of mainstream scientific publications by full-time Answers in Genesis Research Scientists.

Postscript: If you are a creationist who publishes in mainstream journals, and would like to be included in further updates of this article, please send your curriculum vitae to:

David Buckna

A lot more could be said about this whole subject of course. I’ll post info as I’m able so stay tuned.

The Myth of religious neutrality

Two good articles from Cornelius Hunter on why evolutionist’s pretense to Darwinisms’ being metaphysically neutral is a myth. seems to be a very difficult subject for people to understand and accept.

Of course, they’ve been brainwashed into believing that Darwinism is religiously neutral and can co-exist with any religion. This is because it is claimed to be purely natural science with no meta-physics involved. Hunter aptly points out that this is untrue.

Just because their religious beliefs are the opposite of others doesn’t make them any less religious beliefs nontheless.

This pretense to neutrality is also socially harmful and hard-line evolutionist propagandists, like Eugenie Scott and the NCSE propaganda web site and organization, know this. That’s why she can send little advisory notes to others telling them to keep their metaphysics in line when propagating their religion of Darwinism. If there are no metaphysical implications or basis in Darwinism why would she feel compelled to do so?

The answer is obvious. Darwinism is deeply rooted in the ancient religion of naturalism with methodological naturalism as it’s “science”.

As Hunter says, “This is why evolutionists are not good at making theory-neutral evaluations of the empirical evidence. For evolutionists, evolution is not something that might be wrong. It must be true.”

The Darwinist high priests have long pulled the wool over the eyes of the judicial and academic communities in this. Isn’t it time they were exposed for the deceivers that they are?

Darwin himself recognized and stated that his theory was not real science. Strange that it is so promoted as such these days by those who claim that Design is not science!!

I’m very glad someone is publishing comments like this. Thank you Mr. Hunter.

ATP Synthase

Image :
Movie :

A critically important macromolecule—arguably “second in importance only to DNA”—is ATP. ATP is an abbreviation for adenosine triphosphate, a complex molecule that contains the nucleoside adenosine and a tail consisting of three phosphates. As far as known, all organisms from the simplest bacteria to humans use ATP as their primary energy currency. In each of the approximately one hundred trillion human cells is about one billion ATP molecules.
Without ATP, life as we understand it could not exist. All the books in the largest library in the world may not be able to contain the information needed to understand and construct the estimated 100,000 complex macromolecule machines used in humans. All the books in the largest library in the world may not be able to contain the information needed to understand and construct the estimated 100,000 complex macromolecule machines used in humans. Anything less than an entire ATP molecule will not function and a manufacturing plant which is less then complete cannot produce a functioning ATP. Dr. Jerry Bergman

New X-ray crystallographic studies have revealed the working of adenosine triphosphate synthase, the basis of energy transport in all living organisms.

ATP captures the chemical energy released by the combustion of nutrients and transfers it to reactions that require energy, e.g. the building up of cell components, muscle contraction, transmission of nerve messages and many other functions. ATP synthase molecules located within mitochondria stick out on the mitochondria, attached to their inner surfaces in mushroom-like clusters. When food is broken down or metabolized for energy, the last stages of the process occur within the mitochondria.

The ATP synthase molecule, has two parts. Recently, scientists in Japan discovered that one part, the “mushroom stem,” apparently rotates within the “mushroom cap.” Last year, a Nobel prize was awarded to the researcher (Paul Boyer, Ph.D., UCLA) who suggested that forming ATP was somehow tied to this rotation, and the prize was shared with another researcher (John Walker, Ph.D., Medical Research Council Laboratory, Cambridge, England) whose team laid out one of two possible structures for the “cap,” which is believed to be short-lived.

In new research, researchers at Johns Hopkins University determined the other structure, believed to be the most common form, in living organisms. The ATP synthase “mushroom cap,” they found, contains three identical areas, arranged like a coil, where ATP is made. Each area is occupied with a different stage in ATP production.

As the “stem” rotates, it creates a powerful internal shifting in each of the three coiled sections within the cap. This shifting provides the energy to cause chemical changes. At one site, the “ingredients” for ATP come together. At another site, they assemble as ATP, and at the third site, the rotation readies the fully formed ATP to pop off the synthase molecule, for use throughout the cell.

A team led by L. Mario Amzel, Ph.D., and Peter Pedersen, Ph.D. used X-ray crystallography to reveal the molecular structure of adenosine triphosphate synthase. Inside, the molecule whirls around several times a second while it triggers production of ATP.

“It’s one of the most complex molecules ever revealed, almost six times larger than the blood molecule hemoglobin,” says Pedersen. It’s also, the researchers agree, one of the tiniest and most powerful motors ever identified.

The researchers captured the image of the ATP synthase cap while all of its sites were in some stage of making ATP, which is essential for the constant recycling of its precursors. Without this recycling, Pedersen says, “people would have to produce more than half their body weight in ATP every day to meet their energy needs.”

So, according to neo-Darwinism, this thing just happened by an unknown series of random mutations + selection?

Watch the movie – it could easily fit into a mechanical engineering class. Genius beyond genius is what is witnessed for any unprejudiced mind!

Could this machine have been evolved from random mutations over time? Suppose this one single example actually did come from such a random process by a billionth of a billionth of a chance. This does not help at all. Recent experiments in yeast have yielded the discovery 247 such nano machines in yeast alone.

Believing in one such event occurring by chance is one thing; believing that millions of such events occurred randomly all over the planet is a whole other story. It is in fact a stastical nightmare, with impossibly huge odds against it.

There are more than likely millions of such machines, working together for a clear purpose in concurrent processes. DNA is a recent discovery in historical time and we know very little about it and the world as of yet. We are just starting to discover just how incredibly complex biological nature actually is compared to Darwin’s time when the single cell was thought to be just a simple glob of protoplasm. One thing is sure – the more we learn the more complex and organized it proves to be.

Anything that requires concurrency in processing to function cannot be the results of randomness. True randomness does not produce functional concurrency.

To suppose that concurrent processing as seen in bio-nano machines developped from random mutations is folly. It ain’t gonna happen. Why not? Because all the 100’s if not 1000’s, if not millions of mutations necessary to arrive at concurrency in functional biological processes require the same, parallel concurrency in the mutations. Mutations do not occur concurrently with any degree of mutual, functional correspondance or dependance.

It’s like imagining an organic computer coming into existence by itself with all the necessary functional parts growing in cooperation – yet without any guiding blueprint as to what the goal is, what the form or function should be, how the end product will look and work or anything of the kind.

Darwinism always assumes titanic concurrent leaps and bounds while ignoring the technical difficulties involved in parallel processing. Organic machines that cooperate with each other in a common goal simply cannot happen without intelligence.

Creative Mutations

In the evo vs creation debate, one is often told that random mutations + selection are responsible for the creation of all life forms on earth. Genetic mutations are supposed to bring about novel features and entirely new morphologies. Simple life forms are claimed to be the root of all complex life forms. We are confidently told as fact, that macro-evolution is literally the “molecule to man” formula that Darwin imagined.

Of course this is all pure nonsense. As Dr. Francis Crick, Nobel laureate for the discovery of DNA realized, there is not enough time in earth’s history for macro-evolution to have brought about the existence of so many millions of life forms, complex and highly specified, as we see them today.

This is at least partly why, being an atheist, he wrote the book Life Itself. In this 1981 book, Crick spends the first half of the book explaining why life could not originate on our planet —and then he proceeds to suggest that it came from outer space on rockets! Commonly called panspermia, this theory takes the sublime and brings it to the ridiculous.

The point is that Crick himself could not believe in Darwinism as commonly presented! He needed to find some other source of life. Some other source that could explain the abundance of complex life forms on earth — without God. Of course. Anything but admitting to a Supreme being Creator!!

Dr. Royal Truman (Ph.D., specializing in organic chemistry) notes:

Suppose our body is lacking the CFTR gene (or it is not yet functional), which produces a trans-membrane protein which regulates chloride ion transport across the cell membrane. Or suppose that it is missing the RB gene on the 13th chromosome, whose job it is to identify abnormal tumor growth, especially in a child’s rapidly growing retina, and kill such tumors. If one tiny piece of the puzzle is missing all the other thousands of functional genes become worthless, since the organism cannot survive.How sensitive is our human copy machine to error? The CFTP gene has 250,000 base pairs. Over 200 mutations have been described which lead to cystic fibrosis (CF). The most common mutation, -F508 at position 508 on the peptide chain involves the deletion of three nucleotides. Three out of 250,000 nucleotides are not copied correctly and the gene cannot function! It is simply not correct to pretend that nature offers endless degrees of freedom to monkey around with the highly interdependent and very sensitive machinery of cell duplication. Furthermore, as discussed above, time is the greatest enemy for evolutionary theory, since most mutations are recessive and for the time being non-lethal. These accumulate from generation to generation and increase the genetic burden.Mutations + selection simply doesn’t cut it. Selection is always the “magic wand” of Darwinism. Whatever the facts of mutations are, it is conveniently posited that selection can creatively overcome them. As though selection were natures’ mind, working towards a known goal called “fitness”. Nature has no such mind. It is, in itself, blind and thoughtless, without purpose and without foresight.

Darwinism can’t work as a viable explanation of life on earth. It is well known that most mutations are either neutral (no benefit, no detriment) or harmful to the organism. In fact, most mutations are “bugs” or errors in the genetic code, not enhancements. Given this fact and considering that it is literally impossible to formulate a logical, feasible mutational pathway from molecule to man, it is indeed astounding that anyone could have ever believed Darwinismsm in the 1st place.

Of course, Darwin knew little of these details in his time so we mustn’t be too harsh on him. He himself knew that his “speculations” were not real science. “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.” – Charles Darwin, In a letter to Asa Gray, a Harvard professor of biology.

Truman’s paper on the problem of Information for evolutionists is an excellent basis, all by itself, for refuting Darwinism.