Editorial #2 - February 15, 2003
Readers: Mid February.
The question most vital to our human future!
This editorial is based on a request to reply to a letter from an
evolutionist in touch with
main-stream thinking. Because understanding of our origins is the
base for intelligent human behaviour I pick out relevant paragraphs
of his letter. To date, no response.
Wallace does not however, represent modern
knowledge, being unaware of the mass of fossil evidence accumulated
since his time, the stop/start nature of evolution, and, in particular,
the DNA evidence that tells us unequivocally that all life (including
us) is related to all other life on the planet. Indeed we share
common DNA with plants as well as animals.
in each life-form produces species specific variations in common
designs of things like tubes, bones, legs, hearts etc. - e.g., all
mammals have four chambered hearts, four limbs, suckle their young
etc., but all species are distinct, one from the others. EQ.
Reply: The fossil evidence had nothing to offer evolutionists
at the 1980 Chicago Conference and if any great breakthrough had
occurred since that time no doubt we would have heard of it with
huge fanfare. However, as pointed out on site, (*1) change does
not indicate the origin or force of creation; only reflects its
achievement. Evolution theory persists in putting cart before horse.
The fact that DNA evidence is unequivocal in that all life is related
does not seem a good argument for chance evolution. Creation by
chance and selection would be expected to produce alternatives.
The DNA evidence is however a good argument for intelligent creation.
To go about creating life in any but its most logical and practical
way would not be intelligent. Intelligence is its own advocate.
Before the first meaningful life-form (even these are very complex)
there were no genes available for chance, the natural destroyer
of order, to damage. Natural selection had nothing to select FOR
or FROM. Without intelligence there could be no selection to create
anything of complex order. If life could be created by chance then
we would expect a variety of basic designs to appear and disappear
because they would not have the alternative genes ready for environmental
- Don't tell me about monkeys and typewriters
creating books because, by chance, they cannot. Chance selects
equally and books, like life, require unnatural selections.
This is important because it is a matter of principle. Also, as
you say and is proclaimed in the evolution tapes being repeated
on TV, (*2) very early life forms already had the (difficult to
"design for" essentials) heart, eyes, legs, heads, tails
etc., designs solved. The impossible chance creation of these over
huge lengths of time without reason was never needed.
Evolutionists also omit to say that early life needed, from its
beginning, not only potential for change to suit the changes that
would take place in the form and environment of the planet earth
but also to influence changes to this environment so as to achieve
intellectually desired ends. Natural selection cannot foresee, or
design for, a future purpose.
Chance and natural selection know nothing at all! But the creative
intelligence would have to know and formulate a design to survive,
adapt to and change, coming environments so as to serve its end
purpose. For chance, (a destructive force) to create life would
be a miracle. To believe chance can foresee needs and create a structure
of life able to adapt to, and create environmental changes in such
a way as to achieve intellectual ends, we need more than blind religious
But you say that 99.9% of all life that lived on earth is now extinct.
How do you explain that to yourself? Are you saying that chance
IS constantly creating new forms of life from scratch or that clever
chance just refers back to a 'patents' office for suitable designs?
But no, you will claim that life, by natural selection, adapts to
changing environments; but changing environments have already killed
99.9% of those that have lived because they could not adapt. Very
- Life-forms of today are still based on
the early designs. Those that became extinct are those specialised
by chance and selection to take advantage of passing environments;
the specialising forces of chance and selection can be initially
beneficial but lead to extinction because they are genetically
destructive. Evolutionists have no evidence of new genes being
created by chance but massive evidence of chance destruction.
Chance evolution argument is totally contrary to hard scientific
fact. A chance design could not give selection opportunities to
create what we have today and the evidence is irrefutable that
chance and natural selection lead, by nature, to extinction.
Evolutionists want it both ways: a chance evolution with intelligence
to both create and destroy species by use of the same mechanism
at the same time. To be factually flexible must be ego-pleasing.
Has scientific truth, by chance, become extinct? Can we now claim
scientific truth for our every desire? We may escape responsibility
for a time but we cannot escape truth.
- Life is planned! It may appear opportunistic
but early design allowed for the creation of substances the "planned
for" creation would later need. Life, and our world, are
not the designs of mindless chance. "By intelligence"
is the only theory of creation not destroyed by science and logic.
Early life prepared the way for life today. Our creator gave us
the intelligence to understand, create and further develop life
as human life matures. Challenge for our discipline and development
is also provided; only a creative intelligence would have known
our future needs.
But then you tell us: quote: "The only unresolved question
is whether it all happened by chance, or through 'intelligent creation'.
Here I seek my answers in looking at the human status in the grand
scheme of things. This look tells me that we are not, as our ancestors
believed, the centre of the universe and of life on earth."
Reply: Well, big deal, our ancestors (as we) had a lot to
learn. They, as you suggest, knew little about modern science; so
how scientific is it to call on them? Your letter also exposes the
ignorance of religions but I do not think you can call that scientific
evidence for evolution either. Evolutionists seek emotional arguments
to support their partisan attitude. Why do they not look, without
bias, for alternatives and seek more logical understanding of scientific
You say; quote: "The universe is made of the same stuff
everywhere (mostly hydrogen and lesser amounts of helium) and obeys
the same rules everywhere to run itself without any guiding hand.
There is, however, an apparent trend toward order and complexity
- in the beginning there was only hydrogen (and some very rapidly
formed helium), which had been fused and refused in generations
of stars to form the modern elements of today. (This means that
although we are only decades old, the stuff we are made of was once
all hydrogen and is as old as the universe, as old as time itself-a
fact I find a bit mind boggling, but for which there is overwhelming
Reply: I like that, but you forgot to say where this hydrogen
came from! As I understand, hydrogen is destructible as well as
transformable. It has ending so therefore must have beginning. Does
not science say that the universe is running down; that order is
descending into chaos. A law of thermodynamics? Suns will burn out!
One day all (by chance) will return back to the original formless
(neutral) 'waters' where neither chance nor selection can exist.
But mind is not excluded!
Yes the created order of the universe is full of chances and chances
are destructive of that order! The only thing creative of order
is intelligence. So, although I cannot prove it to you if you refuse
to prove it to yourself, I do hope that the intelligence that created
the universe, and life, and gave us the capacity to advance in intelligence,
keeps on the job. If so, then one day I may be able to help keep
the intelligent formations of creation ahead of the mindless destruction
Basic evolution argument is emotional persuasion unrelated to creative
force. It uses outdated beliefs and primitive desires to side-track
us from better explanation of scientific evidence. It comes from
the animal desires of mankind for a god of magic to free us from
the disciplines of intelligence.
Finding truth is truly our most exciting and rewarding
END OF DIRECT REPLY TO LETTER
I am happy to debate evolutionists within my time and space limits,
however unless there is something new to debate, please do not repeat
arguments already answered on this site where this subject, because
of its absolutely vital importance to the human future, is well
Theories, like life forms, may die of many causes. A break in the
logical chain of an argument should end it. Evolutionists have looked
at the creation and tried, for years, to explain events in terms
of evolution. When they create some explanation satisfying to themselves
they then count this as evidence that it happened in that way or
for that reason. They look at the cart, see the wheels revolve and
theorise that this drives the cart and, through various harnesses,
push the horse along.
Evolutionists should start by asking themselves if "chance
and natural selection" can be proven more creative than destructive.
This should be the end of it because all not completely 'bamboozled'
by glamour, pride, fears, peer group pressures and desires to avoid
responsibilities, can see that chance is destructive. Chance will
destroy anything it creates long before it attains the complexity
An archaeologist believing in chance evolution and finding a piece
of stone chipped in the shape of an arrowhead will conclude it was
shaped by intelligence even though it, imaginably, could be shaped
by chance. Chance is too remote; even chance damaged artefacts are
- The world today is descending into chaos.
Almost all troubles begin as a result of fitting life to a false
idea of creation. We start in a wrong direction and get further
and further from our true nature and the satisfaction of our true
potential. To survive we must stop, accept our own true nature
and the force of our creation, then head as intelligence directs.
Few evolutionists, without pressure, admit that both Darwin and
Wallace, after years of maturing a deep understanding of their theory,
began to see that they were on the wrong track. Their theory did
not jell! Or as another thinker suggests: 'On the right track things
soon begin to fall into place, but on the wrong track every step
becomes a struggle to force a fit. Chance creation is an attempt
to escape human responsibilities. We are given chances, let us use
our intelligence to see that the one we have now is not lost. Though
few may see it now "by chance or intelligence" is a question
of extreme importance to human survival in a world of growing tumult.
Notes: *1: Of TRUTH: Part 6. Also
Human Manipulation: Chapter 10
*2: Of TRUTH: Part 8.
Download books at: 'Service Files: Fast downloads'
for future reference; these may have small improvements later than
the on-site reader versions.