The Universal Matrix/DNA – Artigos

Pursuant to the wishes of my late brother, Alexander, his extensive body of writing will be published. This article is now available for your Kindle in both English and Spanish

The original author of this article has granted me permission to publish it, but has asked that his name not be connected to it, do to left leaning ideologies that have subsequently infected his thinking.

In the late 1800’s Charles Darwin introduced his now infamous book, The Origin of Species. This work introduced what is now known as Darwinian evolution. Evolution however was nothing new, “The Greeks believed in a form of evolution,” centuries before the birth of Jesus Christ. (Ham, 100) The Origin of Species was destined to change the course of history and cause the re-evaluation of Victorian morality. It would be said that the evolutionary model “Helped make atheism respectable.” (Ham, 85) The assumptions necessary to support the evolutionary model would weaken science and result in the bias of a scientist and not the facts determining the results of experiments and field research. It would compel Cesare Lombroso to form a criteria for the identification of the criminal element based upon physical characteristics such as the subject’s brow ridge and eye shape. Darwin’s model would be applied to the business world to justify ruthless business tactics and excuse, even glorify, maltreatment of the lower classes. It would penetrate the religious community and result in the formation of the theocratic evolutionists. Finally, it would allow society to remove God and his moral absolutes. This final result would cause the persecution of Christian values and beliefs and the formation of numerous misconceptions about Christianity. The resulting removal of moral absolutes would legitimize abortion and prompt so-called “mercy killings” and provide a new basis for racial prejudice. The Evolutionary model of origins would impact not only science, but criminology, business, religion, and basic morality.

When The Origin of Species was published in 1859, it was not the only incident of importance. Japan had unwillingly ended it’s self imposed isolation only five years earlier. A war between Great Britain and Persia Had been over for three years. France went to war against Austria, and won that war the same year. The construction of the Suez Canal began, and the first American oil wells were drilled. The American Civil War was a mere two years away. It was far from being an inactive period in world history.

To truly comprehend the consequences of the evolutionary model one must first see the misinformation and false trails that lead Darwin to construct this model of origins. Darwin’s education included study in the department of Theology at Cambridge University, from which he graduated in 1831. The dogma taught at this university included several erroneous interpretations of Biblical data and concepts contrary to both the Bible and science. One fallacy Darwin was taught as fact was the idea that the Genesis account of Creation stated that reproduction within the created types, or baramins, was comparable to “Pennies from a mint.” (Marsh, 136) This theory was discarded around 1400 AD., when the more accurate variation within created types was realized from both science and the Biblical record. Despite the dethroned status of this theory it was taught as fact to Darwin. Needless to say, he would find it to be inaccurate as he proceeded to examine the scientific data. Frank Marsh records the second fallacy in his paper, The Genesis Kinds in the Modern World. “At Cambridge, Darwin was also taught that all modern forms of plants and animals had been created and set down in the very pattern of geographical distribution in which we find them today. Actually there is no scriptural ground for this latter teaching.” (Marsh, 138) Not only does this concept find no support in scripture, but it is in direct opposition to the story of Noah’s flood. Darwin found nature to completely disprove the theories he had been taught at Cambridge regarding the origin of the Earth and thought the Bible disproven as well. This led him to conclude that life had arisen by natural processes without the aid of God. He then constructed a model of the most likely way this could of occurred, a model he recorded in The Origin of Species. The great tragedy of this is Darwin’s failure to examine the Bible for himself. Not until his declining years did he study the Bible he had thought disproven. Not until then did he realize the delusions that he had disproven were not in the Bible at all. For more information on Darwin’s later rejection of his own model see “Did Charles Darwin Become a Christian?” by John W. Klotz, and Wilbert H. Rusch, Sr. Volume 29, Number 2 of the Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ in Bibliography) contains updated information.

The flawed origin of the evolutionary model gives rise to difficulties. Anyone who attempts to account for the numerous flaws present in the model must realize that Darwin himself later recanted of his own accord. One must also realize these flaws are presented only in the highest levels of the current education system, and information on them is made available only to those who go to great lengths to find literature dealing with these flaws. This brings us to the first flaw of the model. Modern educators present the Evolutionary model as a proven fact, as a law of nature. This is both misleading and inaccurate. The two current models of the Earth’s origin are Creationism and Evolutionism, neither of which is directly subject to the scientific method. In order for something to become a “fact” or a “Law of nature” it must be subjected to the scientific method. This requires the formation of a hypothesis that is tested. As both origin models are belief systems about past events they cannot be tested, and thus can be neither proven or disproven. They are models, a system of beliefs from which predictions can be made and tested. These predictions can then be used to determine which model fits the observed data better. They are both models, not facts or laws.

Another one of the flaws involved in the evolutionary model entails the mechanism of evolution, the driving force behind this “onward and upward” process. Darwin originally attributed this function to use and disuse. The idea was simple, a man exercises, building up his muscles. These enlarged muscles would be passed on to that man’s children. The problem with this is easy to see in the light of modern genetics. No mater how much he could bench press, the man could not change his DNA. “Traits acquired by use and disuse just don’t affect heredity.” (Morris and Parker, 94) Those who still clung to this outmoded concept were subsequently dubbed Darwinists, and those who accepted the next proposed mechanism of evolution were called Neo-Darwinists. Under use and disuse natural selection served only to weed out the weak and maintain the status quo, the same position assigned natural selection since Creationists first described it fifty years before Darwin; use and disuse were relied upon to provide the upgrades.

The mechanism proposed by Neo-Darwinists upgraded natural selection to a more prominent role. Random mutations in the germ cells provided the raw material for evolution and natural selection chose the most beneficial ones. However this provides no true method of betterment. Random chance was the only way to produce an upgrade and provided the only material natural selection had to work with. The major flaw with this is the lack of time. Even the billions of years postulated by evolutionists is not enough time to evolve a Hydra, let alone a human being. This allowed the formation of the Post-Neo-Darwinists. This group accepts the basic arguments of the Neo-Darwinists with a few changes. Essentially, as this new group postulates, evolution is not the slow, painstaking process that was previously thought, but a rapid process taking place in isolated populations. The accelerated pace of this most recent development explains the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record, and allows an age in accordance with Creationist’s research. Numerous Post-Neo-Darwinists are also young-earth evolutionists, individuals that accept Earth ages as young as 10,000 years, while supporting evolution. This level of fluctuation is sadly typical of proponents of the evolution model.

To further illustrate the negative effect of Darwin’s model on science witness the example of the Monera classification. In order for evolution to take place there must be an organism to evolve. One of the major problems of the evolution model is, and will remain, the origin of the first living organism. Such an organism must come from non-living mater, a process known as abiogenesis that was disproven by Louis Pasteur. In 1868 one of Darwin’s strongest supporters, Ernest Haeckel wrote a lengthy paper about organisms he classified under the family name Monera, these organisms were later reclassified as Protisa. The Monera classification was originally created to bridge the gap between living and non-living matter. In 1868 Thomas Henry Huxley wrote an extensive paper entitled On Some Organisms Living at Great Depths in the North Atlantic Ocean the paper was as long-winded as the title. These “Organisms” consisted of mud dredged from the bottom of the North Atlantic Ocean and preserved in alcohol. Huxley classified the protoplasm-like substance as two distinct species and declared them the “missing link” between living and non-living matter. This status for Huxley’s organisms continued to be accepted as the first solid proof of evolution until 1872, when a scientific expedition revealed the material Huxley and numerous supporters had hailed as living to be lifeless mud. The appearance of protoplasm had arisen from a chemical reaction that occurred when the dredged mud was placed in a strong alcohol solution. The gelatinous mass was a precipitate of lime. The first conclusive evidence of this was provided by J. Y. Buchanan and is recorded in volume 24 of the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 1876. (Rupke, 182) It does not take much knowledge or wisdom to see the incredible error that takes place when lime is mistaken for a living organism. The involvement of the evolutionary model can be clearly seen upon the examination of Huxley’s goals. He was nicknamed “Darwin’s Bulldog” because of the extreme methods he used when supporting the evolutionary model. The organisms described in Huxley’s paper was the end result of a long and torturous search for the missing link the Monera classification would of provided.

A more modern, and more disheartening example of the model’s influence on science can be seen in the hunt for the ancestor of man. Note Nebraska man, built from one solitary tooth. When the jawbone that fit the tooth was discovered, the jawbone and the tooth were revealed to of come from an extinct species of pig. (Gish, 187-188) Piltdown man was a hoax, there is no existing fossils of Peking man, and Nethanderal man was re-classified as fully human in the mid-1960’s. As J. Hawkes stated in volume 204 of Nature magazine, “It still comes as a shock to discover how often preconceived notions have affected the investigation of human origins.” (Gish, 189) Not only does it effect the “investigation of human origins” but all aspects of science, no matter if the harmful bias is admitted or if it is concealed. The integrity of the scientific community has also been weakened by the irrational assumptions made by scientists in support of the evolutionary model. Varves, for example, are generally used as a method of determining the ages of the rocks containing them. “A varve is generally defined as a sedimentary lamina or sequence of lamina deposited in a still body of water in one year’s time.” (Oard, 72) In other words, the layers of sediment that form at the bottom of a lake or pond. These layers are alternately light and dark in color. The light layer is supposedly put down in summer, and the dark layer in Winter. One set of layers equals one varve. The assumption made is that one varve has been put down in one year, and there are no gaps in the record. The error in this conjecture becomes apparent when we see examples of multiple varve deposition per year. 360 varves were deposited in a 160 year time span in Lake Walensee, Switzerland and 42 were deposited in a 30 year time span in a Norwegian Glacial lake. (Oard, 76) This is illustrative of the type of difficulties faced by this method. Floods, droughts, and temporary isolation of still bodies of water can also play havoc with varve chronology.

Another example of unreasonable assumptions made by evolutionists is the various methods of determining the age of rocks. The most common method is determining the ratio of parent atoms to daughter atoms in radioactive decay. “The use of radioactive decay as a basis for absolute age determination involves the premise that a parent element decays at a known rate, which remains constant, into a daughter element.” (Acrey, 73) Scientists also assume the sample contained no atoms of the daughter element at formation, or at least a known ratio of parent atoms to daughter atoms. The various methods of ratio measurement are generally identified by the elements measured. The Lead:Thorium and Lead:Uranium methods (Both Uranium and Thorium decay to form lead) are invalidated by “Selective uranium leaching by acid waters” and the fact that “Most radioactive minerals contained some lead when they formed.” (Acrey, 73) The Lead:Alpfa method is unreliable because “So many of the Earth’s minerals have unknown proportions of thorium and uranium.” (Acrey, 73) This pattern holds true for all the lead, uranium, Carbon-14, and Fluorine methods that exist today. It is worthy of note however that the Fluorine method is useful in determining the order in which fossils were deposited at individual sights. The Carbon-14 method is considered accurate to a maximum age of 10,000 years when used on organic material. This is a theoretical maximum that arises from the fact that the amount of Carbon-14 that would be present in older samples would be so minute that the test’s margin of error would exceed the remaining sample.

Efforts to support evolution have been the source of numerous problems. For example the theory of atavism. According to this theory “some individual animals, including humans, at times revert back to an earlier evolutionary type”. (Bergman, 33) This theory is known as the human atavism theory when applied to H. Sapiens. “A tragic example of the use of evolution by another field was its uncritical acceptance into the field of criminology.” because of its “tragic consequences for multi-thousands of persons.” (Bergman, 33) The human atavism theory was applied to criminology by Cesare Lombroso, the first person to apply science to the field of criminology. Lombroso was conducting an autopsy on a famous criminal when he decided the subject bore a striking resemblance to an ape. In 1878, two years after experimentation put the Monera fallacy to rest, he published an interesting theory in a book he entitled The Criminal Man. The theory was simple, Lombroso postulated that criminals were evolutionary throwbacks to the savage state. This concept would have been relatively harmless if it were not for the manner in which Lombroso had it implemented. He encouraged a modification of the legal system that would dispense punishment based not upon the severity of the crime, but the “advanced” or “primitive” status of the criminal. Lombroso’s theories were used to create the descriptions of the basic criminal type. An enlarged brow for example, or pointed as opposed to curved earlobes designated an individual as savage and unreliable. Lombroso proudly relates instances where his analysis and testimony determined the verdict of trials, and laments the instances in which he failed to make a difference. He wanted those who had no characteristics that could be traced to atavism to be spared punishment for crimes as severe as murder because of their innately good nature, while those who displayed evidence of being throwbacks should be disposed of for the most trivial offenses. In essence, Lombroso would have a “modern” man who murdered his wife fined and released; while a “primitive” man would be executed for shoplifting. This is not an exaggeration, this is the kind of reform Lombroso and his supporters wanted. The connection between physical and behavioral characteristics was central to Lombroso’s theories, yet this assumption was contradictory to basic genetics. The concept of atavism has since been discarded, as an atavism could occur only if the mutations that supposedly cause evolution replicated genetic data previously purged from the gene pool by natural selection, as there is not enough DNA to encode discarded traits. Such a mutation, were it to occur, would subsequently be classified as a harmful mutation, and not an atavism. Despite the demise of the atavism theory Lombroso’s concepts live on. Whenever one hears about “The criminal face” or a defense lawyer asks a jury if “That is the face of a murderer”, Lombroso, and his disproven concepts, are being glorified.

The theory of human atavism is not the only portion of evolutionary thought to escape the confines of science. “Application of the principal of ‘survival of the fittest’ to human affairs came to be known as social Darwinism.” (Davidheiser, 338) Essentially the poor were regarded as weak and deserving of death. This was also used as the justification for unfair and cruel business practices. The stronger businessman would have a job when it was over, and the unfit one would be unemployed. James J. Hill in an explanation of his motives said, “The fortunes of the railroad companies is determined by the law of survival of the fittest.” (Hofstadter, 45) Robert E. D. Clark was speaking of Social Darwinism when he said, “Evolution, in short, gave the doer of evil a respite from his conscience. The most unscrupulous behavior towards a competitor could now be rationalized; evil could be called good.” (Davidheiser, 339) Therein lies the true evil of Social Darwinism, not only did it excuse evil, but glorified it.

The application of pseudo-science had other repercussions in society. It provided a new excuse for racism. Terms such as “White man’s burden”, pan-Slavism, and pan-Germanism came into being, each one praising the superiority evolved status of the respective races. Pan-Germanism was used by Hitler to build support for his political agenda. It has been rumored that Hitler died claiming the Slavic peoples had proven themselves stronger in World War Two, nearly a century after Darwin published The Origin of Species. Evolution, and its removal of God was one of the major supports for Marx and Stalin in their removal of God from their communist nation. The final mockery of Social Darwinism was Darwin’s apparent rejection of it. Social Darwinists were further mortified by the embarrassment they caused to responsible scientists. (Davisheiser, 338 and 342)

The force with which evolution was touted as truth with the weight of men such as Lombroso and Huxley behind it soon forced the population to conclude that evolution was true, and blinded them to it’s status as an alternate interpretation of the existing data. This resulted in an attempt by religious leaders to mesh the science of God with the science of atheism, to conform to secular ideals. This is akin to mixing oil with water. As a result non-theistic Christians and theistic evolutionists developed from the Creationists. Non-theistic Christians reject the divinity of Christ and the existence of God, regarding the Bible as a quaint collection of advice. Jesus Christ is called a “good teacher”. The problem with this is Jesus claims to be God. A reading of the Gospels will reveal Jesus is one of three things. He is either a liar, a lunatic, or he is exactly who he claims to be. There are no other options. Theistic evolutionists attempt to blend evolution and the Bible by claiming God used evolution to Create the Earth, the first 11 chapters of Genesis are regarded as poetry. This group eventually finds itself unable to trust the Bible. The final group are the Creationists, of which the author is a member. We recognize that evolution is an attempt to explain the universe from an atheistic viewpoint. It is not “Religion vs. Science” as some would have us believe, but “The science of one religion vs. the science of another religion.” These definitions are independent of other denominational separations. All three groups are represented in each of the subdivisions that make up the Christian faith. Remember, evolution is the science of atheism, and atheism is a religion that denies the existence of God.

Earlier on I mentioned that “Evolution helped make atheism respectable.” (Ham, 85) This is an accurate statement. Not only did it make evolution respectable, but it made theism detestable. The separation of Church and state, originally intended to prevent the government from regulating religion, has since been twisted to ban the teaching of the Christian values upon which this nation was founded. The founding fathers must be rolling over in their graves. Biblical values are not tolerated, they are despised and ridiculed. The Church has come under fire for refusing to permit gays to become ministers, despite the fact that the Bible strictly forbids homosexuality. “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” Leviticus 18:22. Chapter 20, verse 18 of the same book orders all homosexuals be put to death! Remember, in the early days of the government, when the founding fathers were still alive, and for decades after their deaths, the supreme court cited the Bible as a precedent in court decisions! The debasement of the Bible was the direct result of the evolutionary model of origins. Once people believed there was no God, the Bible lost its authority. When the Bible lost its authority, the moral absolutes it contains lost relevance. The removal of Christianity and the values it represents from schools has resulted in entire generations growing up knowing nothing about Christianity. This has resulted in the formation of numerous misconceptions about the Christian faith. Not only does the school system arrogantly, and inaccurately proclaim the Bible disproven, but has reduced the Christian to a “goody two shoes” trying to earn salvation. Christians do not earn salvation. No amount of good works can save a human soul. “For all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God.” Romans 3:23. Salvation is a gift from God. We are saved by grace, not our actions. It is not what you do, but what you believe.

There have of course been repercussions in the secular society. The removal of God and his moral absolutes has resulted in an increase in numerous social ills. Evolution regards humans as nothing more that animals, and as we kill an unwanted animal, and put suffering animals to death, why not do the same to humans? If there is no Creation to be the pinnacle of, then we are not the pinnacle of God’s Creation. This has resulted in the debasement of human life. Life is no longer considered sacred by society, and this has resulted in two great evils, abortion and assisted suicide. Before Darwin the only moral issue that arose when someone considered an abortion was what the Bible says. The Bible makes it very clear that a fetus is not potential life or a non-viable tissue mass, but a living human being with a soul. “If the fetus is human life, that trumps any argument you can make about the individual rights of the mother.” (Limbaugh, 55) Once the status of the fetus was up for grabs, the result of the rejection of Biblical law, such asinine arguments as “freedom of privacy” were used to allow this wholesale slaughter to take place. The same thought processes apply to those with painful illnesses. If we are no more than animals, and we put animals to sleep, then why not put people to sleep? Jack Kevorkian, AKA “Jack the Dripper” (Limbaugh, 60), has applied this logic to humanity. It may be against the values of the majority, but it is in perfect harmony with the evolutionary model. Another result of Darwin’s coup has been a new foundation for racism. Before Darwin those intent upon discrimination read questionable justification into Biblical text. After Darwin the claim was made that whites were the most evolved race and all others were seen as inferior, lower on the evolutionary scale. It was Lombroso’s discrimination all over again, and was strongly influenced by Social Darwinism. Non-whites are now described as lower life forms, not yet evolved to the point of being fully human. The problem with this logic is, if we are all animals anyway, how can we say that one group is more evolved then the other? Moreover, what special treatment does being human earn us in the animal world? The implications of such logic are staggering.

Evolution, the most influential concept in the modern world truly has influenced us far beyond the realm of science. Darwin’s atheistic model of origins has had serious repercussions. The methods used to guess the age of the Earth, and the very formation of the model itself display the negative effect it has had on science. Lombroso and his work show the damage the model has done to criminology. The fruits of Social Darwinism were truly bitter, including communism, nazism, and monstrous business tactics. Religion has been ridiculed and defamed by the misconceptions its isolation has produced. Abortion is evidence of the feel-good attitudes spawned by Darwin’s model, and Dr. Death displays the disregard with which human life is held. Finally, Darwin has produced a new basis for racial hatred.

To all those who still think Darwin’s great coup has been a force for good, there is one final quote: “Well, if you are a product of chance, your brain is a product of chance. Therefore, the thought patterns that determine your logic are also the products of chance. If your logic is the result of chance processes, you can’t be sure it evolved properly. You can’t trust your own logic.” (Ham, 26) Remember, one of the most basic tenants of evolution is that all life it the product of chance.

Bibliography

Acrey, D. O. Problems in Absolute Age Determination. Creation Research Society Books. Kansas City. 1990

Bergman, Jerry. The Biological Theory of Atavism: A History and Evaluation. CRSQ. June 1992, vol.29 No. 1 Pages 33-44.

Darwin, Charles. The Darwin Reader. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York. 1956

Farb, Peter. Humankind. Houghton Mifflin Co. Boston Mass. 1978

Farrington, Benjamin. What Darwin Really Said. Schocken Books, New York. 1982

Gish, Duane T. Ph.D. Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record. Master Books, El Cajon. 1985

God. The Holy Bible. Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis MO. 1984

Ham, Ken The Lie: Evolution. Master Books, El Cajon CA. 1987

Hardin, Garrett. Science, Conflict, and Society. W. H. Freeman and Co. San Francisco. 1969

Hofstadter, Richard. Social Darwinism in American Thought. George Braziller inc. 1969

Klotz, John W. and Rusch, Wilbert H. Sr. Did Charles Darwin Become a Christian? Creation Research Society Books, Norcross. 1988.

Lammerts, Walter E. Scientific Studies in Special Creation. Creation Research Society Quarterly Books. Kansas City. 1990

Limbaugh, Rush. The Way Things Ought to Be. Pocket Books, New York. 1992

Marsh, Frank Lewis. The Genesis Kinds in the Modern World. Creation Research Society Books. Kansas City. 1990

Morris, Henry M. and Parker, Gary E.. What is Creation Science? Master Books, El Cajon, CA. 1987

Newman, Robert C. The Darwin Conversion Story. CRSQ. September 1992, vol.29 No. 2 Pages 70-72

Oard, Michael J. Varves-The First “Absolute” Chronology. CRSQ. September 1992, vol.29 No. 2 Pages 72-80

Roth, Charles E. The Most Dangerous Animal in the World. Addison Press, Reading Mass. 1971

Rupke, N. A. A Summary of the Monera Fallacy. Creation Research Society Books. Kansas City. 1990

von Fange, Erich A. Ph.D. Genesis and the Dinosaur. Living World Services, Syracuse, IN. 1990

Webster, Noah LL.D. New Concise Webster’s Dictionary. Unisystems Inc. New York. 1984

Zimmerman, Paul A. The Spontaneous Generation of Life. Creation Research Society Books. Kansas City. 1990