You are on page 1of 12

EVOLUTION AS RELIGION AND THE HIJACKING OF SCIENCE

By Silvio Mattacchione BA MA

I am not a geneticist or biologist nor ornithologist or for that matter scientist of any sort. I am but a life long breeder of pigeons. My day to day occupation is that of an independent book publisher and my formal training is in the field of history. In a very real sense I am probably ( that is my pigeon breeding self) the type of person that Darwin sought out , listen to, discussed with and learned from in order to better focus his own evolving ideas. I can still remember, when I was quite young, possibly in the fourth grade, circa 1960, when I heard the term evolution for the first time followed by the name of its cofounder Darwin. I had arrived in Canada in 1955, everything was so strange, a new country, new peoples, new ways, new foods, new language, change was everywhere, it was in fact the order of the day. For that matter the only constant in the secular as well as the religious lives of most people today is constant change. When I told my father, all those years ago, what I had just learned, he scoffed and quickly set me straight on Mr. Darwin and his ideas. The concept of molecule to man was really quite a remarkable stretch of the imagination. The product no doubt, of a very fertile mind. Still what did my immigrant dad know compared to all my new teachers, the new TV, the newspapers and books, oh so many books. I was really intrigued with Darwin and his theory. After all to that 4th grader Darwin was a pigeon fancier, albeit a novice .

Figure 1 Photo Of Darwin in later life together with an image of his "The Origin of Species". This image was taken from a site entitled www.btinternet.com/~glynhughes/ squashed/darwin.htm and is used with permission. Most people are unaware that Darwin offered as its subtitle The Preservation Of Favoured Races In The Struggle For Life

I was fascinated by pigeons and Darwin was equally fascinated by and studied pigeons. Darwin could have studied anything , but he had determined to study a special group and that special group of birds was in fact that of the pigeon .Here is what he had to say:
Believing that it is always best to study some special group, I have joined two of the London Pigeon Clubs. The diversity of the breeds is something astonishing. The short-faced tumbler has a beak like a finch; the runt is a bird of great size; the turbit has a line of reversed feathers down the breast. The Jacobin has a hood on the back. The fantail has thirty or forty tail-feathers, instead of the usual twelve or fourteen. Such are the variations that an ornithologist would certainly rank them as well-defined species. Yet I am fully convinced that the common opinion of naturalists is correct, namely, that all have descended from the wild rock-pigeon (Columba livia).1.

His supposed understanding of the pigeon amongst other forms ultimately led to the formulation of a theory so powerful that we are still suffering from its negative effects a century and a half later. Darwin was to convince himself that selection, eventually to be referred to as Natural Selection was the primordial engine by which all life was to forever move from lesser forms to higher forms, from less complicated to always more refined, more adapted and more complicated forms. The pinnacle of this process culminating in man himself! Here, in his own words, is the essence of his belief and hypothesis:
Such variability may be attributed to the conditions of life, to use and disuse. But I am convinced that Selection is by far the predominant Power.2

Today, the mantra of evolution is heard everywhere, repeated everywhere,( in the home, at the schools, in the churches and in the parliaments of the world). A pseudo religion, in many cases a type of state religion, a religion of the supposed enlightened. Oddly enough in the 21st Century science itself has taken a back seat to this new, politically correct religion ! Evolution - religion for those who have freed themselves permanently of all need of religion. How very odd yet here is what was written of Darwins dangerous idea
This is what Daniel Dennett called 'Darwin's dangerous idea'- that natural selection can be seen as governing, not only the world's flora and fauna, but even its history, its economics and its ideas. Even religious ideas, it seems, are subject to the same laws of advancement as all other things, "multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die."3

For 41 years I have bred the racing pigeon. I find my experience as a breeder of animals, and my observations of these animals ,at constant odds with all that Darwin wrote and imagined. When you choose to breed animals, any animals and certainly when you have done so for as many years as I have, you begin to come to certain conclusions, regardless of what has or has not been postulated or hypothesized. In time I would come to write the following based upon my observations and my hands on experience, with breeding pigeons (but certainly totally applicable to any animal or plant form):
1 2 3

If you wish to breed good pigeons, or good animals of any kind, you must come to truly understand this simple truth. What truth? Well, the simple truth is that Nature abhors order. Nature is the great equalizer; Nature does not willingly admit of extremes. Left to herself, Nature reverts to the common form. Nature never progresses from less order to greater order, but always from order to disorder if left to her designs. Most current livestock survive in the form in which they exist because they are beneficial to man in that form. They exist in that form because expert herdsmen (or geneticists, scientists, and others) have applied known genetic principles to common stock so as to modify them to their own ends, i.e., more milk, more meat, more eggs, faster horse, and so on. If man took himself out of the equation, the result would be a reversion or extinction of the form.4

Without really knowing it, nor having studied it , my experience with breeding the racing pigeon, had lead me to enunciated, in my own words, a well know universal law of science. That is the second law of thermodynamics often called the law of entropy!
Regarding the second law of thermodynamics (universally accepted scientific law which states that all things left to themselves will tend to run down) or the law of entropy, it is observed, "It would hardly be possible to conceive of two more completely opposite principles than this principle of entropy increase and the principle of evolution. Each is precisely the converse of the other. As (Aldous) Huxley defined it, evolution involves a continual increase of order, of organization, of size, of complexity. It seems axiomatic that both cannot possibly be true. But there is no question whatever that the second law of thermodynamics is true." 5

It is further worthy of note that these two universal laws (the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics) are based upon literally thousands of scientific experiments, with no known exceptions.
These laws state that any natural process would involve conservation (1st law) and disintegration (2nd law). Evolution demands "integration and development" and is therefore impossible6

What has happened to and in the minds of people, of all levels, of all disciplines, all religions, is that they can no longer understand that truth can never be in contradiction to truth? I remember well the words of David Goldstein LL.D. in a series of letters he wrote in 1943 where he wrote as follows:
Although faith is above reason, there can never be disagreement between faith and reason, because the same God who has revealed the mysteries and communicated faith, has also given to the human mind the natural light of reason, and we know that God cannot contradict Himself, nor can truth ever be in contradiction with truth. Not only can faith and reason never be in discord, but they lend each other mutual help; right reason demonstrates the foundation of faith, and enlightened by the light of faith, it develops the science of divine things; faith , on the other hand, frees and protects reason from error and enriches it with knowledge of many kinds. The Church, therefore, far from being opposed to the study of the arts and sciences, favors these studies and propagates them in a thousand ways.7

In the face of these two universal laws why is it that evolution is taught to our children as fact? Certainly it makes no scientific sense. If not science then what? Well the answer certainly seems to be summed up nicely in the following quotation from D.M.S.Watson
4 5 6 7

"Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or can be proved by logical coherent evidence, but because the only alternative -- special creation -- is clearly incredible."8

Figure 2Creation Of Man by Michelangelo Buonarroti 1511-1512 fresco located in the Sistine Chapel Vatican City, Rome , Italy. Image from www.mystudios.com/.../michelangelo-creation-man.jpg

Darwin had every reason to doubt his own work. He was constantly in a state of paranoia as regards the veracity of all of his conjectures. He was haunted by the fear that he had in fact devoted his entire life to the creation of a fantasy! Darwin was to write as follows;
"I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a fantasy."9

What does all of this really mean? Well in simplest terms it certainly seems to indicate that many scientists ( geneticists, biologists, botanists, zoologists , anthropologists, paleontologists etc) have chosen, for many reasons (most of which have nothing to do with science) to close their collective eyes to the immutable laws of science. In essence they choose to survive in this politically correct, modern world. In most cases they do what needs to be done. Educators, who have little or no expertise of their own, in any of these areas but who, in many cases, are subject to all of the same survival and promotional considerations as the scientists in question, just do their jobs. Children world wide walk away dazed and confused. Little wonder then what we currently see around us. W.R.Thompson, who is certainly pro-evolution, in his introduction to Origin of Species by Darwin. (page 90) had the following observation to make.
"This situation, where men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science."10

Professor ( geneticist) Richard Lewontin, expands on the above ,as follows:

8 9 10

We take the side of science in spite of the absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomena world; on the contrary, we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door.11

What have I learned as a stockman? I know for a fact that no biologist can give any evidence that shows that any species has evolved from another. I know through observation that new varieties of plants can and are developed, as are new varieties of animals but this process cannot in any way be referred to as evolution. Yet clearly Darwin ( was?) seemed to be confused (willingly so?) by this very simple distinction. He glossed over it, confused it, made light of it and sought to even have it prove what any novice stock breeder knew intuitively and that is that variety and species were fundamentally of a different order. Here is what Darwin had to say in his chapter VIII on Hybridism in his Origin of Species ;
Finally, then, the facts briefly given in this chapter do not seem to me opposed to, but even rather to support the view, that there is no fundamental distinction between species and varieties.12

Charles Darwin knew full well the difficulties inherent in his fantasy, that he had spent his entire life formulating. One of many difficulties was certainly that of the fossil record. In chapter X of The Origin Of Species there is a sub heading as follows; Intermediate Varieties Absent in any Single Formation; Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the Lowest Known Fossiliferous Strata. Here is what Darwin had to say;
There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to the main devisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest fossiliferous rocks Some of the most ancient animals, as the Nautilus, Lingula, etc., do not differ much from living species; and it cannot in our theory be supposed that these old species were the progenitors of all the species belonging to the same groups which have subsequently appeared, for they are not in any degree intermediate in character13

What Darwin was saying was very clear, evolution has very real problems and the fossil record does not in any way support the alleged veracity of what Darwin wrote. Contrary to all that Darwin had speculated upon, the fossil record revealed ( and still reveals) all species fully formed ( no intermediate forms). The geological record did not and does not support the concept of the transmutation of species. Many knew this only too well including Aggassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick. Darwin fully admits, that, from the positive evidence from paleontology his theory of evolution was impossible. Yes you read this correctly IMPOSSIBLE! Yet to his supporters, then as now nothing is or was or will ever be impossible. The great fossil race was on, it was only a matter of time now and mankind could be finally free. Free of all organized religion, free of God! Certainly nothing as simple as the fossil record
11 12 13

would stand in the way of their ultimate emancipation from religion. The fossil record, like so many other records would be made to yield whatever the controllers wished. It is always very interesting for me personally to review the records of some of the great ornithologists, people like Mr. Douglas Dewar F.Z.S..Mr . Dewar was a specialist in ornithology and one of the worlds greatest authorities on all aspects of the evolution problem. Here is what he had to say:
The theory of evolution must stand or fall by the evidence of the fossils. These furnish the only direct evidence. If this be against the theory, no amount of indirect evidence can avail Fossils are the remains of, or of impressions made by animals and plants in the rocks. If an animal having a skeleton, shell, or other hard parts, be buried or covered by sediment after death before the hard parts have had time to decompose, they are likely to be preserved as fossils One of the most formidable objections to the evolution theory is the fact that no fossil has been discovered of an animal intermediate between creatures having a peculiar skeleton, such as bats, whales, dugongs, seals, frogs, turtles, pterodactyls, ichtyosauruses etc., and the supposed ordinary quadrupedal animals, from which, according to the theory, they have been evolved .If this theory be true, these intermediate forms must have existed in immense numbers in the past .Darwin devoted a whole chapter of The Origin0Of Species in an attempt to meet this difficulty. The best he could do was to express his belief that the fossil record is incomparably less perfect than is usually supposed. And, so far as I am aware no later evolutionist has been able to improve on Darwins efforts The Fossil Record is far more complete than Darwin supposed it to be, and than his followers admit. Every genus of animal having a skeleton or hard parts has left a fossil remains.14

It is sad to observe that rather than promoting science, the pursuit of knowledge and truth, the theory of Darwin has only lead to, a recourse to fraud, in a futile attempt to prove at any cost that man evolved from a brute beast. Dr. W.R. Thompson refers to this very fact in his introduction to The Origin of Species; the success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity He gives as examples the case of the Piltdown skull, in which an apes jawbone was substituted for the original human one, and the case of the Java Man, in which a battered skullcap of a gibbon was represented as belonging to a creature half-man, half-ape, in order to provide an argument for Darwins theory that man was descended from an ape15 Anyone wishing to do additional research on the Piltdown fraud can find details in The Bulletin of The British Museum, 1953 or The Piltdown Forgery by J.S.Weiner ( London, 1955) or The Piltdown Fantasy by Francis Vere (London , 1959)
Piltdown was discovered in 1953 to have been nothing more than an Ape's jaw placed with a human skull. It was a hoax placed on purpose. They recognized neither the jaw to be an ape's or the skull to be a human's. Instead, they declared each part as an in between of ape and human. They dated it to be 500,000 years old, gave it a name (Eoanthropus Dawsoni or `Dawn Man'), and wrote some 500 books on it. The `discovery' fooled paleontologists for forty five years.16

14 15 16

I dare say that the list, had Dr. W.R. Thompson wanted, could have been extended with many, many more examples of fraud.
For example, he might have referred to the Australopithecinae fossils, put forward by Drs. Dart and Broom as evidence of evolution, which were proved to be just fossils of ordinary apes by Professor Zuckerman in his chapter on Evolutions as a process, edited by Dr. Julian Huxley, A.C. Hardy and E.B. Ford (1954).17

The commentary found at http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid5.htm sums up the actual fossil situation as it applies to these supposed hominids ( creatures that were assumed by evolutionists to be part man part animal , the long sought missing links).
Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/monkeys and not part human at all. The first nine of the twelve popularly regarded hominids put forth by evolutionists by bone and skull finds have been demonstrated as being extinct apes or monkeys and not part human at all. The discovery of extinct apes demonstrated some of the finds to be monkeys/ apes. Close examination of the skulls and bones have caused experts to determine that none of the other skulls have any human characteristics either. The bones and skulls found could be any of the perhaps thousands of monkeys and apes that have existed in the past. These bones and skulls have never been found apart from where apes/monkeys live or have lived.
18

Well this only leaves three to deal with and again the commentary found at http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid6.htm concludes with the actual truth of these final three as follows:
The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ape or fully modern human but not as something in between. The last three of the popular twelve hominids have been demonstrated as being modern human beings. Human skulls naturally vary in size and many other characteristics. They often also are misshapen by certain diseases such as rickets, arthritis, Paget's disease, congenital syphilis, and starvation. Skulls found with diseases or normal human variations could lead one to suppose that certain modern human skulls are something less than human. This has been a great mistake by evolutionists who not only have failed to recognize variance in human skulls but also to make the public aware of it as well.19

Any theory that provides an incentive for the introduction of fraud ( every single instance , without exception, of fossil man has been proven fraudulent, yet beyond the specialty journals where this evidence of fraud first appeared in some cases 50 or more years ago, no attempt is ever made by the media, by educators in elementary, secondary or post secondary schools, by most supposed scientists, by educational TV or by governmental authorities or organized religion to expose the fraud) and superstition into scientific investigation, when no genuine proof could be found 20 should be relegated to where it belongs in a dust-heap in a world of fantasy!

17 18 19 20

So clearly, evolution transgresses both of The Laws of Thermodynamics as well as the evidence of the fossil record is there additional evidence of scientific abuse in this supposed theory? Darwin and many others garnered substantial mileage out of supposed observations on embryology and in essence here is what Darwin had to say in Chapter XIII entitled Mutual Affinities of Organic Beings: Morphology, Embryology, Rudimentary Organs in his The Origin of Species . What follows is essentially a synopsis of the chapter mentioned from the squashed version edited by Glen Hughes from his site at www.btinternet.com/~glynhughes/ squashed/darwin.htm
Embryology- How can we explain these several facts in embryology,- namely of the striking similarity between embryos of different species; difference in structure between the embryo and the adult;- of parts in the same individual embryo, which ultimately become very unlike and serve for diverse purposes, being at this early period of growth alike;- of embryos of different species within the same class, generally, but not universally, resembling each other;- of the structure of the embryo not being closely related to its conditions of existence, except when the embryo becomes at any period of life active and has to provide for itself;- of the embryo apparently having sometimes a higher organisation than the mature animal. I believe that all these facts can be explained only on the view of descent with modification21

Darwin believed that all of these supposed facts could be best explained only in terms of his theory? Well having published what is probably the bible of hatching eggs in the parrot world entitled Parrot Incubation Procedures as well as having seen countless pigeons and poultry and game-birds incubated I would disagree!
If secularistic science cannot explain how an egg becomes a chicken in 21 days, it is certain that a scientific explanation of how an amoeba could become a university professor in 3 billion years is far from achievement22

I am not the only person that would disagree, the following excerpts from an article written by James Perloff http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=217762001 WorldNetDa ily.com which clearly lays out yet another fraud;
Embryology is a field that evolutionists long used to make a case for Darwin's theory. Most of us have seen those pictures in biology textbooks of developing human embryos next to developing animal embryos, and the human embryos and animals look indistinguishable. This was said to demonstrate that we share a common ancestry with these animals and thus prove the theory of evolution. These pictures were designed by German zoologist Ernst Haeckel. What few people know is that they were fakes. At Jena, the university where he taught, Haeckel was charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court. His deceit was exposed in "Haeckel's Frauds and Forgeries" (1915), a book by J. Assmuth and Ernest R. Hull. They quoted 19 leading authorities of the day. Anatomist F. Keibel of Freiburg University said, "it clearly appears that Haeckel has in many cases freely invented embryos, or reproduced the illustrations given by others in a substantially changed form." Zoologist L. Rtimeyer of asle University called his distorted drawings "a sin against scientific truthfulness." 23

Mr .Perloff goes on in his article as follows:


21 22 23

In spite of his conviction for fraud, and in spite of the exposure, Western educators continued using Haeckel's drawings in biology textbooks as proof of the theory of evolution. The matter has finally been settled by Dr. Michael Richardson, an embryologist at St. George's Medical School, London. He found there was no record that anyone ever actually checked Haeckel's claims by systematically comparing human and other fetuses during development. He assembled a scientific team that did just that -- photographing the growing embryos of 39 different species. In a 1997 interview in The Times of London, Dr. Richardson stated, "This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud. It's shocking to find that somebody one thought was a great scientist was deliberately misleading. It makes me angry. What he [Haeckel] did was to take a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig and all the others looked the same at the same stage of development. They don't. These are fakes." 24

It truly is very odd and even more curious to think that;


God has been driven out and his divine design rejected in favor of "primordial soup." The disgrace of such one-sided education is not only the endorsed spoon-feeding of bad science and secular bias to schoolchildren and adults alike, but most alarmingly the pivotal role it plays in cultivating moral relativism in society. The Origin of Species helped shape the philosophies of men such as Joseph Stalin and Karl Marx. In a society where we regard "communism" as the scarlet letter of our day, a surprising multitude of people readily and blindly embrace Darwinian theories of evolution.25

In Chapter V LAWS OF VARIATION Darwin informs us that;


Natural selection will accumulate all profitable variations, however slight, until they become plainly developed and appreciable by us. For instance, when a new insect first arrived on an island, selection will enlarge or reduce the wings, depending on whether a greater number of individuals were saved by battling with the winds, or by rarely or never flying.26

Is this really possible? Can mutations be beneficial? Are they cumulative? Do mutations or can mutations lead to greater order, greater perfection or are mutations nothing more or less than degenerative errors in code?
Since mutations occur according to the law of increasing entropy (disorder), it seems unreasonable to believe that they could produce increasing order and complexity. The majority of observable mutations do, in fact, appear to be bad, destroying the order of complex biological designs. Many mutations are apparently neutral, however, causing no visible effect. Each time cell division occurs the DNA molecules that are genes must be copied so that the resulting daughter cells have the same coded information as the parent cell. A large proportion of the mutations in wild populations probably result from errors in the copying process. These may well be caused by the random heat motion of the molecules when the DNA is being copied. Radiation, certain chemicals, and other physical influences can also cause mutations. In accordance with the Second Law the effect of mutations should be to make the sequence of the letters of the genetic code message carried by the DNA molecules become more disordered or random. That is, the coded message carried by the DNA molecules should become on the average less meaningful, more and more scrambled, until it becomes nonsense after many cell divisions. Therefore, mutations should not be expected to produce increasingly complex and meaningful information content in the DNA of any species. Rather, the result should be just the opposite. This is verified in nature where most visible mutations appear to be bad for any organism.5 27
24 25 26 27

The following quote from Rob Wipond I believe is totally applicable to Evolution and possibly many of its adherents:
What we call rational thinking may just be a highly sophisticated and powerful method of self-delusion. (Rob Wipond).

I will conclude this brief article with the words of Dr. Bernard dAbrera the author of over 31 books including The Concise Atlas Of Butterflies Of The World,
I have described mankind as being capable of great objective goodness, and much subjective evil. The first may be defined as a propensity for the selfless pursuit of truth no matter what the cost. The second is the propensity for the selfish pursuit of any means whatever to achieve the ends that justify them, Thus, we see all around us the disorder of a new iconoclasm against rigorous and objective scientific method. The inflammable ingredients of this explosive mixture, are the lofty arrogance of the scientific elite and the appalling ignorance of simple souls, together with the appalling metaphysical ignorance of the scientific elite and the lofty arrogance of the democratic rights of simple souls. And what has produced this terrible state of affairs? Why, none other than Evolutionism itself! If Evolutionists within the scientific community and the media relentlessly propagandise their hypothesis that man is a solely corporeal animal, descended from brute apes ( and the amino acid and beyond them), then millions of simple souls for their own selfish reasons, are going to believe them. These millions of simple souls lack the interest or education necessary to distinguish between speculative hypothesis and incontrovertible fact. This is especially so when a century and a half of the deliberate blurring of the lines of distinction between theory and truth in the scientific textbooks and popular literature, not to mention the media, has occurred, unopposed. It is palpably true that under such remorseless pressure, simple souls would soon begin to believe that they have no souls, simple or otherwise, but that they are indeed simple animals, albeit of a slightly more evolved nature than their brothers and sisters, the butterflies, the rabbits, the family pets, the chimpanzees, and even the trees! Thus, paradoxically, human beings now have no souls, but the cute and cuddly animals certainly do! Evolutionism has finally fallen victim to its own propaganda. It is the sole cause of the pathogen of the universal insanity of this nihilistic and schizophrenic age.Indeed Evolutionary Man having slandered and libeled Biblical Man into impotent irrelevance, is now leading mankind backwards down atavistic pathways into a terrifying auto-demolition of civilization and all that is transcendentally good and noble. Thus, such deadly, misguided and contradictory anthropomorphisms as movements to (a) obstruct scientific research; (b) forbid the making and keeping of collections; (c) shut down museums and laboratories; (d) frustrate natural animal husbandry, fisheries and agriculture; (e) undertake genetic engineering for human conceits or monopolistic control; (f)influence catastrophic social upheaval, take their genisis in the deadly germ that came out of The Enlightenment, and Mr. Darwins defiantly brutish hypothesis that man is only just another evolving animal species.28

As a stock breeder, as a specialty book publisher of books on birds, as a post graduate in History I can safely conclude that Darwin and his theory of Evolution are in no sense science but rather a fantasy that has been foisted upon totally unsuspecting peoples worldwide. Historically, the Catholic Church ( contrary to the unsubstantiated claims of her detractors) has always supported science in a thousand different ways. The findings of the Catholic Czech monk Mendel (1822-1884) whos careful experiments in plant breeding (1856) laid the groundwork for an understanding of the mechanisms of heredity are a case in point. Contrary to current public perception, Religion, has rightfully been referred to as, the
28

10

Mother of all Sciences and the lesser or profane sciences (mathematics, physics, astronomy, biology, chemistry etc) have always been supported and encouraged by the Catholic Church because each in their turn serves to uncover the greatness of God. Now more than ever we must stand up and declare in no uncertain terms that Evolution is NOT WORTHY OF BELIEF because it is contrary to both TRUTH AND REASON!

1 On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. by Charles Darwin, 1859Squashed version edited by Glyn Hughes 2000

2 On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. by Charles Darwin, 1859 Squashed version edited by Glyn Hughes 2000

3 On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. by Charles Darwin, 1859 Squashed version edited by Glyn Hughes 2000

4 Successfully Breeding The Racing Pigeonhttp://www.silvio-co.com/pigeons/breeding.htm By Silvio Mattacchione

5 . The Twilight of Evolution, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967. By Morris, Henry M

6 Evolution and the Modern Christian, Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1988. by Morris, Henry M.

7 Letters:Hebrew Catholic to Mr. Isaacs ( 1943) by David Goldstein LL.D. (p.81)

8 Origins?, Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1988. by Ranganathan, B.G.

9 From Ape to Man, NY: The Bubbs Merril Co., 1972.by Wendt, Herbert.

10 The Twilight of Evolution, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967. by Morris, Henry M.

29[11] Billions and Billions of Demons,New York Review, January 1997, pg. 31

30[12] On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. by Charles Darwin, 1859 Squashed version edited by Glyn Hughes 2000

31[13] Science of Today And The Problems of Genesis, Tan Books And Publishers Inc, Rockford , Illinois 61105, 1993 By Fr. Patrick OConnell, B.D. 32[14] Science of Today And The Problems of Genesis, Tan Books And Publishers Inc, Rockford , Illinois 61105, 1993 By Fr. Patrick OConnell, B.D.

33[15] Science of Today And The Problems of Genesis, Tan Books And Publishers Inc, Rockford , Illinois 61105, 1993 By Fr. Patrick OConnell, B.D. 34[16] Howell, F. Clark. Early Man, NY: Time Life Books, 1973

29 30 31 32 33 34

11

35[17] Science of Today And The Problems of Genesis, Tan Books And Publishers Inc, Rockford , Illinois 61105, 1993 By Fr. Patrick OConnell, B.D.

36[18] http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid5.htm

37[19] http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid6.htm

38[20] Science of Today And The Problems of Genesis, Tan Books And Publishers Inc, Rockford , Illinois 61105, 1993 By Fr. Patrick OConnell, B.D.

39[21] On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
by Charles Darwin, 1859 Squashed version edited by Glyn Hughes 2000

40[22] http://www.parentcompany.com/handy_dandy/hder6.htm

41[23] James Perloff http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21776200 1 WorldNetDaily.com

42[24] James Perloff http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=217762001 WorldNetDaily.com

43[25] Local Author Debunks Darwins Theory of Evolution, MASSNEWS http://www.massnews.com/2003_Editions/2_Feb/022103_mn_perloff_book.shtml

44[26] On The Origin of Species


by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. by Charles Darwin, 1859 Squashed version edited by Glyn Hughes 2000

27]http://www.parentcompany.com/handy_dandy/hder4.htm 5 Huxley, Julian, Evolution in Action (Harper Bros., New York, 1953), p. 41.

28 DAbrera, Bernard, The Concise Atlas of Butterflies Of The World ,Hill House Publishers ,London 2001,p.88

35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44

12