Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
George Orwell

Hey, thats cool BushidoBilly. I was just pointing that out to folks. I suppose this is a good place for philosophy discussion. Philosophy and religion are closely akin to each other.

I dont think the "science and technology forum" will come to fruition. The feeling is that there are not enough people who will be interested in posting (or capable) of sustaining it. Bummer.

Oh great knowledge of the universe, please enlighten us with capable thoughts, so we may spread the truthe!

Here be a thought...

We are...

What does in matter what we might have been or who might or might not have kick started us into being.

We simply are.

In this moment, with this breath, we are.

what more do you need?

Isn't this very moment what really matters?

It's all I need right now.

that's good, because in reality, right now is all we have!

Ark, what you wrote on your Myspace website(above), does NOT line up with the Word of God.
Period.
God is not an alien ,according to the bible.


Therefore, don't go throwing your weight around on here, as far as saying you "know" scripture or having Discernment , cause I can clearly see that you don't.

Btw, your website says you are 60 and from Egypt..but your mingle profile says you are 49 and from Okla.

I wasn't going to say anything when I saw this awhile back..but when you come on here, saying people are lying or evil...or yuo come on here, claiming you have "discernment"......THEN I have to speak up!!

Don't come on here,insinuating people are evil on here....or lying.....when you yourself aren't even being honest !!!

And Your interpretation of scripture does NOT line up with what the Word of God says at all !!!

People do NOT need to be further confused by more "opinionated nonsense " out there !!!
There is enough confusion already out there.

Take care.

Morning Song busted Ark! Good detective work.

Very well done MorningSong.

AMEN to that sister.....love you MS

Xenu was a benevolent ruler, with only the best interests of the Galactic Confederacy in mind. Seventy-five million years ago, the Confederacy was in an awful state of affairs. Gross overpopulation threatened to destroy the already fragile ecosystems and economies of many planets in the Galactic Confederacy, and Xenu knew that he had to do something. He could stand idly by and watch the planets destroy themselves, or he could take action. Thankfully, our Dark Lord knew what he had to do.

With his Galactic Fleet consisting of millions of space planes, Xenu used an innocent ruse of "income tax inspections" and used the friendly help of pyschiatrists to lure and administer harmless injections to billions of Confederate aliens into his fleet of ships. They were to be the sacraficial lambs for the greater good. They were subsequently frozen and packed into the space planes for removal. This was completely painless for the citizens involved.

Taking our alien lambs to Teegeeack (known as "Earth" to humans) our Dark Lord Xenu ordered his Exalted Renegades to latch the aliens to volcanoes where he quickly and humanely eliminated them. However, Xenu did not take into account the souls of the alien lambs. The souls, called "Thetans" by some, flew free. Xenu knew that they needed to be re-educated to forget about what had transpired, so he ordered the Exalted Renegades to catch the souls in Elecric Ribbons and re-educate them using a 3D Super-Colossal Motion Picture. The souls were given visions of modern worldly religions and then released to the world suffering from a loss of identity.

The re-educated souls flocked together to form clusters and inhabited the few remaining bodies that survived the explosions. These souls have transferred from person to person throughout each individual's life cycle. These clusters of souls are known to some as "Body Thetans," but the true followers of Xenu refer to them merely as "Soul Clusters." Some believe they cause all of the problems of mankind. However, this is not true. Instead, they grant us immense inner power.

The Truth

Creationism...ABSOLUTELY!!!!!

I have seen far too many stupid people that could never have survived the evolutionary process of skill, wit or attrition.

Which unfortunately leads me to the conclusion that, God created an awful lot of truly stupid people.

Found this online, thought i'd share
everyone loves the Mythbusters



Evolution Busted

This is our annual special issue celebrating National Theory of Evolution Day (April 1), in which we give the theory of evolution all the respect that it deserves.

Don’t ask us how we obtained this script for an episode of MythBusters that the Discovery Channel refused to air!

Narrator: Each week on MythBusters, Adam, Jamie and their team, take apart urban myths piece by piece to get to the truth.

Jamie Hyneman: What myth are we testing this month?

Adam Savage: The theory of evolution.

Jamie: But the theory of evolution isn’t a myth—it’s a fact.

Adam: Well, that’s what lots of people think; but lots of people think it is a fact that you can blow up a gas station by talking on a cell phone. That’s why we “not only tell the myths, we put them to the test!”

Jamie: There are three parts to the myth of evolution. First, life happens. Second, life slowly transforms. Third, there is enough time for the first two things to happen.

Adam: That’s right; and I think we should test each part separately. Let’s start with the origin of life.

Jamie: That’s going to be a tough one. Ever since Stanley Miller produced a few organic compounds in 1953, scientists have been trying to produce an environment that will cause life to form naturally without success. Stanley Miller himself spent his whole career of more than 50 years, right up to his death, working on the problem. He never found a plausible way life could have begun. 1

Harvard is spending one million dollars over the next few years because “some mysteries about life's origins cannot be explained.” 2 The Origin of Life Foundation’s one million dollar prize 3 has remained unclaimed since 1997, despite all the work done by countless scientists to discover a natural process by with life could begin. It seems unlikely that we will be able to produce life from non-life in time for the next episode’s air date with the puny budget the Discovery Channel gives us!

Adam: But can’t we at least try something involving a lot of hydrogen and methane gas and a spark?

Jamie: We already did that on our Hindenburg and port-a-potty episodes. I’m not sure our viewers want to see another big hydrogen or methane explosion if it doesn’t produce life.

Adam: But we have to produce life from non-life spontaneously, or the myth is busted right off the bat.

Jamie: Not necessarily. We can just say that if we had enough time, money, and the right conditions, we could produce life naturally. Then we can go on to step 2.

Adam: But isn’t that cheating?

Jamie: It isn’t cheating when scientists do it! If we say it could happen, then it could happen. We’re what you call, “professionals.” It’s as simple as that.

Adam: OK. We will skip step one and go on to step two. Let’s create a new species by causing some mutations. Let’s use massive doses of radiation to create new forms of life.

Jamie: Well, we sort of already tried that. Remember when we tested the myth that cockroaches would be the only survivors of a nuclear war? We zapped several kinds of insects with massively lethal does of radiation. Most of them died, but a few survived.

Adam: Yes, and as soon as the cameras stopped rolling, we stepped on the few surviving bugs. We didn’t give them a chance to reproduce. Who knows what would have happened to their offspring?

Jamie: Well, I suppose we could try again, but that’s another “been-there-done-that” sort of thing. Scientists have been radiating generations of fruit flies. They get fruit flies with extra wings, or extra legs, and lots of stillborn fruit flies, but they have never produced a butterfly, or anything other than a defective fruit fly. But, given enough time, and the proper conditions, I’m sure we could create a new species somehow.

Adam: That still sounds like cheating to me.

Jamie: Trust me, I’m a doctor.

Adam: So, are we going to prove the myth by creating a new species or not?

Jamie: I don’t think we can.

Adam: What if we built a computer-controlled robot? We could then make random changes to its program and see if it works better.

Jamie: No, there’s too much design in that approach. We have to design the basic robot to begin with. Then we have to make random changes intentionally. That’s nothing more than stupid design by trial and error.

Adam: But there must be some way we can modify genitals to produce mutant offspring.

Jamie: Do you want to do that experiment with the electric fence again? This time we could use something more conductive than a urine stream and see what electricity does to sperm cells.

Adam: That’s what I’m talking about! The electric fence episode was so gross and vulgar that our ratings went through the roof!

Jamie: Time is the problem again. We don’t have nine months to see how it affects the offspring. We will have to use mice, or some other laboratory animals that reproduce rapidly.

Adam: No, we can’t use mice. We can do all sorts of painful things that humiliate ourselves, but the animal rights people won’t let us do the same things to mice.

Jamie: Then it’s not looking good for this myth. It is already busted on two counts. We can’t create life and we can’t change living things into other kinds of living things. But we have an hour show to fill, and in true MythBuster tradition, we will press on even after the myth is busted.

Adam: So what do we do next?

Jamie: We need to prove that the Earth is billions of years old.

Adam: Well, there’s David Letterman and Larry King. They are billions of years old, aren’t they?

Jamie: Millions, maybe, but not billions.

Adam: OK, then, let's look at the salt in the oceans, helium in the air, or sediments in the Gulf of Mexico to see how old the Earth is.

Jamie: We could, but there are two problems with that.

Adam: Like what?

Jamie: Well, first, that would be analysis rather than experimentation.

Adam: What’s wrong with analysis?

Jamie: Nothing. We do analysis all the time on this show, but only as preparation for setting up our experiments. We do the analysis to know what to expect. But analysis isn’t perfect. The accuracy is only as good as our assumptions. If we make the wrong assumptions, or overlook something, the analysis won’t give us the right answer. Remember the analysis we did regarding how many ping pong balls we would have to force down into a sunken ship in order to float it to the surface?

Adam: OK, so we messed up badly on that one. We used the dry weight of the ship instead of the submerged weight of the ship, and neglected buoyancy. But most of the time our analyses and small scale tests are pretty good.

Jamie: “Most of the time” isn’t good enough. That’s why we do the experiments to see if our analysis is correct. But there is a second problem with analyzing the three things you suggested.

Adam: What’s that?

Jamie: Using reasonable assumptions, the things you mentioned (salt in the sea, etc.), indicate that the Earth is nowhere near 4.6 billion years old. Measuring current processes, and extrapolating back in time, rarely, if ever, give an age of the Earth that is old enough for evolution to have taken place.

Adam: Well then, why not use radioactive dating?

Jamie: That’s still an analysis that depends upon unverifiable assumptions. 4

Adam: It looks like the myth of evolution is going to be a hard one to confirm. For more than fifty years many outstanding scientists have tried to find environmental conditions that will produce life, without success. Scientists have seen mutation and selection produce slightly different varieties of existing species, but have never seen them produce a new kind of creature. This has had to happen countless times in the past to produce all the different kinds of creatures that have ever lived on Earth if the myth is true, and yet we’ve never observed it to happen in nature or in the laboratory. Finally, there is no foolproof way to tell how old the Earth is. All age measurements depend on some assumptions that can’t be verified. There’s really nothing we can do.

Jamie: Well, we’ve got to do something for this episode. Let’s drop some more Menthos candies in a Diet Coke and let it squirt on the camera man. That’s always good for a laugh.

Adam: This is the most disappointed I’ve been since Episode 2, when we failed to blow up a gas station by chatting on a cell phone while pumping gas.

Jamie: So, how do we call this myth?

Adam: We can’t scientifically confirm any part of the myth. I think we have to say it is totally busted!

Jamie: Yes, totally busted.

Just heard this one, thought i'd share it as well,




And the number 1 reason why Why Humans Evolved From an Ape-like Ancestor:

1. Evolutionists had to come from somewhere


Evolutionists Had To Come From Somewhere!
This might be the strongest evidence for evolution. Given the lack of evidence for evolution, and the preponderance of scientific evidence against it, only someone who hadn’t evolved much past the ape stage would believe in evolution. Since there still are people who believe in evolution, it must be true!


I've been brushing up on the subject came across some of these things and had a good
There is entirely too much stuff online about evolution and creation, it all comes down to what we do here. Share ideas and beliefs

Oh ye of little understanding, you know who you aren't. Be more careful about your judgement of others. Read all of a thought and understand it before you accuse others. You didn't bust anyone. You only showed your ignorance!

Wizard of Ooze

in which Dorothy goes to see the Wizard to find out how life evolved from primeval ooze.

The Cyclone
Dorothy lived in the midst of the great Kansas prairies, with Uncle Henry, who was an evolutionist, and Aunt Em, who was the evolutionist’s wife. Suddenly Uncle Henry stood up.

“There’s a cyclone coming, Em,” he called to his wife; “ The creationists are stirring up a whirlwind of trouble. I’ll go look after the public schools.” Then he ran towards the place where the Kansas School Board meets.

“Quick, Dorothy!” Aunt Em screamed; “run for the cellar!” Aunt Em threw open the trap door in the floor and climbed down the ladder into the storm cellar. Dorothy caught Toto and started to follow her Aunt, but it was too late. The house whirled around two or three times and rose slowly through the air. Dorothy became very dizzy, fell on the bed, and fell asleep.

Bumpkin Land
She was awakened with a shock. Dorothy sat up and noticed that the house was not moving. The cyclone had set the house down, very gently--for a cyclone--in the midst of a beautiful country.

Dorothy stepped out of her house, and was greeted by three men and a woman. The woman walked up to Dorothy, made a low bow, and said in a sweet voice,

“You are welcome, most noble Sorceress, to the land of the Bumpkins. We are so grateful to you for having killed the Wicked Witch of the Christian Left, and for setting our people free from bondage to superstition.”

“Are you a Bumpkin?” asked Dorothy.

“No; but I am their friend. I am the Genie from the Center for Science Education.” I have tried for years to kill the Witch of the Christian Left, but was not powerful enough to do it.

“But I was taught in Kansas that there are no such things as genies, gods, witches, or wizards.” Dorothy said.


“I do not know where Kansas is, for I have never heard that country mentioned before. But tell me, is it a civilized country?”

“Oh, yes,” replied Dorothy.

“Then that accounts for it. In the civilized countries I believe there are no witches left; nor wizards, nor sorceresses, nor magicians.” 1


“But now creationists have come to Kansas to try to uncivilize the country by putting God back in the classroom. They have such strong arguments against the theory of evolution that I can’t refute them. If I could only tell the people of Kansas exactly how life originated, all by itself, in a puddle of ooze, then I could protect civilization as we know it.” Dorothy said.

“I am afraid that even I, the great Genie from the Center for Science Education can’t tell you that. I can only tell you how to put pressure on politicians, teachers, and school boards. I can’t give you any good scientific arguments supporting evolution. You must go to see the Wizard of Ooze. He certainly will be able to tell you.”

“Where can I find the Wizard of Ooze?” Dorothy asked.

“Just follow the Double Helix Road. But watch out for the Wicked Witch of the Christian Right, for she is still trying to enslave the Bumpkins with her awful Ten Commandments.”

So Dorothy set out immediately down the Double Helix Road to find the origin of life.

The Scarecrow
When she had gone several miles, she thought she would stop to rest, so she climbed to the top of the fence beside the road and sat down. There was a great cornfield beyond the fence, and not far away she saw a Scarecrow.

“Good day,” said the Scarecrow in a rather husky voice.

“Did you speak?” asked the girl in wonder.

“Certainly,” answered the Scarecrow; “how do you do?”

Dorothy didn’t want to tell the Scarecrow how she did. She was too astonished that the Scarecrow could do anything at all. So, she said, “You are made out of dead straw and cloth. Dead things can’t come to life and talk. Louis Pasteur proved there is no such thing as abiogenesis. You can’t be alive.”

“But I am alive. I was created to be alive,” said the Scarecrow. “Unfortunately, my creator didn’t give me a brain.”

“Don’t be silly. There is no such thing as a creator. Since you are alive, you must have come alive through some process that operated over millions of years. We just need to figure out the details of how it happened.”

“But,” the Scarecrow said, “you just said that dead things can’t come to life. How could it be that I, constructed from non-living material, came to life?”

“You evolved long ago. Conditions were different then. There wasn’t any free oxygen in the air then. There just happened to be the right chemicals and conditions for inanimate matter to come to life back then,” Dorothy countered.

“How do you know conditions were different then? Were you there?” the Scarecrow asked (with a distinctly Australian accent).

“No, but things had to have been different then, or else life could not have evolved. Since we know life evolved, it logically follows that the conditions had to have been favorable for the spontaneous generation of life from non-living material some time in the past,” she said very confidently.

“That’s circular reasoning, which is not a valid form of logic,” the Scarecrow correctly deduced.

“How dare you argue with me? You don’t have any brains!” Dorothy knew this was a personal attack, but since the Scarecrow was obviously too stupid to listen to reason, she felt it was justified. If it convinced the Scarecrow of the truth of evolution, the end would justify the means.

“I am afraid you are right. I wish I had the brains to understand how I was created.” said the Scarecrow.

“You weren’t created! You are an accident of time and chance. I am going to see the Wizard of Ooze to find out exactly how it happened. Why don’t you come with me? Maybe the Wizard can stuff some sense into that empty head of yours.”

“I’d like that. It is such an uncomfortable feeling to know one is a fool.2 I’ll be glad to go with you, Dorothy.”

“How did you know my name is Dorothy?”

“I don’t know. I don’t know anything. I don’t have a brain, remember?”

The Tin Woodman
Dorothy and the Scarecrow were following the Double Helix Road when the Scarecrow heard a sound. He immediately recognized the sound as that of a person groaning. From the phase difference of the sound waves reaching his two painted ears, he was able to compute the direction to the source of the sound immediately. Dorothy marveled at how time, chance, and millions of years had given this useful adaptation to the Scarecrow, but she didn’t say anything for fear of what the Scarecrow might say in response. “There is nothing worse than arguing with a brainless person who knows more than you do,” she reasoned to herself.

They went quickly in the direction indicated by the Scarecrow. There they found a big tree, partly chopped down, and standing beside it, with an uplifted axe in his hands, was a man made entirely of tin. His head and arms and legs were jointed upon his body, but he stood perfectly motionless, as if he could not stir at all. He appeared to be trying to speak, but his mouth would not move.

“Let’s oil his joints to see if he can move,” said the Scarecrow, which he did before Dorothy could stop him.

“Thank you,” said the Tin Woodman. “I’ve been holding that axe for an awfully long time. I got caught in a sudden rainstorm, and rusted solid before I had a chance to oil myself.”

“I’ve never seen a man made out of tin before,” said Dorothy. “Where did you come from?”

“Mine is a very sad story,” the Tin Woodman replied. “I was in love with a lovely Bumpkin girl. But her mother was a witch and didn’t want us to marry. She told me that if I didn’t leave her alone, she would do something terrible. But we loved each other too much to stay apart. So, she enchanted my axe, and it cut off my left leg. So, I went to the tinsmith to have him make me a new leg out of tin. Once I got used to it, it worked so well I was able to chop even more wood. The witch was angry, so she enchanted my axe again, and it cut off my right leg. But I hopped to the tinsmith, and he made me another tin leg. Then the witch enchanted my axe again, and it cut off both my arms. The tinsmith made me new arms. Then the axe cut off my head. I thought that was the end of me, but the tinsmith found me and made me a new head. Despite all this, my love for the Bumpkin girl grew. Finally, the witch enchanted my axe so it cut my body in half. When the tinsmith gave me a new tin body, he forgot to give me a heart. Now I no longer care where that Bumpkin girl is, or what she is doing.”

“See,” said Dorothy to the Scarecrow. “That’s how new species come into existence. It is just like Darwin said. Small changes happen by chance, and natural selection keeps the good changes while rejecting the bad ones. That’s how an ordinary man evolved into this more advanced tin man.”

“But Dorothy, the changes didn’t happen by chance. They were the result of spells cast by a supernatural being. And the parts that were given to him were made by a skilled designer, who assembled the parts for a purpose. The loss of each body part made him less fit for survival until the designer stepped in to remedy the deficiency. This tin woodman isn’t evidence of Darwinian evolution at all. He is obviously the product of intelligent design. Not only that, it must be a supernatural design. How else could he survive without a heart?”

Dorothy was in no mood to be lectured again by a brainless Scarecrow. Nor did she want to appear stupid in front of a tin Bumpkin, so she turned back to the Double Helix Road without a word. Surely, the Double Helix Road would lead to information that would refute the Scarecrow’s argument.

“No doubt a man of your strength would be of great benefit on our journey. Please come with us on our journey to see the Wizard of Ooze,” the Scarecrow said to the Tin Woodman. “Perhaps the Wizard could give you a heart, too.”

“I’d love to,” said the Tin Woodman, and they both hurried after Dorothy and Toto.

The Cowardly Lion
While they were traveling along a particularly twisted portion of the Double Helix Road, a lion jumped onto the gene where they were traveling. With one swipe of his paw he knocked the Scarecrow and Tin Woodman over. Charging toward Toto, he opened his mouth, which was clearly large enough to swallow Toto whole. Dorothy, heedless of the danger, rushed forward and slapped the lion on the nose as hard as she could , while she cried out:

“Don’t you dare bite Toto! You ought to be ashamed of yourself, a big beast like you, trying to bite a poor little dog! You are nothing but a big coward!”

“I know it,” said the Lion, hanging his head in shame; “I’ve always known it. But how can I help it? It’s in my genes. It’s just the way I was created.”

“What is it with everybody and all this creation stuff?” Dorothy sneered. “Is everyone as brainless as the Scarecrow?” Don’t you understand? None of you were created on purpose! You are all the result of millions of years of evolution. Your genes weren’t created. They evolved. Superior genes were passed on to the next generation, while inferior genes were weeded out, creating new species.”

“It seems to me,” said the Scarecrow, who had finally picked himself up off the ground, “that a courageous lion would have a definite advantage over a cowardly one. After all, the measure of success in the battle for survival is really in the number of offspring an individual produces. Cowardly males would certainly be at a serious disadvantage when courting, so the courageous gene should be well established in the population by now if lions had been evolving for millions of years.”

“On the other hand,” Dorothy said, “it may be true that ‘discretion is the better part of valor.’ The wisdom to run from a fight against an overwhelmingly superior force may be the most important factor in survival. In fact, that must be true. Otherwise this cowardly lion would never have evolved. Since he did evolve, it must be true that timidity is the driving factor in evolution. The evidence is staring you in the face. At least, it would be, if the lion wasn’t afraid to make eye contact with you.”

“You should have said, ‘if the lion weren’t afraid’. Since the statement isn’t true, you should have used the subjunctive mood, rather than the singular imperfect past tense. At least, that’s what I would have said if I had a brain.”

Dorothy seized the opportunity to change the subject, and begin a lengthy debate with the Scarecrow over English grammar. She realized that she didn’t have any strong arguments in favor of evolution, and was glad for the opportunity to argue about anything else. The Tin Man was sad to see them arguing. The Lion didn’t like it either, but he was afraid to get involved. So, the argument continued.

The Lion inferred from something said during the course of the argument, that the party was on their way to see Ooze to ask him some favors. When the argument finally concluded, he summoned up the courage to ask if he could go along. They agreed, and all set out down the Double Helix road together.

The Guardian of the Gates
Eventually, they all arrived at the gates of the Emerald City. There was a bell beside the gates, and Dorothy pushed the button and heard a silvery tinkle sound within. The gates swung slowly open, and they all passed through and found themselves in a high arched room, the walls of which glistened with countless emeralds. Dorothy wondered how many billions of years it took the walls to form, but decided not to ask in the Scarecrow’s presence.

Before them stood a little man clothed all in green, from his head to his feet, and even his skin was of a greenish tint. When he saw Dorothy and her companions he asked,

“What do you wish in the Emerald City?”

“We came here to see the Great Ooze,” said Dorothy.

The man was so surprised at this answer that he sat down a moment to think it over.

“It has been many years since anyone asked me to see Ooze,” he said shaking his head in perplexity. “He is powerful and terrible, and if you have come on an idle or foolish errand to bother the wise reflections of the Great Wizard, he might be angry and destroy you all in an instant.”

“But this is not a foolish errand, nor an idle one,” replied the Scarecrow; “it has to do with the origin and meaning of life.”

“Very well. I am the Guardian of the Gates, and since you demand to see the Great Ooze I must take you to his palace. But first you must put on the spectacles.”

“Why?” asked Dorothy.


“Because if you did not wear the spectacles the brightness and glory of the Emerald City would blind you. Even those who live in the Emerald City must wear the spectacles night and day.”

They were all fitted with green spectacles which had two golden bands fastened to them. The golden bands passed around the back of the head, where they were locked together by a little key that the Guardian of the Gates wore on a chain around his neck. When they were on, Dorothy could not take them off had she wished, but of course she did not want to be blinded by the glare of the Emerald City, so she said nothing. 3


The Throne Room
When they reached the palace of the Wizard of Ooze, they were greeted by the Chancellor. He told them that the Great Wizard was very busy, and would see only one of them. So Dorothy went in alone.

There was a throne of green marble in the center of the room. It was shaped like a chair and sparkled with emeralds, as did everything else. In the center of the chair was an enormous Head, without body to support it or any arms or legs whatever. The mouth moved, and Dorothy heard a voice say,

“I am Ooze, the Great and Terrible. Who are you, and why do you seek me?”

“I am Dorothy, the Small and Meek. I have come to ask you to tell me exactly how life began.”

“Well,” said the Head, “I will tell you the answer. In this country everyone must pay for what he gets. Help me and I will tell you.”

“What must I do?” asked the girl.

“Kill the Wicked Witch of the Christian Right,” answered Ooze.

“But I cannot!” exclaimed Dorothy, greatly surprised.

“You killed the Witch of the Christian Left. When you prove to me the Witch of the Christian Right is dead, then I will answer your question.”

“I never killed anything willingly,” she sobbed.

“Remember that the Witch is Wicked--tremendously Wicked--and ought to be killed. Now go, and do not ask to see me again until you have done your task.”

Sorrowfully, Dorothy left the Throne Room and went back to where the Lion and the Scarecrow and the Tin Woodman were waiting to hear what Ooze had said to her. After some discussion, they all decided to find the Wicked Witch of the Christian Right, and kill her.

The Search for the Wicked Witch
When they had passed through the gates of the Emerald City, the Guardian of the Gates unlocked their green spectacles and put them back in the storage box where he kept them. Dorothy was surprised to discover that the green silk dress she had been given in the Emerald City was now pure white. Clearly, it must have been a magical dress to change color this way.

“How do we find the Wicked Witch of the Christian Right?” Dorothy asked the Guardian.

“You won’t have to. The Wicked Witch will find you. Just start walking toward the Promised Land, and her missionaries will contact you. They will tell you all sorts of fanciful stories about miracles, and make you believe nonsense. Then the Wicked Witch will enslave you, and make you obey her Ten Commandments.”

“That sounds terrible!” Dorothy exclaimed. “What can we do to protect ourselves?”

“There is only one thing that we have found that can protect us from her magical spell. It is Darwin’s Origin of Species. The Genie from the Center for Science Education has also given us these pamphlets that tell us how to fight against the Wicked Witch. Be sure you read them very carefully.” As he said this, the Guardian gave them a tattered old book, which looked like it was over a hundred years old, and some shinny new pamphlets.

Fortified with these powerful weapons, Dorothy, Toto, the Scarecrow, and the Tin Woodman climbed into a chariot. The Lion fastened the harness around his powerful neck, and they headed off towards the Promised Land.

As they traveled, the Scarecrow started reading the material. Dorothy could hear him muttering things like, “That doesn’t make sense. That’s not scientific.” As the Scarecrow cast things aside, Dorothy picked them up and skimmed them. She didn’t understand most of what she read. She was sure that it was true because the Guardian of the Gates was clearly a very intelligent man; and he had said it was true. Certainly it must be true, or else it would not be powerful enough to protect her from the Wicked Witch.

Soon they noticed a man running beside the chariot. He called out to them, “Do you understand what you are reading?”

“How can I,” Dorothy said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So she invited the man, whose name turned out to be Philip, to come up and sit with them in the chariot.

The passage she was reading was,


“There are many indications of an ancient earth. The Green River shales of western Wyoming consist of 6 million varves (alternating layers of marlstone and kerogen). The particles that form these layers are microscopic, and take many days to settle in perfectly still water. Similar varved sediments are forming today, and each cycle is known to represent 1 year. To form this one deposit in the global flood of Genesis would require the formation of about 1 layer per second! The whole 6,000 years of ICR earth history would require a rate of about 3 varves per day. And this deposit is but a thin layer in the total geology of the earth.” 4


Dorothy asked Phillip, “Doesn’t this prove that the Earth is old?” Then Phillip told her how the eruption of Mount St. Helens produced thick layers of finely stratified rock in a single afternoon.5 If one tried to compute the time it took to form these rocks by counting varves, they would have thought the rocks took thousands of years to form. Then he told her about the 1988 research done by creationist Guy Berthault in the laboratory of the Wicked Witch (a.k.a. the Engineering Research Center of the Civil Engineering Department at Colorado State University, Fort Collins) proving that sediments naturally form very thin layers under turbulent water flow.6 Finally, he showed her how a 1997 article by evolutionists in the respected journal Nature confirmed the Wicked Witch’s results, although the article did not cite Berthault’s previously published work.7 Dorothy realized that the assumption that the Green River varves form annually under still water was not necessarily true. In fact, the varves were more likely to be evidence of torrential flood waters than evidence of a placid lake that remained virtually undisturbed for millions of years.

Fascinated by the geology lecture, Dorothy didn’t notice that they had arrived in a beautiful garden in the Promised Land. A river flowed from a great throne. On each side of the river stood the tree of life bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. Near the throne was a cave, where a large stone had been rolled away from the entrance.

Dorothy wasn’t sure how they got there. Philip had mysteriously disappeared. She didn’t know what was happening. All Dorothy knew for sure was that she was about to meet a foe that even the Great and Powerful Ooze was unable to defeat. Could the Tin Woodman and the Lion protect her? She began to cry.

Without Dorothy noticing it, a Lamb had come up behind her. Now the Lamb was gently rubbing his soft wool against Dorothy’s leg. It was so soft and gentle, that Dorothy hadn’t noticed it at first. Now she realized the Lamb was beside her, and she felt somehow comfortable.

“Woman, why are you weeping?” the Lamb asked.

“Because I have to kill the Wicked Witch of the Christian Right, so I can get the Wizard of Ooze to tell me how life began, so I can go back to Kansas to protect the other children from the creationists. But I am afraid I can’t do it. I can’t even refute the creationist arguments of a brainless scarecrow. Then that man Philip showed me some recent research that shows you can’t tell the age of rocks by counting layers. I am so confused now, I don’t know what to do!”

“Woman, why are you weeping? Who is it you are looking for?” the Lamb asked.

Thinking that the Lamb knew his way around the garden, she said, “Tell me where the Wicked Witch is, so I can kill her.”

The Lamb said to her, “Dorothy.” Somehow, at that moment, Dorothy knew the Lamb was the Wicked Witch; but she was no longer afraid.

The Laboratory
The Lamb took Dorothy and her friends to a large, well-equipped laboratory. On the north wall were seemingly endless racks of chemicals. The east wall was filled with shelves of specimens. All the specimens were perfectly preserved, but none smelled of formaldehyde. On closer examination, she realized that there was no preserving fluid at all, because the biological specimens were still alive (although the geological specimens were most certainly dead). The south wall was lined with storage closets, filled with the latest scientific equipment. But the Scarecrow headed straight for the west wall, where all the scientific books ever published were neatly cataloged. The Scarecrow picked the leftmost book on the top shelf, intending to read every one in order, until he got to the rightmost book on the bottom shelf.

“Read, study, and experiment as much as you like. Everything you need is here. If there is anything else you need, ask, and it will be given unto you. Seek, and ye shall find.” the Lamb said, as he left them alone in the laboratory.

Dorothy and the Scarecrow immediately began to set up experiments. The Tin Woodman didn’t have the heart for such things, so he went back to the garden, where he kept busy pruning the plants, and bringing fruits and grains back to the laboratory for Dorothy. Toto just played in the garden, chasing butterflies. The Lion went to lie down with the Lamb.

The more Dorothy studied, the more she became convinced that the theory of evolution was not a correct explanation of the origin and diversity of life. The double helix DNA molecule was far too complex to have happened by chance. Furthermore, the information contained in it had to have come from an intelligent designer. She decided to go back to the Emerald City and confront the Wizard of Ooze with what she had discovered.

The Discovery of Ooze the Terrible
Dorothy and her friends returned to the Emerald City. The Guardian of the Gates was most surprised to see them, for he thought that they would have been killed or enslaved by the Wicked Witch of the Christian Right. Surely they must have killed the Wicked Witch, or they would not have been able to escape.

“Take us to see the Great and Powerful Wizard of Ooze!” Dorothy demanded of the Guardian.

Trembling with fear, the Guardian started to put the green spectacles on the visitors.

“We won’t be needing those.” Dorothy said.

Afraid to question someone who had killed two witches, the Guardian tossed the spectacles back in the box, and opened the gate.

Once inside, Dorothy noted that her white silk dress was still white. It had never been green. The spectacles had only made it appear green. She felt betrayed, but not surprised.

The Guardian had the news carried straight to Ooze that Dorothy and the other travelers had come back again, but Ooze made no reply. They had thought that the Great Wizard would see them at once, but he did not. They had no word from him the next day, nor the next, nor the next.

Finally, Dorothy would wait no longer. With the Tin Woodman leading the way, brandishing his recently sharpened ax, they broke into the Throne Room of the Great Ooze. There was no one there.

Presently they heard a Voice, seeming to come from somewhere near the top of the great dome, and it said solemnly,

“I am Ooze, the Great and Terrible, the Ancestor of All Life. Why have you come to seek me?”

They looked again in every part of the room, and then, seeing no one, Dorothy asked,

“Where are you?”

“I am everywhere,” answered the Voice, “because my descendants are in all living things.”

“You promised to tell us how life began,” Dorothy said, “and we want to know now!”


“Well, come to me tomorrow, for I must have time to think it over.”

“You’ve had plenty of time already,” said the Tin Woodman angrily.

“We shan’t wait a day longer,” said the Scarecrow.

“You must keep your promise to us!” exclaimed Dorothy.

The Lion thought it might be as well to frighten the Wizard, so he gave a large, loud roar, which was so fierce and dreadful that Toto jumped away from him in alarm and tipped over a screen that stood in a corner. As it fell with a crash they looked that way, and the next moment all of them were filled with wonder. For they saw, standing in just the spot the screen had hidden, a little, old man, with a bald head and a wrinkled face, who seemed to be just as much surprised as they were. The Tin Woodman, raising his axe, rushed toward the little man and cried out,

“Who are you?”

“I am Ooze, the Great and Terrible,” said the little man, in a trembling voice.

“You are a humbug!” said the Scarecrow. 8


“You are a very bad man!” said Dorothy.

“I am not a bad man,” the Wizard said. “I am just a bad scientist. Please don’t judge me too harshly. I just did what anyone else would have done in my place.”

So they sat down and listened while he told the following tale:

“I was born in Omaha--”

“Why, that isn’t very far from Kansas!” cried Dorothy.

“No; but it’s farther from here,” he said, shaking his head rather sadly. “When I was growing up, I went to public school. In all my science classes, my teachers told me evolution was a fact. They were the teachers. I was the student. I believed them and didn’t question them. When I grew older, I went to college. The more I studied science, the more I found wrong with the theory of evolution, but I still thought the theory was basically true. When I graduated, I got a teaching position at a major university. All the other professors believed in evolution (or at least, they said they did), and made fun of anyone who didn’t believe it. If I had said I didn’t believe, all the other professors would have made fun of me. I might not have been granted tenure! So, I said I believed it, too.”

“But you knew better!” Dorothy said in a somewhat accusatory tone.

“Yes, but there wasn’t much I could do,” the Wizard continued. “I had data showing the theory of evolution was wrong, but there is an unwritten rule that one may not publish data refuting one theory without proposing another one to take its place. So, I published papers that showed some particular evolutionary ideas were wrong and made up a different evolutionary explanation that fit my data better. I was such a good storyteller, that I was called the ‘Wizard of Ooze.’


“When you wear green spectacles, everything looks green to you. The Emerald City was built many years ago, for I was a young man when the balloon brought me here, and I am a very old man now. But my people have worn green glasses on their eyes so long that most of them think it really is an Emerald City, abounding in jewels and precious metals, and every good thing that is needed to make one happy. 9


“When you look at the world through the theory of evolution, everything looks like it evolved. Teachers started telling the story of evolution in the nineteenth century. People have been told the story so long that most of them think that life really evolved; that man is the ultimate judge of right and wrong; and that right and wrong can evolve with the situation. It is a very comfortable belief that can make one happy.”

“You are a fake! You can’t give me brains, can you?” said the Scarecrow


“You don’t need them. You are learning something every day. A baby has brains, but it doesn’t know much. Experience is the only thing that brings knowledge, and the longer you are on earth the more experience you are sure to get,” the Wizard said. 10


“Besides, the problem isn’t that you don’t have any brains,” the Wizard continued. “The real problem is that other people don’t have any brains. They aren’t smart enough to know if what you say is correct or not. They need some way to know if you are smart or not. That’s why you need to get a doctorate from a respected university. It won’t make you any smarter, but it will convince people who can’t think for themselves that you are smart.

“You must also publish only in referred journals. The readers of those journals won’t question what you say, because the referees have already proclaimed it to be true. That means they can accept it without thinking. It takes such a burden off their minds.”

“You can’t give me a heart, either,” said the Tin Woodman, sadly.

“I can give you a heart. As a matter of fact, I’ve done several heart transplants at the Emerald City General Hospital,” the Wizard said. “What I can’t give you is life. Life is more than arms and legs, heart and lungs. It is something more than material; but I don’t know what it is, and I can’t give it to you.”

“And what about courage?” the Lion asked.

“If you want courage, talk to a creationist. It isn’t easy to stand up against the theory of evolution. Creationists have the latest scientific evidence on their side, but it takes more than science to fight against traditional beliefs. It takes courage. There are many powerful people who, for one reason or another, cling to the theory of evolution. They will do everything they can to silence creationists. Creationists present their research at far greater personal risk than any evolutionists ever do. Creationists know all about courage.”

“But how will I get back to Kansas?” Dorothy asked.


“Why not call the Winged Monkeys, and ask them to carry you over the desert?”

“I never thought of that!” said Dorothy joyfully. … She spoke the magic words, and soon the band of Winged Monkeys flew in through an open window and stood beside her.

“You have called us,” said the Monkey King, bowing before the little girl said, “What do you wish?”

“I want you to carry Toto and me back to Kansas,” said Dorothy.

But the Monkey King shook his head.

“That cannot be done,” he said. “We belong to this country alone, and cannot leave it. There has never been a Winged Monkey in Kansas yet, and I suppose there never will be.” 11


Sadly, Dorothy realized that was true. There will never be a Winged Monkey in Kansas, because monkeys will never evolve wings. No creature will ever evolve wings. No creature ever has. The fossil record shows that birds and bats had wings right from the beginning. Despite all the speculation that dinosaurs evolved wings, there isn’t any evidence that it happened. Even National Geographic finally admitted that their transitional fossil was a fake. Returning to her room, Dorothy cried herself to sleep.

When the alarm clock went off, she found herself in her own bed, in Kansas. Looking at the clock she realized it was time to get ready to go to school. Quickly she dressed, ate breakfast, kissed Uncle Henry and Aunt Em, and headed down the dirt road toward her little Kansas public school.

As she walked, she felt somehow different. Dorothy realized that she had a new heart, the brains of a scarecrow, and the courage of a lion.

damn, wish I would wake up then, cause the way the dream is going right now dosen't look to good for my kids in another few years!

The Scientific Case Against Evolution
by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.
Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon. It is a belief passionately defended by the scientific establishment, despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macroevolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another). This odd situation is briefly documented here by citing recent statements from leading evolutionists admitting their lack of proof. These statements inadvertently show that evolution on any significant scale does not occur at present, and never happened in the past, and could never happen at all.

Evolution Is Not Happening Now
First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution.

Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new "basic kind."

A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that:

. . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.1
The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques"2 by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action.

Evolution Never Happened in the Past
Evolutionists commonly answer the above criticism by claiming that evolution goes too slowly for us to see it happening today. They used to claim that the real evidence for evolution was in the fossil record of the past, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils do not include a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving.

Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion . . . it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to the more evolved.3

Even those who believe in rapid evolution recognize that a considerable number of generations would be required for one distinct "kind" to evolve into another more complex kind. There ought, therefore, to be a considerable number of true transitional structures preserved in the fossils -- after all, there are billions of non-transitional structures there! But (with the exception of a few very doubtful creatures such as the controversial feathered dinosaurs and the alleged walking whales), they are not there.

Instead of filling in the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species.4

The entire history of evolution from the evolution of life from non-life to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates to the evolution of man from the ape is strikingly devoid of intermediates: the links are all missing in the fossil record, just as they are in the present world.

With respect to the origin of life, a leading researcher in this field, Leslie Orgel, after noting that neither proteins nor nucleic acids could have arisen without the other, concludes:

And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.5
Being committed to total evolution as he is, Dr. Orgel cannot accept any such conclusion as that. Therefore, he speculates that RNA may have come first, but then he still has to admit that:

The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear. . . . investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best.6
Translation: "There is no known way by which life could have arisen naturalistically." Unfortunately, two generations of students have been taught that Stanley Miller's famous experiment on a gaseous mixture, practically proved the naturalistic origin of life. But not so!

Miller put the whole thing in a ball, gave it an electric charge, and waited. He found that amino acids and other fundamental complex molecules were accumulating at the bottom of the apparatus. His discovery gave a huge boost to the scientific investigation of the origin of life. Indeed, for some time it seemed like creation of life in a test tube was within reach of experimental science. Unfortunately, such experiments have not progressed much further than the original prototype, leaving us with a sour aftertaste from the primordial soup.7

Neither is there any clue as to how the one-celled organisms of the primordial world could have evolved into the vast array of complex multi-celled invertebrates of the Cambrian period. Even dogmatic evolutionist Gould admits that:

The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life.8
Equally puzzling, however, is how some invertebrate creature in the ancient ocean, with all its "hard parts" on the outside, managed to evolve into the first vertebrate -- that is, the first fish-- with its hard parts all on the inside.

Yet the transition from spineless invertebrates to the first backboned fishes is still shrouded in mystery, and many theories abound.9

Other gaps are abundant, with no real transitional series anywhere. A very bitter opponent of creation science, paleontologist, Niles Eldredge, has acknowledged that there is little, if any, evidence of evolutionary transitions in the fossil record. Instead, things remain the same!

It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their durations. . . .10

So how do evolutionists arrive at their evolutionary trees from fossils of oganisms which didn't change during their durations?

Fossil discoveries can muddle over attempts to construct simple evolutionary trees -- fossils from key periods are often not intermediates, but rather hodge podges of defining features of many different groups. . . . Generally, it seems that major groups are not assembled in a simple linear or progressive manner -- new features are often "cut and pasted" on different groups at different times.11

As far as ape/human intermediates are concerned, the same is true, although anthropologists have been eagerly searching for them for many years. Many have been proposed, but each has been rejected in turn.

All that paleoanthropologists have to show for more than 100 years of digging are remains from fewer than 2000 of our ancestors. They have used this assortment of jawbones, teeth and fossilized scraps, together with molecular evidence from living species, to piece together a line of human descent going back 5 to 8 million years to the time when humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor.12

Anthropologists supplemented their extremely fragmentary fossil evidence with DNA and other types of molecular genetic evidence from living animals to try to work out an evolutionary scenario that will fit. But this genetic evidence really doesn't help much either, for it contradicts fossil evidence. Lewin notes that:

The overall effect is that molecular phylogenetics is by no means as straightforward as its pioneers believed. . . . The Byzantine dynamics of genome change has many other consequences for molecular phylogenetics, including the fact that different genes tell different stories.13
Summarizing the genetic data from humans, another author concludes, rather pessimistically:

Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.14
Since there is no real scientific evidence that evolution is occurring at present or ever occurred in the past, it is reasonable to conclude that evolution is not a fact of science, as many claim. In fact, it is not even science at all, but an arbitrary system built upon faith in universal naturalism.

Actually, these negative evidences against evolution are, at the same time, strong positive evidences for special creation. They are, in fact, specific predictions based on the creation model of origins.

Creationists would obviously predict ubiquitous gaps between created kinds, though with many varieties capable of arising within each kind, in order to enable each basic kind to cope with changing environments without becoming extinct. Creationists also would anticipate that any "vertical changes" in organized complexity would be downward, since the Creator (by definition) would create things correctly to begin with. Thus, arguments and evidences against evolution are, at the same time, positive evidences for creation.

The Equivocal Evidence from Genetics
Nevertheless, because of the lack of any direct evidence for evolution, evolutionists are increasingly turning to dubious circumstantial evidences, such as similarities in DNA or other biochemical components of organisms as their "proof" that evolution is a scientific fact. A number of evolutionists have even argued that DNA itself is evidence for evolution since it is common to all organisms. More often is the argument used that similar DNA structures in two different organisms proves common evolutionary ancestry.

Neither argument is valid. There is no reason whatever why the Creator could not or would not use the same type of genetic code based on DNA for all His created life forms. This is evidence for intelligent design and creation, not evolution.

The most frequently cited example of DNA commonality is the human/chimpanzee "similarity," noting that chimpanzees have more than 90% of their DNA the same as humans. This is hardly surprising, however, considering the many physiological resemblances between people and chimpanzees. Why shouldn't they have similar DNA structures in comparison, say, to the DNA differences between men and spiders?

Similarities -- whether of DNA, anatomy, embryonic development, or anything else -- are better explained in terms of creation by a common Designer than by evolutionary relationship. The great differences between organisms are of greater significance than the similarities, and evolutionism has no explanation for these if they all are assumed to have had the same ancestor. How could these great gaps between kinds ever arise at all, by any natural process?

The apparently small differences between human and chimpanzee DNA obviously produce very great differences in their respective anatomies, intelligence, etc. The superficial similarities between all apes and human beings are nothing compared to the differences in any practical or observable sense.

Nevertheless, evolutionists, having largely become disenchanted with the fossil record as a witness for evolution because of the ubiquitous gaps where there should be transitions, recently have been promoting DNA and other genetic evidence as proof of evolution. However, as noted above by Roger Lewin, this is often inconsistent with, not only the fossil record, but also with the comparative morphology of the creatures. Lewin also mentions just a few typical contradictions yielded by this type of evidence in relation to more traditional Darwinian "proofs."

The elephant shrew, consigned by traditional analysis to the order insectivores . . . is in fact more closely related to . . . the true elephant. Cows are more closely related to dolphins than they are to horses. The duckbilled platypus . . . is on equal evolutionary footing with . . . kangaroos and koalas.15

There are many even more bizarre comparisons yielded by this approach.

The abundance of so-called "junk DNA" in the genetic code also has been offered as a special type of evidence for evolution, especially those genes which they think have experienced mutations, sometimes called "pseudogenes."16 However, evidence is accumulating rapidly today that these supposedly useless genes do actually perform useful functions.

Enough genes have already been uncovered in the genetic midden to show that what was once thought to be waste is definitely being transmitted into scientific code.17

It is thus wrong to decide that junk DNA, even the socalled "pseudogenes," have no function. That is merely an admission of ignorance and an object for fruitful research. Like the socalled "vestigial organs" in man, once considered as evidence of evolution but now all known to have specific uses, so the junk DNA and pseudogenes most probably are specifically useful to the organism, whether or not those uses have yet been discovered by scientists.

At the very best this type of evidence is strictly circumstantial and can be explained just as well in terms of primeval creation supplemented in some cases by later deterioration, just as expected in the creation model.

The real issue is, as noted before, whether there is any observable evidence that evolution is occurring now or has ever occurred in the past. As we have seen, even evolutionists have to acknowledge that this type of real scientific evidence for evolution does not exist.

A good question to ask is: Why are all observable evolutionary changes either horizontal and trivial (so-called microevolution) or downward toward deterioration and extinction? The answer seems to be found in the universally applicable laws of the science of thermodynamics.

Evolution Could Never Happen at All
The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.

This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, bestproved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems -- in fact, in all systems, without exception.

No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found -- not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.18
The author of this quote is referring primarily to physics, but he does point out that the second law is "independent of details of models." Besides, practically all evolutionary biologists are reductionists -- that is, they insist that there are no "vitalist" forces in living systems, and that all biological processes are explicable in terms of physics and chemistry. That being the case, biological processes also must operate in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, and practically all biologists acknowledge this.

Evolutionists commonly insist, however, that evolution is a fact anyhow, and that the conflict is resolved by noting that the earth is an "open system," with the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the natural tendency of all systems to deteriorate toward disorganization. That is how an evolutionary entomologist has dismissed W. A. Dembski's impressive recent book, Intelligent Design. This scientist defends what he thinks is "natural processes' ability to increase complexity" by noting what he calls a "flaw" in "the arguments against evolution based on the second law of thermodynamics." And what is this flaw?

Although the overall amount of disorder in a closed system cannot decrease, local order within a larger system can increase even without the actions of an intelligent agent.19
This naive response to the entropy law is typical of evolutionary dissimulation. While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed.

The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.

Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only "sieve out" the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present.

From the statements of evolutionists themselves, therefore, we have learned that there is no real scientific evidence for real evolution. The only observable evidence is that of very limited horizontal (or downward) changes within strict limits.

Evolution is Religion -- Not Science
In no way does the idea of particles-to-people evolution meet the long-accepted criteria of a scientific theory. There are no such evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed in the fossil record of the past; and the universal law of entropy seems to make it impossible on any significant scale.

Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists. Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists.

Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more harm than good, but scientists still need to counter the creationist message.20
The question is, just why do they need to counter the creationist message? Why are they so adamantly committed to anti-creationism?

The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. Some may prefer to call it humanism, and "new age" evolutionists place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man.

The core of the humanistic philosophy is naturalism -- the proposition that the natural world proceeds according to its own internal dynamics, without divine or supernatural control or guidance, and that we human beings are creations of that process. It is instructive to recall that the philosophers of the early humanistic movement debated as to which term more adequately described their position: humanism or naturalism. The two concepts are complementary and inseparable.21

Since both naturalism and humanism exclude God from science or any other active function in the creation or maintenance of life and the universe in general, it is very obvious that their position is nothing but atheism. And atheism, no less than theism, is a religion! Even doctrinaire-atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism cannot be proved to be true.

Of course we can't prove that there isn't a God.22
Therefore, they must believe it, and that makes it a religion.

The atheistic nature of evolution is not only admitted, but insisted upon by most of the leaders of evolutionary thought. Ernst Mayr, for example, says that:

Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.23
A professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State University says:

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.24
It is well known by almost everyone in the scientific world today that such influential evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould and Edward Wilson of Harvard, Richard Dawkins of England, William Provine of Cornell, and numerous other evolutionary spokesmen are dogmatic atheists. Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion!

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality . . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.25

Another way of saying "religion" is "worldview," the whole of reality. The evolutionary worldview applies not only to the evolution of life, but even to that of the entire universe. In the realm of cosmic evolution, our naturalistic scientists depart even further from experimental science than life scientists do, manufacturing a variety of evolutionary cosmologies from esoteric mathematics and metaphysical speculation. Socialist Jeremy Rifkin has commented on this remarkable game.

Cosmologies are made up of small snippets of physical reality that have been remodeled by society into vast cosmic deceptions.26

They must believe in evolution, therefore, in spite of all the evidence, not because of it. And speaking of deceptions, note the following remarkable statement.

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.27
The author of this frank statement is Richard Lewontin of Harvard. Since evolution is not a laboratory science, there is no way to test its validity, so all sorts of justso stories are contrived to adorn the textbooks. But that doesn't make them true! An evolutionist reviewing a recent book by another (but more critical) evolutionist, says:

We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.28
A fascinatingly honest admission by a physicist indicates the passionate commitment of establishment scientists to naturalism. Speaking of the trust students naturally place in their highly educated college professors, he says:

And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal -- without demonstration -- to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.29
Creationist students in scientific courses taught by evolutionist professors can testify to the frustrating reality of that statement. Evolution is, indeed, the pseudoscientific basis of religious atheism, as Ruse pointed out. Will Provine at Cornell University is another scientist who frankly acknowledges this.

As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.30
Once again, we emphasize that evolution is not science, evolutionists' tirades notwithstanding. It is a philosophical worldview, nothing more.

(Evolution) must, they feel, explain everything. . . . A theory that explains everything might just as well be discarded since it has no real explanatory value. Of course, the other thing about evolution is that anything can be said because very little can be disproved. Experimental evidence is minimal.31

Even that statement is too generous. Actual experimental evidence demonstrating true evolution (that is, macroevolution) is not "minimal." It is nonexistent!

The concept of evolution as a form of religion is not new. In my book, The Long War Against God,32 I documented the fact that some form of evolution has been the pseudo-rationale behind every anti-creationist religion since the very beginning of history. This includes all the ancient ethnic religions, as well as such modern world religions as Buddhism, Hinduism, and others, as well as the "liberal" movements in even the creationist religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam).

As far as the twentieth century is concerned, the leading evolutionist is generally considered to be Sir Julian Huxley, primary architect of modern neo-Darwinism. Huxley called evolution a "religion without revelation" and wrote a book with that title (2nd edition, 1957). In a later book, he said:

Evolution . . . is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth.33
Later in the book he argued passionately that we must change "our pattern of religious thought from a God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern."34 Then he went on to say that: "The God hypothesis . . . is becoming an intellectual and moral burden on our thought." Therefore, he concluded that "we must construct something to take its place."35

That something, of course, is the religion of evolutionary humanism, and that is what the leaders of evolutionary humanism are trying to do today.

In closing this survey of the scientific case against evolution (and, therefore, for creation), the reader is reminded again that all quotations in the article are from doctrinaire evolutionists. No Bible references are included, and no statements by creationists. The evolutionists themselves, to all intents and purposes, have shown that evolutionism is not science, but religious faith in atheism.

References

Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Sudden Origins (New York, John Wiley, 1999), p. 300.
Ernst Mayr, "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought," Scientific American (vol. 283, July 2000), p. 83.
Jeffrey H. Schwartz, op. cit., p.89.
Ibid.
Leslie E. Orgel, "The Origin of Life on the Earth," Scientific American (vol. 271, October 1994), p. 78.
Ibid., p. 83.
Massimo Pigliucci, "Where Do We Come From?" Skeptical Inquirer (vol. 23, September/October 1999), p. 24.
Stephen Jay Gould, "The Evolution of Life," chapter 1 in Evolution: Facts and Fallacies, ed. by J. William Schopf (San Diego, CA., Academic Press, 1999), p. 9.
J. O. Long, The Rise of Fishes (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1995), p. 30.
Niles Eldredge, The Pattern of Evolution (New York: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1998), p. 157.
Neil Shubin, "Evolutionary Cut and Paste," Nature (vol. 349, July 2, 1998), p.12.
Colin Tudge, "Human Origins Revisited," New Scientist (vol. 146, May 20, 1995), p. 24.
Roger Lewin, "Family Feud," New Scientist (vol. 157, January 24, 1998), p. 39.
N. A. Takahata, "Genetic Perspective on the Origin and History of Humans," Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics (vol. 26, 1995), p. 343.
Lewin, op. cit., p. 36.
Rachel Nowak, "Mining Treasures from `Junk DNA'," Science (vol. 263, February 4, 1994), p. 608.
Ibid.
E. H. Lieb and Jakob Yngvason, "A Fresh Look at Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics," Physics Today (vol. 53, April 2000), p. 32.
Norman A. Johnson, "Design Flaw," American Scientist (vol. 88. May/June 2000), p. 274.
Scott, Eugenie, "Fighting Talk," New Scientist (vol. 166, April 22, 2000), p.47. Dr. Scott is director of the anti-creationist organization euphemistically named, The National Center for Science Education.
Ericson, Edward L., "Reclaiming the Higher Ground," The Humanist (vol. 60, September/October 2000), p. 30.
Dawkins, Richard, replying to a critique of his faith in the liberal journal, Science and Christian Belief (vol. 7, 1994), p. 47.
Mayr, Ernst, "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought," Scientific American (vol. 283, July 2000), p. 83.
Todd, Scott C., "A View from Kansas on the Evolution Debates," Nature (vol. 401, September 30, 1999), p. 423.
Ruse, Michael, "Saving Darwinism fron the Darwinians," National Post (May 13, 2000), p. B-3.
Rifkin, Jeremy, "Reinventing Nature," The Humanist (vol. 58, March/April 1998), p. 24.
Lewontin, Richard, Review of the Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. In New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997.
Bowler, Peter J., Review In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999), American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169.
Singham, Mark, "Teaching and Propaganda," Physics Today (vol. 53, June 2000), p. 54.
Provine, Will, "No Free Will," in Catching Up with the Vision, ed. by Margaret W. Rossiter (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), p. S123.
Appleyard, Bryan, "You Asked for It," New Scientist (vol. 166, April 22, 2000), p. 45.
Henry M. Morris, The Long War Against God (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1989), 344 pp.
Julian Huxley, Essays of a Humanist (New York: Harper and Row, 1964), p. 125.
Ibid., p. 222.
Ibid.