Darwin Predicts the End of Evolution

DARWIN PREDICTS THE END OF EVOLUTION
Darwin’s Own Prophesy Comes to Pass

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

                                                                                  Charles Darwin, The Origin of the Species

"I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."1

                                                                                  Charles Darwin

“On this doctrine of the extermination of an infinitude of connecting links, between

the living and extinct inhabitants of the world, and at each successive period

between the extinct and still older species, why is not every geological formation

charged with such links? Why does not every collection of fossil remains afford plain

evidence of the gradation and mutation of the forms of life? We meet with no such evidence, and this is the most obvious and forcible of the many objections which

may be urged against my theory. Why, again, do whole groups of allied species appear,though certainly they often falsely appear, to have come in suddenly on the

several geological stages? Why do we not find great piles of strata beneath the

Silurian system, stored with the remains of the progenitors of the Silurian groups

of fossils? For certainly on my theory such strata must somewhere have been

deposited at these ancient and utterly unknown epochs in the world's history.”

                                                                                             Charles Darwin

By Darwin’s own admission, there was a lot of room for doubt and speculation in his
theory, even during his day when the sciences were very rudimentary by today’s standards.
So how did a theory so light on science and heavy on supposition receive such rapid world-wide acceptance as scientific fact as to the origin of life? By 1859 and the publishing of The Origin of the Species, the world of philosophy had become ensconced in existentialism, empericalism, relativity and nihilism. Intellectual man was getting very tired of needing God to explain and rule the universe. Philosophers such as David Hume, Nietzsche and Kierkegaard wanted and needed a “scientific” proof that God was not necessary for creation in order to substantiate their godless, humanistic philosophies.

Every philosophical thinker hails it [The Origin of Species] as a veritable Whitworth gun in the armory of liberalism. Thomas Henry Huxley

With the support of The Origin of Species, these philosophies quickly made their way into universities, media and even seminaries. No longer was our culture accountable to a higher moral law as taught in scripture and woven into the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Instead, the relativistic model of man, postulated by Sigmund Freud,
makes us merely icebergs controlled beneath the surface by the subconscious, which makes us do whatever we do. this has become the consensus of the day. Nature is all that is left; man is a determined animal, there is no God, no Christ, no divine revelation of God as outlined in the Holy Scriptures.

1 In a letter to Asa Gray, a Harvard professor of biology. Quoted in N.C. Gillespie, 'Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation' (1979), p. 2

“Thankfully, this atheistic tsunami was countered in the early part of the twentieth century by a vibrant movement called “fundamentalism”. Fundamentalists, who held to the truth of the Bible began to circle the wagons.” Thankfully, today Christian principles are alive and well and spreading rapidly throughout the globe. Today in America we do, however, still face a “consensus” of humanism held up principally by a liberal media and academia. This allows those with an humanistic world view to appear to be in the majority even when popular belief and even science say otherwise. Even today atheists decry even the idea of presenting the Theory of Evolution alongside the possibility of Intelligent Design as opposing ideas.

So how could a theory as scientifically simplistic, illogical and unverifiable as Darwin’s last, as accepted “fact”, for over one hundred and fifty years? Consensus is a powerful, sometimes beneficial and sometimes very dangerous phenomenon. The fact that,
as a country we can experience controlling “consensus” around an idea that has been proven to be false is a very scary thought for those who see science as the study of God’s creation and certainly not the study of a godless universe. For atheists, the Theory of Evolution is much more than a “theory”. It is the last hope of any acceptance of even the possibility that there is no God. When the acceptance, in our culture, of Darwinism falls,
to “intelligent design”, there is nowhere else to go but to God.

Over one hundred and fifty years has produced no archeological proof to assuage Darwin’s fear that fossil remains plainly showing some indication of the thousands of “transitional” forms that should have existed only to die out as “better adapted” forms took their places, would not be found. Each year the evolutionists herald this year’s
“missing link” only to have it quietly debunked without media coverage later.

Darwin’s expressed fear that an “irreducibly complex” component of a cell would be found which would “absolutely break down” his theory has been realized over and over. Advances in biology, micro-biology, and even astronomy have produced huge amounts of evidence and hundreds of examples of cellular components which are irreducible
and incapable of “evolving” gradually over even billions of years. (Astronomy, is showing more likelihood every day that the Earth is indeed unique and not a random development of a universe powered by something called “chance”.)

Scientists now know that the most fundamental single cell demonstrates this phenomenon of irreducible complexity. Even Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the DNA molecule, said:

“The origin of life appears…to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have to be satisfied to get it going.”

Francis Crick, Life Itself; Its Nature and Origin, 1981


The DNA molecule is a blueprint, complete with all the instruction (information) necessary to develop, maintain and even heal its particular life form. DNA and written language both exhibit the property of specified complexity. Intelligence causes both. (intelligence exists separate from the medium which expresses it; 2+2=4 whether you write it on a blackboard or carve it into a tree.) Information in no way can be accounted for in the theory of evolution.

Part of the evolutionists belief is that evolution is fueled only by a “need” to survive.
One could certainly ask, “where did that need come from?”, but let’s go deeper.
today we take for granted the ability to create great art, architecture and music and to help others. Where did these come from? We have many pursuits including the need to know God or study the Moon, which are beyond the “need” to survive.

The fact that there is a God and a living God is, of course, why this whole, unscientific “philosophy” would not ultimately survive. Eventually, real science, the study of life created by an omnipotent, intelligent God had to win out because it is the TRUTH.



Edited by Jim Gleeson
Substantially quoted from:
Darwinism Under the Microscope, James P. Gills, MD and Tom Woodward, Ph.d, 2002
The Case for a Creator, Lee Strobel, 2004
Darwin’s Black Box, Michael J. Behe, 1996