evolution revised for fourmarks

7/31/2019 EVOLUTION Revised for Fourmarks

1/12

EVOLUTION AS RELIGION AND THE HIJACKING OF SCIENCEBy Silvio Mattacchione BA MA

I am not a geneticist or biologist nor ornithologist or for that matter scientist of any sort. Iam 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 thatDarwin 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 co-

founder 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 thereligious 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.htmand is

used with permission. Most people are unaware that Darwin offered as its subtitle The Preservation

Of Favoured Races In The Struggle For Life

1
http://www.btinternet.com/~glynhughes/squashed/darwin.htmhttp://www.btinternet.com/~glynhughes/squashed/darwin.htmhttp://www.btinternet.com/~glynhughes/squashed/darwin.htm


2/12

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 onthe 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 acentury 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 processculminating 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 ofDarwins 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 thefollowing 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

2


3/12

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, moreeggs, 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 istrue."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 noknown 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, allreligions, 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 wrotein 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 thescience 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 asfact? 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

3


4/12

"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 paranoiaas 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 withscience) 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 theseareas 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

4
http://www.mystudios.com/.../michelangelo-creation-man.jpghttp://www.mystudios.com/.../michelangelo-creation-man.jpg


5/12

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 investigationand 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 inthe door.11

What have I learned as a stockman? I know for a fact that no biologist can give anyevidence 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, confusedit, 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 incharacter13

What Darwin was saying was very clear, evolution has very real problems and the fossilrecord 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 notsupport 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

5


6/12

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 evolutionproblem. 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 haveexisted 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 isincomparably 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 forthe original human one, and the case of the Java Man, in which a battered skullcap of agibbon 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

6


7/12

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 andbones 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 inthe 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 certaindiseases 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 moreyears 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 found20

should be relegated towhere it belongs in a dust-heap in a world of fantasy!

17

18

19

20

7
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid5.htmhttp://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid6.htmhttp://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid5.htmhttp://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid6.htm


8/12

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 entitledMutual Affinities of Organic Beings: Morphology, Embryology, Rudimentary Organsin 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 atwww.btinternet.com/~glynhughes/ squashed/darwin.htm

Embryology- How can we explain these several facts in embryology,- namely of the striking similaritybetween 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 andpoultry 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 ascientific explanation of how an amoeba could become a university professor in 3 billion years is far fromachievement22

I am not the only person that would disagree, the following excerpts from an articlewritten by James Perloff

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=217762001 WorldNetDaily.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 thehuman 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

8
http://www.btinternet.com/~glynhughes/squashed/darwin.htmhttp://www.btinternet.com/~glynhughes/squashed/darwin.htm


9/12

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 Timesof 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 peoplereadily and blindly embrace Darwinian theories of evolution.25

In Chapter V LAWS OF VARIATIONDarwin 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 orcan 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 apparentlyneutral, 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 celldivisions. 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

9


10/12

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 over31 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 isthe 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 frombrute 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 anda 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 andlibeled 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 peoplesworldwide.

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 CatholicCzech 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


11/12

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. Nowmore 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


by Charles Darwin, 1859 Squashed version edited byGlyn Hughes 2000


by Charles Darwin, 1859 Squashed version edited byGlyn Hughes 2000

4Successfully 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.

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

8Origins?, 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 byGlyn 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




34[16]Howell, F. Clark. Early Man, NY: Time Life Books, 1973.

29

30

31

32

33

34

11
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.silvio-co.com/pigeons/breeding.htmmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.silvio-co.com/pigeons/breeding.htmmailto:[email protected]


12/12

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



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 byGlyn 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=217762001 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 Speciesby Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

by Charles Darwin, 1859

Squashed version edited byGlyn 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
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid5.htmhttp://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid6.htmmailto:[email protected]://www.parentcompany.com/handy_dandy/hder6.htmhttp://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21776200http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21776200mailto:[email protected]://www.parentcompany.com/handy_dandy/hder4.htmhttp://www.parentcompany.com/handy_dandy/hder4.htmhttp://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid5.htmhttp://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid6.htmmailto:[email protected]://www.parentcompany.com/handy_dandy/hder6.htmhttp://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21776200mailto:[email protected]://www.parentcompany.com/handy_dandy/hder4.htm

evolution revised for fourmarks

Documents