Tag: Evolution/Creation


Researchers at the University of Greater Heybridge in Essex, United Kingdom, have been working on a project which could be set to turn the music world upside down…


Professor Scat “the cool cat” Higginbottom has been at the center of an advanced study, picking up from where the late and great Vivian Stanshall left off.  That is, the discovery that hamsters have more musical talent in their genes than Mozart and Beethoven had between them. You will surely remember, dear listener, that Stanshall spearheaded the ground-breaking research in “Snail Music”.

It all began late one December night in 1971 when Stanshall, then still working on his own masterpieces for the “Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band”, detected  a small, shrill but heavenly voice coming from the corner of his living room. To Stanshall’s amazement, it was his thirty-two year old hamster “Minks”, who, after having relieved himself copiously on the floor of his cage, was jubilantly singing “Moonlight In Vermont” with a gusto which would have sent Sinatra into a rage of envy. The University of Heybridge was poised to spearhead the study of this phenomenon.

Unfortunately neither Stanshall nor the Uni. were able to find the funding needed to conduct a thorough study of Minks’ talent, and the raver rodent was all but forgotten. However, similar discoveries made by other hamster-lovers in recent times have revived interest in these amazing creatures, and thanks to Prime Minister May’s personal interest in the humble hamster, government funding has at last been forthcoming to the tune of two million British pounds (twenty-eight trillion dollars).

Professor Higginbottom is absolutely delighted:

“I’m absolutely delighted”, he said.

So stay tuned folks, it’s only a matter of time before the newest heart throb on your favorite radio station will be…a hamster.

* Apologies to all you hamster-lovers out there who’ve read my report on this amazing research before. Please allow me to be slightly insane, or I will go completely insane… Why did I select the “Evolution/ Creation category for this post? You may well ask…



I’m cheating here, summarizing an article published in the June 2012 issue of “Acts and Facts”, which is a free publication of the “Institute for Creation Research”, or “ICR”.

The article, written by Frank Sherwin and Brian Thomas, was prompted by a recent fossil find in China which is said to be “another” specimen of a fossilized dinosaur complete with feathers. The implication of course is that these creatures were mid way between being dinosaurs and birds.

The animal, named “Yutyrannus huali” is said to be a “gigantic feathered dinosaur”, “the largest yet found”. Such were the headlines.

However, when you start to read below the headlines, or to listen to the information following the sensational TV announcements, you find that the “feathers” are subsequently called “feather-like structures” or something rather more technical, scientific-sounding, and impressive, such as “protofeathers”.

The article’s authors point out the major, and huge, differences between what has been found and real, actual bird feathers as we know them. For example, real bird feathers have semi-hollow cores and branching barbs, and the fossil’s filaments do not.

Further, neither dinosaur skin impressions nor original dinosaur skin has follicles similar to those that produce feathers in birds.

The Yutyrannus huali was a Chinese tyrannosaur. Somehow I just can’t picture a tyrannosaur – a “gigantic feathered dinosaur”, perching in a tree or on a cliff edge, leaping into the air, and then gliding gracefully to the ground, even if it had managed to climb the tree in a desperate search for food.

Sherwin and Thomas state that the so-called “feathers” are more logically interpreted as being fossilized fragments of partly decayed skin.

Skin contains collagen protein fibers that decay more quickly than the soluble biomaterials that surround them.  In an environment such as the Flood of Noah’s day, the dinosaurs would have begun rotting while being transported by the waters. The soluble flesh rotted first. The collagen fibers would have soon rotted too, “but the surrounding mud or wet sand quickly turned to dry rock that inhibited growth of collagen-eating microbes”.

The authors give an example of a 2005 comparison of partially decayed skin from a variety of animal carcasses with dinosaur “feathers”. The evolutionary authors of the study said that calling dinosaur fossil structures “feathers” is misleading.

Of course, Archeopteryx is the famous alleged link via theropod dinosaurs between reptiles and birds. Sherwin and Thomas point out some of the major differences between the structure of a bird and that of a theropod, saying that “no evidence supports the story that such fully formed wings (as the archaeopteryx had) with fused clavicles ‘evolved from’ the tiny., clavicle-free theropod forelimbs”. They state confidently that Archeopteryx was all bird, without a single transitional structure.

One thing that dinosaur-feather believers choose to ignore is that fossil bird prints have been found in rock layers supposedly containing some of the “earliest” dinosaurs.

The authors make the point that even if a true feathered dinosaur were to be found one day, it would not solve evolution’s huge problem of converting a reptile skeleton into that of a bird.

Dinosaurs and birds were created as distinct “kinds” at the beginning of all life as recorded in the early chapters of Genesis.

For the full article complete with pictures, and its references, follow this link:


To peruse ICR’s entire inspiring and informative web site, which includes articles on many contemporary subjects in the creation/ evolution debate, try this one:



I have two young sons who still don’t like to have their bedroom completely dark at night. We leave the shades partially open so that the street lights allow them to see around their room. If they express any fear I just remind them that I am only a few feet away in the next room. Most of us can remember feeling the same way about darkness as children: I used to have a good look under the bed and inside my closet before I went to bed, to make sure nobody was hiding in there, ready to crawl out as soon as the lights were switched off. I’ve spoken to many people who did the same thing.

On July 4th I took my family to see the fireworks at the local park. Until the fireworks began, a band played cover versions of popular songs from the sixties up to the nineties in the park’s amphitheatre, and did a great job of entertaining everyone. Between two of the songs, the vocalist made a little speech that really touched me. He noted the fact that lots of people these days are fearful about the economy here and in Europe, and people are fearful of terrorists or what might happen in the Middle East.

“Things may look dark” he said, “but it’s okay, because our Father, the Lord Almighty, is just a few feet away-in fact, not even that far…”

To my mind it takes a real man to not only think something like that, but to say it in front of a crowd of people.

And he’s right: God is with us and He’s in control. Sometimes it doesn’t seem like it, when we see what goes on in the world around us and sometimes in our own lives. The world can appear to be a very dark place depending on our circumstances and outlook.

It’s a huge mistake to think, as many people do, that God should be there to wait on us and fix all our problems while we go on in our own way, unhindered. That’s just not the way it is. Jesus said “In this world you will have trouble.” Then he said “But take heart! I have overcome the world” (John 16:33). God has clearly declared that He has a master plan to put things right. He has a day and a time in store for the restoration of his “very good” creation. All we have to do is to accept his son, to turn from our own ways and embrace his instead. Jesus said:

“I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life” (John 8:12).

When we have our eyes fixed on our God instead of the economy and what our enemies are saying, we can have confidence.  Again, Jesus said:

“I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies, and whoever lives and believes in me will never die” (John 11:25).

We are told in scripture that “without faith it is impossible to please God” (Hebrews 11:6). Faith is not blind hope, it’s an understanding and acceptance that God is good, and that we can therefore entrust ourselves to His care. Things don’t always go how we want them to go. Sometimes circumstances in our lives are miserable. However, in our “journey” of faith, if we know the character of God, we understand that “in all things God works for the good of those who love him” (Romans 8:28). Our spiritual “street light” is God himself, because “God is light; in him is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5).



Most of us have been told for decades that the Miller experiments proved how life originated in that primordial soup (you know –Darwin’s favorite food). In the 1950s Stanley Miller, Harold Urey and a team experimented on the elements that “must have” existed in abundance on the early earth, (Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen and Hydrogen, and then later on Hydrogen Sulfide), by zapping them and their compounds with electricity. Of course, lightning had to be involved in the creation of life, as even Frankenstein himself knew, well before Miller came along (!) That’s strange: I always thought electricity and lightning destroyed life…

Miller and the boys produced some amino acids, some of the chemical building blocks of life. While many believed that they actually produced life in a test tube (when it had allegedly taken nature many millions of years), they were in fact no nearer to producing life than you would be to producing a space shuttle if you managed to extract or produce some plastics, ceramics, copper, glass, steel, and so on. Even then, the space shuttle can’t reproduce its own kind.

A few years ago, Jeffrey Bada, a biochemist in California inherited the very vials that Miller had used, and began to conduct more experiments on the residue, enthusing that he had found more amino acids in trace amounts. They in fact found a total of 23 amino acids, ten of which are found in life. Bada and a team continue to work on these experiments, in the hope of finding more clues to the origin of the first life on earth.




It struck me that for decades millions of people have been convinced by school text books and television documentaries (and not any visible evidence) that Miller had virtually given birth, “proving” that we all crawled out of the soup via fish-like, lemur-like and ape-like creatures.


I’ve reviewed Ben Stein’s movie “Expelled” before, and I highly recommend it to anyone who is really seeking some truth. In Expelled, released October 2008, Stein exposes some of the strong arm tactics being employed to shut out of science, education and the media not only anyone who may believe in a Creator, but anyone interested in Intelligent Design (the search for design in nature without putting God into the equation), or even anyone who wants to question the Darwinian explanation of evolution.

I want to draw your attention to one of the most striking parts of the movie. The layman can easily miss the significance of it, and I missed most of it on my first viewing.

Towards the end of the movie, Stein interviews the great Richard Dawkins, and gives us all a fabulous glimpse into the mind of one of the world’s leading evolutionists. Dawkins begins by reading from his book “The God Delusion”, and proceeds to call the Judeo-Christian God (not Allah, of course) all the names you wouldn’t dare call Adolph Hitler or Idi Amin, even now.

Stein asks Prof. Dawkins (for all of us to see and hear) how the process of the origin of life started.

Prof. Dawkins: “Nobody knows how it started…we know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life”.

Stein: “What was that?”

Prof. Dawkins: “It was the… origin of the first self-replicating molecule.”

(Wait a minute, I thought, we have just made a leap from nothing but soup to the first self-replicating molecule).

The conversation continued…

Stein: “Right. And how did that happen?”

Prof. Dawkins: “I’ve told you, we don’t know”

Stein: “So you have no idea how it started?”

Dawkins: “No, no, nor has anybody.”

Prof Dawkins then goes on to suggest that some remote and highly evolved civilization out there in space may have “designed a form of life which they then seeded onto perhaps this planet”.

So here, a man who doggedly resists Creationism and Intelligent Design, and who says that the evidence for evolution is “totally overwhelming”, is offering his speculation (and not evidence) that life on earth may have been “designed” and “seeded”. He is also admitting that apart from this neither he, nor anyone else, knows how life began.

If it had indeed been “proven” that life evolved in the soup, as hundreds of millions of people have been led to believe, then Prof. Dawkins would not be giving such answers: he would be trumpeting the results.

“Expelled” is a must see movie for the seeker. I’m told that a few atheists will give such productions a one-star rating in order to lower the overall rating as much as possible, so don’t be put off: the low cost of the movie is fantastic value, if only to see the interview.



If you haven’t noticed, there’s a huge movement on to completely secularize all of western society and culture. As an example (and many people in Europe, the Islamic world and more, who think that the US is a “Christian nation” still don’t know this), prayer was banned in public U.S. schools in the early 1960s. Have you noticed a great improvement in the well being and quality of young people for it? Efforts continue to outlaw any mention of God in schools, and it’s the Christian God who takes the rap – Islam is the order of the day, and my son is currently being taught about the benefits and history of Islam. Atheists are happy for Islam to come in because it helps to dilute Christian influence in society.

Not content with mocking and degrading the Christian faith in their classes (as most universities and colleges do),Vanderbilt University recently banned the right of a Christian club within the university to choose Christians only as its leaders. Subsequently, a large number of atheists joined the club and then voted that it should be disbanded. At least sixty other universities are considering similar tactics, and Vanderbilt regards itself as the “tip of the spear” in anti-Christian policy making: so much for tolerance and non-discrimination.


Secularists are also going so far as having Christmas trees or any religious displays removed from all public places by suing cities and states. They have crosses removed from military graveyards. They want to deny a soldier’s right to have the chaplain speak to him about Jesus. They legally defend schools which chastise or suspend students for wearing Christian clothing or writing about Jesus instead of the latest movie star.

According to groups such as the ACLU crosses, Christmas trees and the like in public places are “offensive”, and a “violation of the wall of separation of church and state”. Such a phrase was not written into the constitution but in a private letter from Thomas Jefferson to a church:


The so-called “establishment clause” was not an attempt to ban religion from public life, since many of the founders were Christians and theists, but to prevent government from becoming a theocracy (a good idea), and to protect the free practice of religion. Instead atheists are using the establishment clause to attempt to beat Christianity into a little corner, where some of them would like to finish it off completely.

The Establishment Clause, in the First Amendment of the Constitution, states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”.

The “Free Exercise Clause” continues:  “…OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF”.


In schools, colleges, and universities, and in almost all public media, there is a determined and organized effort to force feed us all-particularly our children- with the notion that they are just another form of animal like worms or mice or pigs.


A few billion years ago there was a rock, then rain started to fall on the rock, then, against all odds, a little bit of low-life started wiggling around and eating stuff (where did that come from?) and having babies (with who?) and changing into other animals and well, here we all are, no more valuable than that first low life. By the way, did you know that animals resembling cows, or goats, or hippos, or deer, or wolves evolved into whales? Doesn’t that seem like totally ridiculous nonsense to you? It does to me.






Naturalism is the insistence that all of nature consists of and is solely originated by matter and energy – oh, and chance and coincidence. Science is literally governed now on this principle. All that we are and all that we observe can and must be explained by purely natural processes: Divinity must not come into any part of our consideration or studies. Any scientist attempting bring the supernatural into his equations will be ridiculed and ostracized.

God is also out of a job. In fact God, in contrast to wolves turning into whales, and dinosaurs turning into ducks, is a totally contrived concept. We know that, you see, because we can’t see any little old man sitting up there in the clouds, even with a powerful telescope. He doesn’t jump when we say “hop God”, and after all, we are the supremely intelligent ones, and know everything about the entire universe. Now if only we could cure cancer and heart disease and diabetes and violence and malaria and mental illness and birth defects and… death.

Death, to the adherents of naturalism, is extinction. Your personhood will cease to exist, and your body will turn back into chemicals. Death is a vital component of the evolution of life! Bye-bye everybody!

Love is just a matter of chemicals and energy acting on our bodies. Next time you’re with your wife or girlfriend and she asks if you really love her, tell her that you are experiencing some chemical reactions, and as long as they continue you will stick around.

Not all secularists are atheists, but they’re on the same team. Neither are they necessarily bad people. Some of them believe they have only the best motives for the future of mankind. John Lennon summed up the views of a large section of his and later generations, in his song “Imagine”, still sung and sighed over as if it’s some kind of a hymn or anthem, except that Lennon counseled the removal of religion from our consideration, so that we can end all war and “live as one”. Ahhh!

That’s a nice sentiment, but it’s hard enough to get three people to agree on what to have for dinner, let alone expecting seven billion people to agree on all things and live in love and harmony. Lennon, who sang “All You Need Is Love”, shortly thereafter fell out with McCartney, and what was arguably the most popular, creative, and successful band of the 20th C fell apart. Lennon’s own son felt neglected by his father, saying that the peace and love which John talked and sang about “never came home”:


Such is human nature, and so goes the chances of universal love without God. I’ll agree that universal peace and love is worth working for, but we’ll never get there by ignoring our Creator.

In naturalism, religion is a problem which humanity needs to solve. It’s a mental illness. It limits science. Religion is dangerous. When atheists tell you that, they’re not likely to mention the fact (and neither did Lennon) that at least 130 million people died in the 20th Century as a result of the likes of Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and Mao Tse Tung accepting the philosophies of men like Darwin. They murdered their own people. They killed those that didn’t agree with them and those they didn’t like. They killed the weak and those they considered to be “inferior”. They caused huge wars and national upheavals which resulted in the deaths of many millions more. For an example of the influence of Darwinian evolution behind mass slaughtering of humans, read this:




I’ve related this story before, but it serves well to illustrate my point. It concerns a young man who once told me that Christianity is “just an excuse for morality”. I wondered if he would have been happy for someone to hit him over the head, abuse his girlfriend, and steal his belongings, because morality is about having universally accepted standards of behavior which protect us from those who would hurt us individually or as a society. Animals eat each other, and feel no remorse. Is it then alright for humans to eat each other? Surely if we are just animals it is, particularly if we are hungry and need to survive.

If we are poor and can’t pay all our bills, is it alright to steal? Surely, if we want to be true to evolution and if we want to survive, there is nothing wrong.

Where do we get our sense of right and wrong from? The atheists would have us believe that it has evolved with the human race. Alright, then why is there any crime? Why is there murder and theft? Is it because those who commit such acts are not so highly evolved as the rest of us? What about those nations where bands of people go around blowing other people into eternity – are they less evolved than we are? What happened to millions of years?

Darwin plainly taught that some races of men, particularly black people, were not as evolved as others, and referred to some as “savages”. This belief continued into the 20th century. As an example, you can read about the life of a pygmy man who was put on display (while still alive) in the US as a specimen of human evolution:



Who decides what is right and wrong? Who sets the standards? Who writes our code of ethics? If it’s not God who should decide what is good or bad for us, then we must do it. But when I say “we”, which “we” can I mean, because I find that I have no influence or power over my culture at all?

Is it the majority who should decide? If so, what about the minority? If the minorities should decide, as they often do these days, then what about the majority? It’s human nature to think that everyone should think our way, but what if they don’t? Increasingly, it’s our government which is dictating to us, by law, what we can do and cannot do, when we can do it, and how much we have to pay for it. Our government decides what is right and what is wrong. It has become our supreme power. There is no higher standard to refer to, or to hold the government to, but what they deem is right or wrong and then pass into law.

In order to illustrate the dangers of thinking that nothing guides us or makes us but matter, I’ll employ a little hyperbole here. In Taking our thought one step further, suppose we find ourselves with a government which doesn’t hold to the same code of ethics that we do. Suppose we suddenly have a government and a leader such as Germany had in the 1930s, and that a majority of the population is swept up in its philosophy. Who’s to say that we are right and they are wrong? The politicians, as your supreme power, have the right, in a world which lives and evolves by the survival of the fittest, to impose their views on you, and if you revolt violently, you are setting evolution back. If they send out the troops ans start shooting, are they not just ensuring that the fittest survive?

We may say that our culture is evolving its own set of ethics in which everyone will be treated equally (as they were in Bolshevik Russia for example). But what if some culture on the other side of the world evolves a different set of ethics, and refuses to live by yours? Suppose that one of the large religions of the world decides to move in on your part of the world, and change the way you live and think: is it not just a question of which way of life should dominate, because no-one can claim that their way of life is the “right one’? You may choose peace, but they may choose war and tyranny. Who’s to say that you are right and they are wrong?

Let’s take this to a personal level. If your wife or husband, boyfriend or girlfriend decides to leave and live with someone else, how can you even question what they are doing? They are living by their animal instincts, which tell them that in order to best thrive and prosper they need to live with someone they are more attracted to and who has more money than you. How can you complain? They are merely living out what you believe in – adaptation and the survival of the fittest. Now we are heading into a society where nobody wants to be committed to anyone unless that commitment benefits them: a society where nobody can be trusted, and where love is just a feeling – a chemical reaction which doesn’t last.

Imagine a future government deciding that only people under the age of thirty should be allowed to live. All others are no longer considered “attractive” or sexually desirable, so there is no more use for them. Not only that,  but babies are now produced in a test tube only, since in this way all offspring produced will possess the desirable IQ and good looks. Any not meeting the standards are thrown away. Is this not just humanity aiding the process of human evolution?

If your government were to do such a thing, there is nothing you can do about it, since they are in power and you are not. They are the fittest and you are just a weakling who should bow out-die- and allow the world to evolve.


It makes a lot more sense to me to acknowledge the obvious – that there is a Creator who knows how we can best thrive and how we are most likely to live in peace and love. “For best results, follow the Maker’s instructions”. The commandments in the Bible are not a set of principles designed to spoil our fun, but to protect us from fallen human nature. Doesn’t “Do not murder” sound like a pretty good idea? Likewise, “Do not steal” is a principle we wish everyone would hold to, particularly when it comes to our stuff. “Do not commit adultery” is designed to stop someone from using your wife for his pleasure, not to stop you from enjoying life. “Love your neighbor as yourself”. “Love your enemies”. Forgive one another”. ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with your soul and with all your mind” This is a simple, God given recipe for success.

By rejecting even a mention of God, we already see devastation all around us in broken homes, homeless and damaged children, disease, lonely and rejected people, crime, violence, greed and poverty, and prejudice. Our sense of community has gone. Our love and commitment has gone, our sense of meaning and purpose has gone, our prosperity has gone, and now it’s every man (and woman) for himself.

The God of the Bible has laid out His standards and recommendations for us. Acknowledging Him, and living by those standards can bring peace and love and commitment, and there is no other way.