THEORY OF EVOLUTION CHALLENGED

Evolutionists use the following to substantiate the theory: Embryos look the same, Protein is the building block of life, evolution of light moths replaced by darker moths, different Fossils over time, Natural Selection e.g. Finches change based on food source.  The purpose of the document is to briefly identify any flaws and see if the alternative is indicative of the Creator.  It is not intended to be an exhaustive explanation on each (books have been written) but to provide enough details for those who are interested to further research.  

1) Embryo –

They look the same therefore they have a similar beginning. 

Response – The embryo may look similar but it isn’t the same just like a tomato seed isn’t the same as an apple seed. They are very different and the intent is very different. A gear for a bicycle and transmission of a car look the same but they have very different uses. In these two examples, they have common material, look similar, but the design, the use and the output is very different.  Text-books show vertebrate embryos as similar, it is a known fact that these drawings were fabricated with the intent to show the Evolution position (e.g. Haeckel and others). 

 

2) Progression of apes –

“drawings” portray the evolution from the ape and are used as a fact.

Response – Why can’t fossil experts agree on who our supposed ancestors were or how they looked? Some have said they all agree.  This is not true, all evolutionists agree but not all experts nor all scientists.  Some would argue that there are more than 10 intact skeletons of the missing links between ape and man.  Have you actually seen them, are they legit? Look at the number of forgeries/hoaxes over the years.  It is good media and good propaganda, but they aren’t true. A good example of food fabrication and propaganda was the “Piltdown man”… how many years did people believe this to be true until it was discovered to be false, fabricated? Also many of the skeletons look like deformities and/or a different ape.  It is neither good science nor factual nor a logical theory. The fact is there is no starting point proof, no progression proof (half human and half apes today) and no fossils proof.  If they found a man who was deformed today and found his body in a million years would they say he was evolving or that he was deformed?

 

3) Protein is the building blocks of life. 

Response – Scientists have taken the right protein, right amino acids and the perfect environment, plus manipulating the proteins and couldn’t create one spark of life, not even the simplest bacteria.  Could it be they have the wrong starting point? Not understanding that life transcends beyond energy.  If energy was life then all we need to do is give a new heart and brain to a person who just died of a heart attack and they would live. Some may argue, scientists at Cambridge created a sea slug from basic building materials. When they say basic they mean mutating the life that already exists.  This is not proof.  They need to use non-living materials to make a living entity.

 

4) Evolution of light colored moths to dark moths.

Response – Most of the pictures in the textbooks of peppered moths were also fabricated to prove their position, this is not fact.  The first pictures were of live moths and then the other pictures were of dead moths which they didn’t tell you about. We all know that moths decompose when they are dead.  Evolution should be talking about the progression of life (one life to the next) not disguising it into the stages of decomposing.

Later they had an experiment trying to prove natural selection of other moths – they favored dark moths due to birds seeing lighter colored moths on the tree trunks and eating them. Sending out large numbers of moths on a few tree trunks, taught birds to come to find food and the birds ate the light colored.

A helpful link - https://religiopoliticaltalk.blogspot.ca/2007/02/hope-your-week-is-well-professor.html

 

5) The fossil – prove evolution.

Response – They prove that there are different types of species throughout history, not evolving from one to the other. 3.55 billion years ago apparently the oldest fossils is the bacteria, but this is identical to modern bacteria. Zero change! The fossil record shows that all life started in the Cambrian age, explosion of life forms, not evolving.  Species evolve within specie but never progress to another type of specie – this is called adaption to one’s environment.  Yes many species have died out, like most dinosaurs and many new ones – where did they come from? Below if the Biblical perspective (if not interested skip):

God created life forms in the beginning (many years ago).  Rebellion broke out with the one He put in charge over the earth (Lucifer) (Ezek. 28:12-16; Is. 14:4-11), then God destroyed the earth that existed (Is. 14:12-15; Ezek. 28:15-19). The earth was a ball of ice (Gen. 1:2; Job 9:5-8).  He then re-constructed, created and re-plenished the earth and living entities on the earth (Genesis 1:3-28; Exo. 20:11; 31:17; Job 9:9 – 6000years ago).  He gave the responsibility to mankind to govern over the earth.  Because of the new earth environment, God created new living beings and He gave life to some of those who were there before (He called them forth from the environment). Prove it? The only way to prove it is look at the different species before the Ice Age and after. Another way is to look at the credibility of the Bible as God’s Word and by default – if everything else is true then this must be true.

Let’s first deal with some so called “questionable events” like Creation, Noah and the flood and the Plagues in Egypt – they are backed up in other external sources besides the Bible? The Creation account is also recorded in the Ebla Tablet (dating back to ~2,000BC), and specifically attributing creation to one great being “Lugal” literally meaning “the Great One.” The flood that covered the entire earth (~2,350BC) is also mentioned as a “great flood that destroyed the world” in the “Sumerian Kings” (dating back to 2,000-2,250BC). The plagues God poured out on the Egyptians when He came against their gods are also recorded in the Egyptian Hieroglyphics “Ipuwer Papyrus” (dating back to ~1,450BC).

Throughout history, Archaeologists continually use the Bible as a source to validate cities, towns, regions and authorities. These historical facts are undisputed e.g Roman emperors: Caesar Augustus, Tiberius, and Claudius. Roman governors: Pontius Pilate, Serguis Paulus, Gallio, Felix and Festus. Local rulers: Herod the Great, Archelaus, Herod Antipas, Philip, Herod Agrippa I, Herod Agrippa II, Lysanias and Aretas IV. High priests: Annas, Joseph Caiaphas and Ananias. Prominent women: Herodias, Salome, Bernice and Drusilla. And just recently archaeologists discovered the supposed bones of the chief prosecutor at that trial of Jesus, the high priest Joseph Caiaphas, inside an ossuary (a stone chest used to store bones from burial sites). 

Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian of the 1st Century, also wrote about Jesus and His impact (Antiquities 18:63-64), "At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified, and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah (the Christ), concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.”

Science confirms today what the Bible has said for 1000’s of years e.g. Many people in the ancient world, famous Greek philosophers, and religions believed that the earth was flat, never-ending, and some in the East believed it sat on a giant or an animal, but Isaiah (in the Bible Isaiah 40:22) spoke of the earth being a sphere in ~700BC, also Job 1,200 years earlier said that the earth hung upon nothing/space (Job 26:7 ~1900BC) and Jesus in ~30AD implied that the earth revolved so that at the same time there is day and night (Luke 17:34–36). Pretty amazing that science could only prove this 1000s of years later.  God’s Word tells us that the earth was split apart after the flood ~2,300BC (1 Chr. 1:19). God told us what were good meats to eat (Deut. 14 ~1,400BC) - Good meats to eat are sheep, cattle, goats, chickens and bad meats are pork, shell fish, cats, dogs, snakes etc. Science recently released that these bad meats are filled with toxins and harmful to us. God’s Word has said from the beginning that the physical world is made up of the invisible (Gen. 1:1-26 written ~1,450BC, and Heb. 11:3 in ~60AD), only in the 20th Century have scientists proven that the world is made up of the invisible – variation of energy. Thus nothing is solid and everything is just a variation of energy. Bible had been saying this 1000’s of years earlier.

As mathematicians, when they work out the probability that Jesus is who He said He is based on the fulfillment of ancient prophecy (1,400 to 400 years “before” He was born in flesh).  There is more than 1x10^18 probability that He is the Messiah – the one everyone needs to listen to, the one who paid the price so that we can have an intimate relationship with God, the one who has saved us from the wrath to come and who conquered death.  I bank my entire life on these kinds of odds and so should you. If you don’t believe then it wouldn’t hurt going on your knees with an honest heart and ask, “Jesus if you are alive, please reveal yourself to me.”  He will, sometimes instantly and sometimes soon after.  Jesus ministered for only 3 years, and no one has had an impact like He had.  

Evolutionists will argue that things changed over millions/billions/trillions of years.  Time is their faith statement because they can’t prove it.  This reveals that it is a religion imposed by some scientists.  As if “time” proves it, they use time as an excuse not to prove it. 

Some say you can’t disprove it?  Surely logic does.  It is like going to a zoo and seeing an ice-cream stand next to an elephant enclosure. And then deducing the reason those elephants are there is because they like ice-cream.  My theory “Elephants are attracted to ice-cream therefore they are at the zoo.”  So I go out to prove my theory - I set up an ice-cream stand in a remote place and wait – no elephants. Ok so - I take my ice-cream stand where elephants are to see how they interact, they still don’t come or show interest.  Someone says, “Your theory is flawed.”  I respond, “No, are there not ice-cream stands at most zoos? This requires a certain type of environment and certain type of sweet eating elephant.  At one point the foods used to be sweet but now the environment has changed therefore my theory is still good, you can’t disprove it!” 

 

6) Natural Selection evolves life through random errors to a better state.

Response - Where did new functional organs come from? If natural selection was correct, why don’t we see many evolving organs or apes turning into people? People could probably benefit from sonar like the bats.

Whatever the alleged precursor to the ape, it looked nothing like an ape.  How did something that looked nothing like an ape evolve into an ape? The hominid species that are studied try show similarities and in turn try using this to prove they are the same.  Why is no one looking for the genetic relative of apes?

 

Evolutionists often use evidence of the loss of some organ, such as the loss of sight of certain fish who were trapped in dark caves, to convince people that evolution has developed us and all other living things from a bacterium.

Response - Why do evolutionists use downhill examples in attempting to prove uphill evolution? Because downhill and horizontal examples are within species but not into a new better specie E.g. because the fish can’t see, it turns into a bat or that same fish is given florescent eyes like those fish who actually live in deep waters?

 

Finches beaks evolving due to the food supply

Response – Again using the downhill or horizontal examples within specie because there is no evidence of uphill evolution. We can all agree that if the available food changes, finches whose beaks won’t handle the new food may die off, leaving alive the birds whose beaks can handle it. This is horizontal evolution – actually adaption. It does not show that finches evolved from dinosaurs or that they became eagles. They just remained finches and their beaks changed back when the food changed. Similarly if we spend many hours in a swimming pool our skin will adapt, we won’t turn into a fish.  Also within a specie things grow, this is called growth.

Some may say the progression of a human brain from small to big shows progression.  Firstly there is no proof that bigger brains are actually smarter than smaller brains.  Also many scientists question this in evolution, they argue that brains are now getting smaller, not bigger.  There is no conclusive proof, unless you call “missing link” (specie of ape) proof of a smaller brain.

Sheep born with shorter legs vs. better legs.  Evolutionists again show downhill and horizontal changes rather than vertical – why? Deformation and destructive vs. natural selection to a better or vertical order.

 

Mutant Fruit Flies –

Response - why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence that DNA mutation can supply raw material for evolution. But these lab fabricated extra pair of wings and these wings are useless – it is like having an extra ear that is not connected to the brain, what’s the point – it is called deformity. Actually if they were outside the lab they would die.  This mutation actually disproves natural selection – not a better state but a worse state.

Natural selection always provides a “specified state” (doesn’t tell us how the state arrived at this), then fabricates parameters (generally not how nature does it) and then assumes an outcome (but can’t prove it). The proof given is horizontal adaption or deformation not evolution to a new specie. Adaption is a specie changing within the environment e.g. Cold climates - Growing longer hair, thicker darker skin, absorbing more fat.  

Natural selection is based on millions of trial and error to get to the better solution. But in the above example of the house – it is only in a better solution when it is completed. Until then it is useless and is not a better solution but a worse solution because it is taking up resources. Therefore the end result wouldn’t exist. If I took all the units of a wristwatch and dismantled it and put it in my pocket; then start swinging it around in different environments for billions of years will it turn into a wristwatch – chances of this happening is zero.  But what is even more impossible is if those same pieces develop into a grandfather clock, units changing to a better outcome.

The statement “it happened over millions of years” is a copout, as if this is some kind of proof that it happened. When people say this it means they don’t need to prove it and that the millions of years does.

If we look at the simpliest known organism “mycoplasma” what is its next evolution state, and more importantly what was its precursor which is/was alive?  The concept of Chemical evolution – moving from the goo to the zoo, or from a number of amino acids (formed by energy: lightning?) mingle in the water (primordial soup), one day formed a protein and this protein started to do something that would be described as life, cannot be proven nor is it scientifically justified. Again the millions of years statement is somehow supposed to prove this – sounds like a fairy tale.

If you hadn’t seen anyone paint a painting before and I gave you a painting, would you automatically conclude it wasn’t painted but evolved? You can argue that the colours changed, the textures evolved, that the environment has the colours in it but you wouldn’t be able to give the reason for the painting and who painted it.  This is the real question to be asked because then you will understand the colours, the texture and the lines. 

 

B.   28 Questions to ask Evolutionists or Teachers

1.     If you are right regarding evolution and the whole world believed this, what would be the impact?  Could it be moral chaos, people choosing what is good based on how they feel at the moment, their upbringing? Wouldn’t life be all about obtaining happiness now, self-gratification, destroying the weak (those that bring us down) so we can be happy? There would be no value for life – why would there be?  No disease and no plague has killed more people than abortions – who is the author of this?

 

2.      Does Evolution prove there is NO God? How?

 

3.      If you are wrong and God is the Creator would you want to know? People don’t prove or reveal God, He proves Himself through people and His creation.  Have you ever asked Jesus with an honest heart to reveal Himself to you? This is proof. Everyone who calls upon His name with an honest heart will experience Him.  It may not be instant but He will reveal Himself.  God can’t reveal Himself physically because then you would die – so He shows Himself in ways that you will know.  Are you ready? When He does you will change? 

 

4.      Is it a Theory or a Fact, if a theory why is it taught as a fact? If a fact – replicate the vertical evolution.

 

5.      If we were truly unbiased why not explore the option of an Intelligent Designer behind creation and look at the evidence for this? If not, could it be that Evolution is actually religion imposed to negate God and not true science? 

 

“Woe to those who seek deep to hide their counsel far from the LORD, And their works are in the dark; They say, "Who sees us?" and, "Who knows us?" Surely you have things turned around! Shall the potter be esteemed as the clay; for shall the thing made say of him who made it, "He did not make me"? Or shall the thing formed say of him who formed it, "He has no understanding"? (Isa 29:15-16)

 

6.      Why don’t we talk about the Cambrian explosion period where a science theory says “all life happened at once” and not through the progression from a cell?  How accurate can dating in this period really be – who says what is first and why, is it based on a biased view? Or how can a bunch of atoms in a beaker be turned into a rabbit within a few moments? We can never reach a level of technology to do this, which is why God is the creator not humans.

 

7.      Why does ancestral tracing through Chromosomes (XY (male) & XX (female)) point back to one man and one woman, not to a male or female ape? If you say that specie died out, so did our ancestors.  

 

8.      If we are similar to apes why can’t humans mate with an ape and a half human/half ape is born - Could it be they were never compatible in the first place?

 

9.      What is the purpose of an ape and a human? Some have said that the difference between a man and an ape is 97% - Isn’t that like comparing a car with an airplane – it is 99.999% the same (metal, seats, lights, information system) etc. but they are not the same, even the purpose is different.  

 

10.  Doesn’t most of DNA genetic memory (instinct living organism is born with) negate a common starting point of life?  e.g. a new born ape running from a tiger, but also running to its mother. A human doesn’t run from anything when they are born. Every specie has a unique DNA genetic memory, how can they have the same starting point? The same Creator yes.  

 

11.  Are there a few examples today where Species turn into completely different specie – like half human and half ape today? Surely there should be some? Half fish, half bird.

 

12.  Based on natural selection - Are we saying that humans are the pinnacle of natural selection order and apes are human wanna-bes? Or if we take a human and put him in the jungle will he turn into an ape?

 

13.  One of the main components in a cell is the Bacteria flagellum why don’t we discuss how the components were individually compiled first and after compiled they were assembled.  After it was assembled it became useful however prior to this it wasn’t useful – isn’t this proving a Creator and negating natural selection? Why don’t we review “Darwin’s black box” by Michael Behe, a biochemist and professor, who spent most of his life doing research on this?  http://www.goodreads.com/ebooks/download/49038.Darwin_s_Black_Box

 

14.  Could DNA have been put together by a programmer, God? Couldn’t DNA coding be like an advanced computer program that sustains life – doesn’t give life?  If DNA was like a program then life would be like the electricity that gives life to the program. What would happen if DNA was scrambled would it sustain life? DNA is God’s coding for the physical to operate, grow, sustain and die.

 

15.  Why are population growth models that extend beyond 6000 years riddled with assumptions that can’t be backed up by history or events?

 

16.  Have you ever done the exercise of projecting population growth from a starting point of 6000 years ago, with 2 people, what would the rate of growth need to be to get to 7billion people today and is that feasible, if so why not include it in the discussion?

 

17.  Why don’t we talk about the flaws in dating methods? E.g. apparently the half life of Carbon is 5,700 years and reliable for dating up to 60,000 years. This cannot be measured in full, only a fraction of it. At best 0.1% of the time frame, it is then extrapolated. It ignores environment of factors.  It could be 99% wrong so why use this as fact? The accuracy of other dating methods are even more questionable.  Fyi Many Christians do believe the earth is older than 6000 years old based on scripture (Gen. 1:2; Ezek. 28:12-19; Is. 14:4-15; Ezek. 28:15-19; Job 9:5-8) however believe that mankind & the animals we have today started 6000years ago (Gen. 1:25-28). 

 

18.  Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

 

19.  When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?

 

20.  When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

 

21.  With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

 

22.  Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival?

 

23.  Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain the origin of reproduction?

 

24.  Why don’t we talk about energy and more specifically talk about the difference between life and energy?  Life is like the driver of a car.  The car will be stationary until life enters it or gives it direction.  If life wasn’t there, would energy have meaning?

 

25.  Show me an atom or molecule that produces life or love? It sustains it but doesn’t create life or love, so where does it come from?

 

26.  Why is it that you can’t give a living heart and brain to a person who died of a heart attack and they live? Life isn’t in the members but the members sustain the life.

 

27.  Why do we use the big bang to talk about the start of life when we know - banging 2 rocks together for eternity will never give one spark of life and that life isn’t energy but life expresses itself through energy? 

 

28.  How do Near Death Experiences (NDE) and Out of Body Experiences (OBE) fit into Evolution – aren’t these scientific facts too?  Chemical stimulus was believed to provide hallucinations not anymore, why? Because these folks had clear, precise descriptions of things that actually existed and they never knew about it before.  Review scientific studies:

https://www.nakedlife.org/uploads/audio/Dr_Rawlings.mp3

 

C.   Just a thought

Science is an unbiased position of looking at the facts while considering the foundation of those called facts. Many base their facts of life on assumptions, then call them facts, e.g. the "Theory" of Evolution. As there is no absolute proof yet many call it fact and teach this to our children. As scientists, we are to argue various positions and then ask ourselves which position is stronger. I would love to see the same people starting with the base that an "Intelligent Personal God" exists and then looking for scientific proof. There is science that proves to an Intelligent Designer/Creator (God): bacterial flagellum motor in the cell; Cambrian age revealing the explosion of life; DNA is specific programming; XX & XY chromosomes prove life started with one man and one women; transcendental consciousness during NDEs and OBEs (out of body experiences) proving that life isn't physical. Where did matter come from? I look at the atom and I understand that nothing is physical, meaning, all so-called physical entities comprise of atoms or molecules held together by energy.  If I zoom in, I see that any atom itself comprises of a nucleus, which comprises of protons, which comprises of quarks, which comprises of pre-ions and so on. Thus nothing is truly physical, all just a variation of energy. I know that energy itself doesn't have the ability to reason, the ability to have faith, hope, love or give itself meaning. So what is energy for besides to make things appear physical? To express life, express love! I can bang two rocks together for eternity and not one spark of life will ever come from it. But the life in me will ask the question why am I banging the rocks! So where does life (love, faith, hope, meaning) come from if it isn't energy? From the author of Life - God. Why doesn't He show Himself? He has, why aren't we looking?

 

 

D.  Potential root for Rejection

If God wants us to love why did He create suffering? Would you know what love and joy is without suffering? Can there be compassion without suffering? Happiness without Sadness? Good without Evil? Could you really have the correct choices without the consequences to navigate you? Again proving the law of absolute truth is vital for human survival. How would you navigate what is right without suffering? Being told not to? If I jump off a building and didn’t hurt myself, I would do it again even if people told me I shouldn’t. But if there was pain, well, then that would be another story.

All suffering is a by-product of our rebellion against God and His creation, and yes many times the innocent suffer. Like abortions – millions of children are killed because we think we know best, no disaster or disease in history has killed more than this and yet we think we are righteous? Much of the world’s suffering comes from the people who believe themselves to be God, thus making the wrong choices and negating life.

Love is the foundation, and God created us to love. To love who, what? 1) To love the Creator (God) above our self, 2) to love our self and 3) to love others like our self – this is man’s all. Why do you think people have a deep satisfaction in helping others because this is what they have been designed to do by the Creator. But it is impossible to love self and others if God isn’t our first love. Without God being the primary source of our love we place ourselves above others, i.e. going against God’s design. This results in our lack of value for life. Our value shifts to our self, specifically our conveniences and what we decide is right. Success is measured in having money and lots of it, and many follow those who have money as if they have the answers to life. Accountability to self alone results in acting like the Nazi’s, the abortion clinics and many other examples of people placing more importance on their convenience, their lifestyle, than life. This rebellion against the Creator and His design results in bad fruit, superficial love. Therefore only when we love God, then we value life and put the value in its true order – God, self and others like self.

 

E.   A Story

A man went to a barber shop to have his hair cut as usual. He started to have a good conversation with the barber who was cutting his hair. They talked about many things and various subjects. Suddenly, they touched the subject of God. 

The barber said, "Look man, I don't believe that God exists!" "Why do you say that?" asked the man. "Well, it's so easy, you just have to go out in the street to realize that God does not exist. Tell me, if God existed, would there be so many sick people? Would there be abandoned children? If God existed, there would be no suffering nor pain? I can't think of loving a God who would permit all of these things." 

The man thought for the moment, but he didn't want to respond so as to cause an argument. The barber finished his job and the man went out of the shop. Just after he left the barber shop he saw a man in the street with long hair and beard. It seemed that it had been a long time since he had his hair cut and he looked so untidy. Then the first man again entered the barber shop and he said to the barber: "You know what? Barbers do not exist!"

"How can you say they don't exist?" asked the barber. I am here and I am a barber." "No!" the man exclaimed. "You don't exist because if you did there would be no people with long hair and beards like that man who walks the streets."

"But, I do exist, and that is what happens when people do not come to me." "Exactly!" - affirmed the man. "That's the point. God does exist, and see what happens when so many people don't go to Him and do not look for Him? That's why there is so much pain and suffering in the world." 

 

Scientific DVD Resources:

• Beyond the Grave - https://cbn.com/premiums/lifebeyondthegrave/
• Icons of Evolution https://discovery.org/a/2125
• Where does the Evidence Lead? https://wheredoestheevidencelead.com/
• Unlocking the Mystery of Life https://amazon.com/Unlocking-Mystery-Life-Michael-Behe/dp/B00007KLDW
• Expelled by Ben Stein – Richard Dawkins https://amazon.ca/Expelled-Intelligence-Allowed-Ben-Stein/dp/B001BYLFFS
• GOD of Wonders http://godofwondersvideo.org/

 

fyi a thought - What would Darwin’s reaction be? In EVOLUTION AND GOD: are we teaching our children right? Arnold Jago writes:

“Many supporters of Darwin’s theory of evolution use it as a means to promote the idea that there is no God.  Interestingly, in his most famous book, “Origin of Species” (1859), Charles Darwin himself referred to the Creator as the one who “originally breathed life with its several powers into a few forms or into one”. As he got older he became more or less agnostic, it seems, although there is some debate about that. Towards the end of his life he wrote to a friend (1870), “I cannot look at the universe as a result of blind chance . . . .” He went on to say, however, “Yet I can see no evidence of beneficent design, or indeed design of any kind, in the details.” He also said in the same letter, “My theology is a simple muddle.”

In his Autobiography (1887) Darwin wrote, “Nor should we overlook the probability of the constant inculcation in a belief in God on the brains not yet developed, that it would be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God , as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake.” Darwin probably never imagined a future when schools which inculcate in children a belief in an atheistic brand of evolution such that later they cannot easily question its truth. That is where we are today, I think, at least in government schools.”