A few days ago I give my wallet with five pounds in it to someone and ask them to hold it for a minute while I do up my shoelaces. When they returned it to me my money were gone, so I reasonably deduced that they have stolen my money – right? Well, not necessarily ... they gave me a good scientific explanation why the money is not in the wallet: "The reason why the money is not to be found results from the evolution of matter, which had the effect of annihilating the money when the supernova MN789ABC123XYZ in the constellation of Pegasus exploded, just as I was doing up my shoelaces... This happened because the colour ratio of the emitted light matched the colour ratio of my five pounds and the length of my shoelaces." While for some liberal journalists this story could be quite useful material for a front page titled "Annihilated Money – Universal Socialism and Communism", for a rational and decent person this is gibberish. Although I did not see the person stealing my money I can be certain of it based on the fact:

Things are always simple when they are understood and looked at face value.

Unfortunately in recent years science in certain areas has been replaced by pseudo science, and bunch of excessively harmful pseudo-scientists are misleading the public. A good scientist is a person who knows and profoundly understands his subject; conclusions about things that are not fully understood are withheld until the matter is completely clear. Then he may publish his proven theory which covers everything on the subject and is free of assumptions. There is nothing that is missing or uncovered because a minor detail could turn out to be the tip of an iceberg which disproves the whole theory. The scientist may use assumptions to help examine a subject; however his proven theory is free of any assumption.

In contrast, the pseudo-scientists create stories based on assumptions and present them as "theory likely to be true". With time after being repeated countless times the "likely" bit is omitted and a hypothesis begins to be referred to at first as a "theory" and later as a "proven theory" although it is based entirely on assumptions. A familiar trait of a pseudo-scientist is the use of Greco/Latin words in order to convey erudition, trust, value ... and intimidate the listener. One example: a pseudo-scientist would tear off part of a cell and then inject it into another one replacing the latter's original content without knowing or understanding the intricacy of the systems which they are abusing. The precision of this "scientific" work is similar to that exhibited in butchery. The pseudo-scientists repeat this "scientific" work thousands of times until something unusual emerges. Then they declare a "scientific" discovery which is then actively promulgated in the media. How does this differ from alchemy? Another example of such "science" in progress is forcing animals of different kinds to interbreed, e.g. zebra, donkey, horse, etc. This outrageous adulteration might result in a hybrid such as a mule, the males of which are sterile while some females are fertile; Wolf-Dog the hybrids of which are fully viable and fertile (you are advised to think twice before taking one of them for a pet). As in the previous example most of these "scientific" attempts fail but sometimes a fertile and unfortunate hybrid is born. How scientific is this (rape of animals)?

The more absurd a speculation which they proclaim is the higher the rank and "glory" that it receives from the pseudo-scientists and the symbiotically related mass-media. The common person finds him/her self in a situation, where they are bombarded with empty Greco/Latin phrases and where they are embarrassed to question their true content lest they be seen as stupid and unable to see the new clothes which the Emperor is wearing. It is also usual for the common person to go along with the crowd – be it illusory or real – created or directed by the media according to the case.

The new costume of the king

Truth is always simple and clear. The above basic fact about DNA suffices to reject the hypothesis (also known as theory) of evolution as impossible. In actual fact there is a mountain of facts and questions showing this, for example:

1. There is no animal or plant existing today known to science that is in a transitional state. By definition evolution is a continues process, which once started continues forever due to the ongoing competition between individuals (e.g. competing males), between species, change of environment, mutation etc. Therefore the animals and plants we encounter should occasionally at least be in transitional states. We would expect to observe e.g. giraffe with ears of giraffe, giraffe with ears of a donkey, giraffe with ears of a cat, giraffe with ears that no one has ever seen, etc., each of which would be a completely new species in future – if not observed for all species and for all their body parts we should observe it in some significant number – we observe none. We should observe animals and plants to readily cross bread but we only see that when the pseudo-scientists force them.
2. There is not a single animal or plant in the fossil record which is in a transitional state – not a single transitional form has been found while millions of fossils have been discovered by armies of palaeontologists. If evolution were true then we would expect to discover abundant chains of gradually changing fossils proving it. All fossils found are of species – not of transitional forms.
3. If a living cell appeared by chance 4 billion years or so ago by virtue of natural forces, than the "scientists" should demonstrate the process of transforming dead into living matter using the same natural forces that they explain produced the first living cell – the fact is that they cannot although they have laboratories with every conceivable apparatus, material needed, and despite their "knowledge", none of which were available at the time when the supposed evolution began.
4. There are no scientifically consistent dating methods – while in general the law governing a dating method may be correct, it is not usable as the initial conditions are not known – and they are not known simply because they were in the past and we don't know them. For example let the present ratio between carbons isotopes in a piece of wood be 1. We know the law of change, e.g. that each year it decreases by 1 (for simplicity). If we know how old is the wood we can determine what the original ratio was; or if we know the original ratio, we can determine how old the wood is: but we don't know the original ratio since it was in the past – hence the method is inapplicable. The pseudo-scientists usually assume some original ratio making any proposed age a pure guess.

If you make a little research with the mindset of finding the truth on the matter you could make this list to greatly expand.

I am a pure Caucasian man and I love flowers? How in evolutionary terms could be explained that a gentleman loves flowers? Or that a lady loves flowers? Or why do you love your pet? These are totally unrelated and unnecessary for a Darwinian survival and as such they should not be present at all according to the hypothesis (also known as theory) of evolution. Why a gentleman would refuse to act sexually on a woman that he is not married for – this is absolutely anti Darwinian – does the hypothesis of evolution suggest that a decent man is an evolutionary error, while clearly they are the highest order of man?! This clearly is contradiction even when looking at the "natural" pseudo-philosophical terms of the "theory". Does the hypothesis of evolution suggests that any moral norm is an evolutionary error?! It obviously does! Do we need to wonder then about the reasons for the decline of our society?! Did you ever wonder why evolution did not give eyes on the backs of animals so they are safer? The answer is: Because these and thousands other intricate systems and subsystems of living creatures are not a product of evolving beasts but of intelligence that designed life the way it is.

The videos below are interesting clips from an Exploration Films production.

One is not expected to know everything about the cell to comprehend that it was created by a Creator; only one basic fact about it is sufficient for that, namely the fact that: "The DNA molecule is a self replicating instruction set." The Creator says in Psalm 14:1. 'The fool hath said in his heart, "There is no God."' – What do you think - does He know what He is talking about? Charlie Lyell and Charlie Darwin thought that they will be the "geniuses" to prove that there is no Creator ... how pathetic.

Miroslav B. Bonchev
28-th May 2007
England