THE DEVOLUTION OF EVOLUTION
Dr. Terry Jackson
Originally featured in the February
1997 issue of The Angelus magazine.
In 1947, Bishop
O’Gara was imprisoned by the Chinese Communists and wrote from his
prison cell regarding the Marxist indoctrination of his flock. A
number of them were “hopeless” to the new regime and were
executed. Those considered “salvageable” had to attend a week-long
class as the new “People’s Republic” was born. His letter
described the retraining classes. He does not refer to Marxist
philosophy, redistribution of wealth, or even basic socialist
principles, but rather Darwinian evolution. This was what was
considered the first vital step towards a cooperative communist
populace. Eliminate God the Creator, eliminate original sin,
replace God with the State.
utilized Darwin’s observations of natural selection1
(which are valid observations) to advance a concept that all life,
humans included, is pure chance resulting from environmental
pressures existing for untold millions of years slowly molding
them into their current status. The beginnings of life resulted
from chance occurrences with random molecules. From a primordial
ooze came the first living cell which became a two-celled organism
and, billions of years later, became a human being, an organism of
100 trillion cells. The Chinese relied upon Charles Darwin’s
theory of evolution to undermine the religious foundation of
millions of faithful. Those too strong to crack were eliminated.2
In our education
system, evolution is firmly established. This training begins at
age three and is continually reinforced throughout life. Though a
much less physically violent elimination process occurs in the
U.S., anyone holding to creationism and its Scriptural foundations
or to religious beliefs regarding a Creator are mocked and
ridiculed. The Genesis account of Noe and the Flood is the favored
Evolution as a doctrine carries
immense importance to the enemies of Christianity:
Christianity has fought, still
fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over
evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the
very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary.
Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you
will find the sorry remains of the son of God. Take away the
meaning of His death. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for
our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is
Darwin hoped to make evolution a
new religion. It was embraced by Karl Marx1, is taught
in our public schools as the state religion5 and is
publicly accepted by Pope John Paul II.
Yet, the theory of evolution has no
scientific basis.6, 7 It derives solely from Darwin’s
observations of natural selection as well as countless imaginary
drawings. No genuine evidence exists to support it,8, 9
despite the fact that fraudulent and manipulated drawings and
specimens are frequently utilized.
It is important to define two
subsets of the term evolution: micro evolution and
evolution. Micro evolution refers to the study of minor variations
that occur in populations over time as observed in, for instance,
the coloration of the peppered moth, beaks of Galapagos finches
(Darwin’s observation), and selective animal and plant breeding.
Macro evolution is the study of the origin of major innovations.
These are new organs, structures (e.g., fish scales evolving into
feathers), or body plans. Darwin’s natural selection acting on
random variation is a valid concept accounting for micro evolution
(e.g., drought-resistant wheat, hip dysplasia in dogs, a
shorter race of men resulting from the taller men being lost to
the gene pool because of war deaths).
But Darwin’s natural selection
acting on random variation is invalid when applied to macro
evolution10 and macro evolution is basically what the controversy
is all about. The theory of macro evolution is supported by
omissions, fraud, and deceit to be made plausible.
The theory of evolution requires a
number of assumptions:
Life arose spontaneously as a
This cell produced two cells, each identical to the first cell
and each capable of growing and producing two more cells. This
production process continues for millions of years and the new
cells constantly improve in capability and complexity. A
spontaneous mistake in this replication process, however, produces
a super cell which then produces more super cells. Over time, a
two-celled organism is produced.
Eons of time are required.
Generally constant conditions (e.g., temperature, pressure,
sunlight, magnetic field, humidity) with only slight changes.
Life forms are gradually molded into different types of
organisms (e.g., birds, cactus, ants, polar bears, bacteria,
No evidence is available in the
fossil record to support any of these assumptions,6, 7, 9 not even
for two-celled organisms. Explaining the immense variety in nature
is difficult for the evolutionists. The lungfish provides for an
interesting example of this.
This organism was discovered in a
small pond in the middle of an African desert made just 30 hours
before in a flooding rainstorm, the first in 28 months. Dozens of
vibrant healthy lungfish were in the same pond. It has been found
that the lungfish is capable of surviving long periods of drought,
up to four years in a carefully constructed underground burrow
which it inhabits when water begins to dry up. It enters a dormant
state and waits for the next rainstorm. Evolutionary biologists
claim the organism to be “unchanged for 60 million years.” Let’s
go back 60 million years and imagine how the lungfish might have
The fossil record shows this
organism appearing suddenly. No transitional forms are available
to support adequately the theory of its evolution. But admitting
there might be transitional life forms yet unfound, how would the
lungfish arrive according to the theory of evolution? —A
non-lungfish interacting with environmental change turns into a
lungfish capable of surviving four years of extreme temperatures
(in excess of 130°F) and no moisture. As the weather gradually
changes so must the “lungfish in training” —generation after
generation, no mistakes, learning to burrow into the mud to a
depth neither too shallow, or be baked, nor too deep, or be
trapped. It must secrete an exact amount of slime to harden into
its protective covering and lower its heart rate to one beat every
10-20 minutes. During this evolutionary training period of, let’s
say, 30 million years, the weather must change gradually.... What
would happen if after 15 million years the lungfish trainee has
only learned to burrow up to its pectoral fins? If it doesn’t rain
sufficiently, the animal’s tail will get quite a suntan!
The mechanism for lungfish survival
is a tricky problem for evolutionary biologists. Thousands of
unanswered problems like the lungfish exist for the evolutionist.
A new theory, however, “punctuated
equilibrium,” has been proposed to help evolutionary biologists
through these difficult problems. Punctuated equilibrium proposes
sudden leaps in animal forms. For example, chickens lay eggs
hatching into chickards (e.g., half-chicken, half-lizard).
A current eighth-grade science book
attempts to provide proof for the punctuated equilibrium theory.
It cites examples of a certain snail shell which undergoes
dramatic changes in its shell opening and spiral. The student is
taught that this accelerated evolutionary change took only a few
hundred thousand years, a drop in the bucket for the evolutionist.
The identical changes have been observed in 3½ months in a
classroom aquarium caused by a buildup of calcium carbonate in the
Evolution of species from a common
ancestor produces more problems for the evolutionists. Their
creative imaginations and artistic imagery, however, reveal that
nothing is impossible. Even the mathematically impossible becomes
their reality! Other fields of science follow the same pattern.
Geologists date fossils at billions of years. Astronomers discover
new galaxies which they say demonstrate “eons” of time. They
describe the solar system all starting with a swirling cloud of
gas. Microbiologists, biochemists, and biophysicists describe the
evolutionary significance of DNA similarities, reverse
transcriptase amino acid sequencing, and histone densities in
The bottom line is that evolution
is a fact a priori ! Its fine points will be all worked out later.
If discrepancies crop up, they are pushed aside in denial of the
evidence. “Man came from an ape,” says the evolutionist, who is
confident that the ape-man “missing link” will be dug up
somewhere. Just give it enough time and this will all be worked
One of the primary concepts for the
beginning student of evolution is comparative embryology. A
beginning biology course is actually a beginning evolution course.
The following example is typical of the deceit required to
introduce evolutionary theory.
illustration,3 the student is shown a series of
embryonic comparisons to prove evolution at work. These
drawings were originally produced by an embryologist by the
name of Haeckel. These essentially identical embryonic forms
are from a wide variety of organisms, i.e., reptile, fish,
bird, and human. The student is expected to assume that humans
repeat their evolutionary past as they develop in the uterus.
It is common knowledge that Haeckel
produced these drawings only after altering the specimens (Fig.
3).11, 12 True, the human embryo actually looks like this (Fig. 2)
at an early stage.12 But, note how in Fig. 3 the “striking
similarities” (Fig. 1a) are only because of obvious surgical
excision of 50% of the human embryo’s essential organs! The text
for Fig. 1b describes “fish-like” structures forming in early
embryos of humans. This text is incomplete and misleading. As in
fish, yes, the human embryo develops pharyngeal pouches. In fish,
however, “pouches” differentiate into gills. In the human, eustachian tubes, thymus and parathyroid glands develop from them.
At no time during human embryonic development do these pouches
function in a vestigial or useless manner.13 In the human embryo
they function as templates (or scaffolding) for angiogenesis —the
formation of developing blood vessels.14 It is clear that
scientific accuracy is not the issue here; the evolutionary agenda
image to enlarge
"Evidence" of evolution from comparative embryology.
(Fig. 1a) Very early embryos of vertebrates retain
striking similarities. (Fig. 1b) Fishlike structure
still form in early embryos of reptiles, birds, and
example, a two-chambered heart, certain veins, and
portions of arteries called aortic arches develop in a
fish embryo and persist in adult fishes. The same
structures form in an early human embryo.
image to enlarge
Haeckel's drawing of his "embryo of man in the fish
stage." (Fig. 3) Note that more than half of the
essential organs have been removed or mutilated in
order to make the human embryo (Fig. 2) more closely
resemble those of the fish, reptile, and bird (Fig.
What are we to make of the
“scientific” evidence claiming extraordinary age for the earth?
Evolutionary chemists use radiometric techniques to “prove” this
planet to be about 4.8 billion years old. A favorite method is the
potassium-argon system, used to date many fossilized specimens.
The layers of gradual accumulation of sediments “over millions and
millions of years” gives vivid “proof” of an ancient earth. These
layers are dated using “state of the art” methods firmly
establishing, they say, the notion of gradual evolutionary change;
the simple, older organisms at the bottom and the more complex,
younger life forms at the top. According to evolutionary thought
fossilized remains have been entombed in sediment over millions of
years, leaving a record of gradually evolving life forms to
“prove” that evolution carefully molded every living organism.
This dating technique was recently
tested for accuracy and failed.15 Three independent laboratories
were sent a sample of basalt produced by an Hawaiian volcanic
eruption less than 200 years ago. The testing results varied from
20 million years to 3 billion years.16, 17
On the other hand, let’s consider a
global flood depositing sediments world-wide. The fossil record
gives evidence of violent death.18 Thousands of wide-eyed
fossilized fish, fins still extended. Apparent rapid and violent
live burial of clams with intact closed shells. (Slow sedimentary
burial would result in open shells unhinged by decayed
It is known that a frothing phenomenon in a liquid environment,
such like what a global deluge would cause, rapidly leaches out
potassium and argon isotopes, much like dunking a tea bag rapidly
into 20 cups of hot water. (Certainly, there isn’t much “flavor”
left after the twentieth dunking!) The remaining potassium and
argon isotopes in rocks are the very ones which, because of their
small remaining concentrations, allow evolutionists to claim an
ancient earth. On the contrary, it is on account of the leaching
of these precise isotopes in a probable violent flood that rocks
have these minute concentrations, not because they are billions of
Proponents of the theory of evolution cannot demonstrate a
sequential progression in the fossil record from one type of
organism to another. No progression exists,9 no evidence that one
type of organism ever evolved into another type.6 Millions of
fossils exist but not one sequential example.7 Even the giraffe’s
neck remains the same length in the fossil record! 10
The theory of evolution requires
enormous amounts of time for countless changes in organisms. In
evolutionary geography, evolutionists claim proof exists for the
vast amount of time required for gradual evolutionary change. The
beginning student is shown topographical comparisons between land
masses. In the example illustrated here, South America and Africa
nearly fit together like pieces of a puzzle (Fig. 4).
Evolutionists says these two continents were “once joined together
in one larger land mass,” a plausible statement, “and have been
slowly drifting apart at the rate of 18 to 26 inches a year for
millions of years.” 19 (This is a questionable
<Click image to enlarge
<Click image to enlarge
If one examines the
barrier reef along each continent the fit is nearly perfect except
where major rivers dumping tons of sediment, like the Amazon,
affect the topography. But, if evolutionary geographers are
correct in their time-frame, the sediment from the Amazon over
millions of years suggests that the shoreline of South America
should look something like this (Fig. 5). The Genesis account of
the flood provides a better explanation in the massive upheavals
which tore the continents apart, most probably only recently. The
committed students of the theory of evolution are too deeply
immersed to be concerned about these minor discrepancies that
destroy the entire theory.
Anthropology claims to have a fair
amount of support for the theory of evolution. Piecemeal bone
fragments, it says, provide glimpses at our ape-like ancestors.
However, a lot of fraudulent input exists from this discipline
also. A few examples:
A piece of bone dated at 5
million years was thought to be the collarbone of a human-like
creature. This bone is actually part of a dolphin rib.2
Hesperopithecos, cited as evidence for very early man in North
America, was a skull entirely formulated from a single molar tooth
from a fossil pig.20, 21 This does not reflect well on
evolutionary anthropologists. Shouldn’t a pig’s tooth be part of a
Piltdown Man, claimed to be the earliest Englishman, was another
hoax. This was compiled from the jawbone of an orangutan and a
modern human skull.13 A student priest (Tielhard de Chardin) was
involved in this hoax which included teeth filed to make them
appear human and chemical staining of the jawbone and teeth to
give an old appearance.22
Peking Man (1929) was constructed from a skull cap closely
resembling that of a great ape (furnished by Teilhard de Chardin).
The cast of Peking Man, which took two years to construct, no
longer exists. All that remains is a plastic model which itself
was not taken from the original. This is on display in the Red
Chinese Hall of Science and Evolution Exhibit. The original
material has been “lost.” 22
examined thousands of x-rays, I have noticed certain tendencies in
bone structure which correlate with old age. The skull cavity and
facial bones become more prominent with age. Older humans have a
different appearance than their younger counterparts due in part
to these characteristics.
human skull fragments pictured and note the predominant
orbital bones. Evolutionary anthropology interprets these to
be our ape-like ancestors. Sacred Scripture, however, records
humans with longevity far beyond modern man’s lifespan. The
more aged the individual, the more prominent the orbital
Click image above to
28-6210 H. sapiens
28-4741 H. sapiens
28-4746 H. sapiens
People Magazine (Dec. 23, 1996)
gave tribute to anthropologist Mary Leakey:
"The footprints, apparently made by
two adults and a child, were so clear,” Mary Leakey said
afterward. “They could have been left this morning.” In fact, they
had been preserved in hardened volcanic ash at Laetoli in the
Serengeti Plain in Tanzania for 3.6 million years and the primates
that left them were not human —at least not quite.
Quite a statement! Sadly, most
readers readily accept every word. They have been exposed to a
steady diet of this dogma for their entire life. But, let’s add a
few facts to their “facts.”
How can Ms. Leakey state so
dogmatically the age of these footprints? We have seen how
200-year-old volcanic residue yields grossly distorted ages! How
would she explain the documented fact23 of the discovery of
dinosaur and human footprints fossilized in the same rocks even
though evolutionists like her claim that humans arrived 70 million
years after the dinosaurs became extinct! Another remarkable fact:
a human sandal print fossilized with a crushed trilobite which
evolutionists claim became extinct hundreds of millions of years
ago. These seldom-mentioned discoveries and hundreds more like
them telescope the earth’s history into a period of time of
thousands of years instead of millions or billions. Evolutionists
can’t accept this.
Back to People Magazine:
Their discovery [of footprints] in
1978 thrilled Leakey because they showed, she said, “That those
prehistoric hominoids walked upright, freeing their hands. This
new freedom posed a challenge,” she wrote in National Geographic.
“The brain expanded to meet it, and mankind was formed.”
This seems to show incredible
The article continues:
Previously, in 1959, working in the
Olduvai Gorge near the Tanzania-Kenya border, Leakey had unearthed
and pieced together 400 fragments of a skull from a 1.75 million
year old proto-human, pushing back the time line of human
evolution by more than a million years.
We can imagine Ms. Leakey on her
hands and knees at the bottom of a gravel pit slowly and tediously
picking and cataloging each fragment. Then begins the tedious job
of assembling the skull. Finally the skull is assembled, the
missing areas of skull are filled in, an artist is contacted and a
picture of this early pre-human is soon available just in time for
a press conference.
Quite a number of anthropologists
strongly criticize Ms. Leakey, her discoveries and
interpretations. Mrs. Leakey had little formal education, no
credentials. Dr. Greg Kirby made an interesting observation:6
If you were to spend your life
picking up bones and finding little fragments of head and little
fragments of jaw, there is a very strong desire there to
exaggerate the importance of those fragments.
Is it only coincidental Ms.
Leakey’s discovery came when the Leakey’s research funding was
nearly exhausted? Four hundred bone fragments in the hands of the
right person could produce a workable model of the Titanic.
As new physical discoveries are
made, the theory of evolution has to adapt. In 1989 a “glucose
pump” was discovered in certain mammals. Existing in mammalian
cells, hundreds of these molecules “pop” up into the membrane of
skeletal muscle cells to crisscross the cell membrane several
times over. When activated by insulin, glucose is actively pumped
into the cells, thus lowering blood sugar. When insulin levels
drop the “glucose pumps” drop back inside the cell. Evolutionary
molecular biologists estimate that this process alone required
20-45 million years to evolve.
As the years accumulate in the mind
of the evolutionist, the existence of a Supreme Being becomes
faint and gives rise to humanism. The concepts of original sin,
the Redemption, and the Resurrection are lost. God ceases to
exist. But even apart from supernatural revelation, the existence
of God can be demonstrated. The first and easiest to understand is
the way of St. Thomas Aquinas according to movement :
It is certain, and evident to our
senses, that in this world some things are in motion. Now whatever
is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in
motion unless it is in potency to that towards which it is in
motion. But a thing moves in so far as it is in act. For motion is
nothing else than the reduction of something from potency to act.
But nothing can be reduced from potency to act except by something
in a state of act.24
St. Thomas teaches that only
something already in motion can cause another thing to move. He
also points out how potential (potency) becomes action (act) by
another thing already in act. If we trace the chain of movement
backwards, we find that there must have been a first mover (i.e.,
something in act) from which all potency becomes act. This is the
conclusion of St. Thomas’s more down-to-earth version of the
Materialists would tell us that
movement is to be traced back infinitely. This is to say that
movement is an inherent property of matter. St. Thomas answers:
But this cannot go on to infinity,
because then there would be no first mover, and consequently no
other mover, seeing that subsequent movers move only because they
are moved by the first mover, just as the staff moves only because
it is moved by the hand.24
But what if we maintain that
movement is an inherent property of matter? This objection
contradicts the laws of physics that “a body at rest will continue
at rest forever unless compelled by some force to move.” Secondly,
the question regarding where motion first came from remains
unanswered. The premise is assigning the status of “God” to matter
The teleological argument —the
argument of final ends —for a vastly superior intelligent first
mover has different aspects. All deal with the ordering of things
to some end or plan.
Here is the one aspect given by St. Thomas Aquinas:
We see things which lack knowledge,
such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from
their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to
obtain the best result. Hence it is evident that they achieve
their end not by chance, but by design. Now whatever lacks
knowledge cannot move towards an end unless it be directed by some
being endowed with knowledge and intelligence, as the arrow is
directed by the archer.24
The other aspect deals with the
incredible order and complexity present in the world, which argues
for an incredibly intelligent and powerful Creator. Ironically,
the cult of Environmentalism [The Angelus, March, 1996] readily
admits to the facts used to demonstrate the existence of God, and
to refute the materialist foundation of this same group.
Environmentalists tell us of the wonderful and widespread order
that exists in nature, and that could be even better if man would
leave it alone. They love to tell us of the self-sustaining
complexities of biosystems on both the macro and micro scales.
Further, they do us the favor of emphasizing that man indeed is
not a necessary part of this system, but that it operates
according to design. Where did all this wonderful and complex
order come from? Environmentalists answer that it all evolved by
chance from lifeless matter. Once again we have the same problem
as before, only now a little further down the road. What caused
matter to begin to move in the first place, and who organized it
to produce life? The law of entropy is that everything in nature
tends towards its least energetic and organized state. It is
impossible for something unorganized to become organized by
itself, or for life to come from non-life. Environmentalists and
evolutionists alike are forced, if they consider these things
openly and honestly, to admit the existence of a Supreme Being.
the majority of cases, men will not recognize the existence of God
because of the consequences it will have on their lives. They will
have to either reform their life-style or live with the sting of
conscience if they do not. Man is a rational animal and requires a
rational explanation even from himself as to why he lives as he
does. To this end, men who wish to live lives of pleasure and
godlessness try to explain to themselves there is no God. This is
the driving force for the highly-developed scientific system of
rational sounding fiction called the theory of evolution. Science
has become the realm of those who wish to make matter their god,
and to prove this view with whatever is required to deceive
people, including themselves. But these supposed scientific proofs
and evidences should not cause any Catholic to lose or become
doubtful of his Faith, for we have been warned beforehand:
For there shall be a time when they
will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires
they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears, and
will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be
turned unto fables (II Tim. 4:3-4).
An excellent online source on the
subject of creation vs. evolution is the Center for Scientific
Creation (www.creationscience.com). Though the author, Dr. Walt
Brown, is a Protestant, nevertheless, his scientific analyses are
The Troubled Waters of Evolution
(San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1974, p.42) Dr. Henry
The Surrender to Secularism
(St. Louis: The Cardinal Mindzenty Foundation, Inc.,1967.
Cecie Starr, Biology, Wadsworth
Publishers, 1994, p.213
Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of
Evolution,” The American Atheist, Vol. 20, #2,
February 1978, p.30.
H. S. Lipson, FRS (Professor of
Physics, University of Manchester UK) "A Physicist Looks at
Evolution,” Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, 1980, p.138.
Dr. David M. Raup (Curator of Geology,
Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago), “Conflicts
Between Darwin and Paleontology,” Field Museum of Natural
History Bulletin, Vol. 50(1) Jan. 1979, p.25.
David B. Kitts, Ph.D. (Zoology)
“Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory,” Evolution,
Vol. 28, 1974, p.467.
G.A. Kerkut, Ph.D. (Physiology,
Biochemistry), Implications of Evolution, Pergamon,
Loren Eiseley, Ph.D. (Anthropology)
“The Secret of Life,” Immense Journey, Random House,
New York, 1957, p.199.
John Wiester, Chairman, Science
Education Commission American Scientific Affiliation as
quoted in the Wall Street Journal Letters, September
Stephen Jay Gould “Racism and
Recapitulation,” Natural History 84 (6) June-July,
Francis Hitching, The Neck of the
Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (New Haven,
Connecticut: Ticknor and Fields, 1982) p.204-205.
Wallace Johnson, The Case Against
Evolution, CCCR Press, 1976, p.16-17.
Dr. Henry Morris, The Troubled
Waters of Evolution.
Wallace Johnson, The Case Against
Evolution, CCCR Press, p.31.
Frederic B. Jueneman, FAIC, “Secular
Catastrophism,” Industrial Research and Development,
June, 1982, p.21.
William D. Stansfield, Ph.D.
(Biology), The Science of Evolution, MacMillan, New
York, p.82, p.84, 1977.
Robert Jastrow, Ph.D. (Physics),
Director Institute for Space Studies USA; “The Dinosaur
Massacre,” Omega Science Digest, March/April, 1984,
Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of
Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University) “The
Validation of Continental Drift,” Ever Since Darwin,
Burnett Books, 1978, pp.161-62.
Professor Henry Fairfield Osborn,
Natural History Museum, New York.
Illustrated London News, June
Wallace Johnson, The Case Against
Evolution, CCCR Press, 1976, p.18-20.
George Mulfinger and Donald Snyder,
Earth Science for Christian Schools, Bob Jones
University, Greenville, South Carolina, 1979, p.290.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa
Theologica, I, Q.2, A.3.