I am anti-evolution and I believe that we have a historical record that takes us right back to Creation which shows us that God made humans as humans.
All through history evolution has been discredited by scientists.
Darwin understood that his beliefs were not scientific.
He wrote;
“I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science . . . . It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw(s) and holes as sound parts.”
Charles Darwin to Asa Gray, cited by Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin, )New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1991) p. 456, 475).
And scientists spent the next 150 years proving him right (i.e. that his speculations ran beyond the bounds of true science) by disproving his ideas.
First, 4 of Darwin's contemporaries challenged Darwin's idea;
1. Charles Lyell (1797 – 1875) wrote "No geologists, who are in possession of all the data now established respecting fossil remains, will for a moment contend for the doctrine in all its detail, as laid down by the great chemist to whose opinions we have referred. But, naturalists, who are not unaquainted with recent discoveries, continue to defend the ancient doctrine in a somewhat modified form. (The Principles of Geology Ch 9 pg. 145 par 2)
2. Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) conducted experiments with peas which showed that one species could not transmute into another one. (The Evolution Handbook - TEH p. 20)
3. Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) disproved the theory of spontaneous generation (i.e. life cannot arise from non-living materials). (TEH p. 20)
4. August Friedrich Leopold Weismann (1834-1914) cut of the tails of 901 young white mice in 19 successive generations, yet each new generation was born with a full-length tail. (TEH p. 20)
Then, in 1953 Stanley Miller sparked a non-oxygen mixture of gases for a week and produced some microscopic traces of non-living amino acids and proved that the act of producing amino acids would produce right-handed amino acids which clog the body machinery and kill the life form (TEH p. 265).
When scientists examine the theory of evolution as it relates to their respective areas of expertise which include; astronomy, biology, geology, physics, paleontology, genetics, botany, etc. they come up with some interesting facts that refute The Theory of Evolution.
For example,
1. The Earth's Electromagnetic field is decreasing by half every 1400 years and would have liquefied the earth just 20,000 years ago. (TEH p. 139)
2. Of the 51 primary elements contained in seawater, 20 could have accumulated in their present concentrations in 1,000 years or less, 9 additional elements in no more than 10,000 years, and 8 others in no more than 100,000 years. (TEH p. 148)
3. Topsoil accumulates at the rate of about 1 inch per 300 to 1,000 years and there is an average of about 8 inches of topsoil on the earth. (TEH p. 145)
4. The Moon moves farther and farther away from the earth each year and would have been close enough to crash into the earth less than 30,000 years ago. (TEH p. 134)
5. The Sun is shrinking and would have been so large and so hot only 50,000 years ago that it would have caused the oceans to boil. (TEH p. 128)
6. The giant sequoias of California have no known enemies exept man . . . they live on century after century . . . yet they are never older than 4,000 years. (TEH p 149)
Yet, the beat goes on and it's living proponents continue to claim it is scientific.
Darwin sat on his findings for more than two decades and I think people of the evolutionary persuasion prefer that we believe that he was being cautious but when you read his books you get the feeling that he was searching for the truth among alot of bad ideas and hoping that the proof would eventually materialize. He thought people with small hands could work with their hands and that this would result in big handed babies. He theorized 'an organ affected by the environment would respond by giving off particles that he called gemmules. These particles supposedly helped determine hereditary characteristics. The environment would affect an organ; gemmules would drop out of the organ; and the gemmules would travel to the reproductive organs, where they would affect the cells.' (TEH p. 27) Since he didn't know about DNA he was convinced they would find a fossil of an animal that would show the transition from one animal into another. In his way of thinking, a fish fin would grow just a little bit longer in one fish, that fish would meet another fish with the longer more desirable fin, they would have a baby with the bigger fin, the fin would eventually grow into an arm, etc. a fish would become an amphibian, an amphibian would become a reptile, etc. etc. and somehow the gemmules would turn the monkey into a man. I think he was waiting for the proof, hoping someone would find one of these mythical transitional, half-fish, half-amphibian creatures which they call 'missing links', but they didn't find on in Darwin's lifetime and they have collected and catalogued over 100 million fossils of 250,000 species since and still not found one. (TEH p. 423)
They want you to think they have some! When I was a kid in the 60s I remember reading about the missing links that they had found in the books in my second grade library. Piltdown man, Java man, Nebraska man. But, none of them were 'real' missing links. Piltdown was a hoax. Java man was a gibbon (a monkey). Nebraska man was a pig. Today they tell us about Neanderthal man who is human, Lucy who is a monkey, Arvi who is another monkey, etc., etc., etc. Oh, well.
As far as I am concerned they can still refer to Darwin as the Father of Evolution but I doubt that he would want the title if he knew what our scientists know today since he wasn't really that sure and DNA would have caused him to pitch his gemmule theory but he probably shouldn't get it since he wasn't the first person to come up with the idea. Oh, perhaps you didn't know that the first person to begin thinking ABG (Anything But God) was Anaximander (610-546 BC). Back then they called it The Philosophy of Evolution.