What Darwin Didn't Know

I recommend the book by Dr. Geoffery Simmons, What Darwin Didn't Know to anyone who wishes to learn the truth about Darwinism. William A Dembski, Ph.D., Baylor University, author of The Design Revolution, wrote the following under the title, The Gig is Up, in the forward of Dr. Geoffrey Simmons' book, What Darwin Didn't Know. "The evidence of Darwinism was never any good—even in Darwin's day. But with the advances in contemporary science, Darwinism becomes utterly unsupportable. Darwinism is a magic trick performed far enough away from the audience to dazzle them…until someone starts handing out binoculars. Darwinism, though always a trick, has in the past been a remarkably successful trick. What Darwin Didn't Know shows why the Darwinian magic trick is now up."

Dr. Simmons not only reveals the error of evolution from modern science, but by addressing Darwin's concerns about his theory. Darwin was worried about several factors that could disprove the evolution theory. He was especially concerned about Whole-Package Phenomenon (WHP). This is the concept of irreducible complexity—or what might be also called "all or none." In other words, there are few if any examples in the fossil record of mouths with partial tongues or eyes. However, many body parts seem to have appeared in whole packages without any evolution. One example that Dr. Simmons gives is the clotting of blood, which involves multiple interlocking chemical steps. He writes: "How could the first and second steps, or even the tenth step, have come about without a plan? Just having step one and two in the right order is complicated, yet it's useless for clotting. An analogy might be that of a dog's tail somehow adding a useless leg, reproducing as a leg-tail for a million years, then adding another leg, reproducing as a two-legged tail for another million years, then adding a kidney, a liver, a heart, and two more legs at million-year intervals—until finally a head appears with ears that flop."

Dr. Simmons also presents this problem for evolution. "Ten to seventy-five trillion cells participate in more than a quadrillion purposeful chemical interactions each day that help us walk, breathe, think, sleep, procreate, see, hear, smell, feel, digest food, eliminate waste, write, read, talk make red cells, remove dead cells, fight infections, behave, misbehave, absorb nutrients, transport oxygen, eliminate carbon dioxide, maintain balance, carry on dialogue, understand instructions, argue, and make complex decisions, just to name a few common activities. In addition, each of these processes had dozens—and sometimes hundreds—of smaller interacting steps, checks, counterchecks, balances, and regulatory mechanisms. And further, all of these steps have smaller chemical substeps. In many ways, the human body functions like an extremely well-organized blizzard of invisible chemical responses and rapidly-changing electrical impulses. The human brain is a convoluted continent swept by microscopic electrical hurricanes and chemical tidal waves that somehow make sense out of reality on a microsecond-by-microsecond basis. Darwin didn't have a clue how these mechanisms worked. For the most part, he didn't know they even existed."

The gig is truly up for Darwinism—it's just that most scientists refuse to admit it. To save face, they come up with elaborate frauds such as the Mars Rock and the recent feathered dinosaurs of China. Storrs L. Olson, the curator of birds at the Smithsonian Institution wrote this about the feathered dinosaurs. "With the publication of Fathers for T. Rex? by Christopher P. Sloan in its November issue, National Geographic has reached an all-time low for engaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated tabloid journalism." Apparently, the feathered dinosaur is two specimens that were literally glued together minus necessary interconnecting bones. As recently as May 11, 2005, CNN presented a one-sided segment about the feathered dinosaur as if it were actually scientifically valid beyond all doubt.

I have reached the conclusion that the real issue here is not about science, but about God. Atheists are using unscrupulous science magazines, not to mention atheistic journalists, in order to discredit the idea of God.