CHAPTER SIXTEEN. THE EVIDENCE FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN IN THE BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES.
The structure of The Solar System provides irrefutable evidence of Intelligent Design in The Cosmos. However, the study of the field of biology also clearly demonstrates Intelligent Design.
I deal with the BIOLOGICAL evidence for Intelligent Design in the following two books:- The Sixty One Scientific Hurdles of Atheism, by Roger Elliott; and The Atheist Censorship Conspiracy, by Roger Elliott.
Also, My website www.theintelligentdesignwebsite.com provides details of a host of scientific facts and features which seriously undermine (and completely demolish!) The Atheist Hypothesis. This website contains more information regarding the scientific evidence for Intelligent Design than any other website that I know of.
Atheists generally tend to have a very low approval rating amongst the general population. For example, no politician who loudly professed atheism could ever hope to get elected. Atheism poses a great danger to the well-being of Humankind. It needs to be stamped out – not by violence, or by brute force, but by publicising the various scientific facts which undermine (and absolutely demolish!) it.
The Theory of Evolution has absolutely no scientific basis whatsoever. Scientists accept this theory for reasons that have nothing to do with science. Evolution has become a dogma – an ideology – which no scientist dares to question, since to do so would end their career in science. I mean this quite literally. Any academic scientist who questions evolution is considered to be a “whistle-blower” – a “traitor”, and is automatically “terminated”, their grants revoked, their tenure cancelled, their academic career demolished. Because of these draconian reprisals, scientists pay lip service to pseudoscience.
The reader may think that I am exaggerating here. However, I will now provide verbatim quotes from authoritative scientists, who agree that The Theory of Evolution is dogmatic pseudoscience.
This quote is from the book Ever Since Darwin, by Stephen Jay Gould, (Professor of Zoology at Harvard University), published by Penguin Books, 1977, page 40:-
“Much of what passes for evolutionary theory is - - - VACUOUS. - - Many great theories are held together by chains of dubious metaphor and analogy. Bethell has correctly identified THE HOGWASH SURROUNDING EVOLUTIONARY THEORY.” (My capitals.)
The next quote is from the book Evolution of Living Organisms, by Pierre P Grasse (In 1929, Grassé became professor of zoology at the Université de Clermont-Ferrand.), published by Academic Press, 1977, pages 6 to 7:-
“Present-day Darwinism - - - impresses incompletely informed biologists, misleads them, and inspires FALLACIOUS INTERPRETATIONS. - - - - through use and abuse of - - - bold, OFTEN ILL-FOUNDED extrapolations, A PSEUDOSCIENCE HAS BEEN CREATED - - - Biologists who adhere blindly to - - - - Darwinism - - - search for results that will be in agreement with their theories, and consequently orientate their research in a given direction - - - It deprives observations and experiments of their objectivity, makes them biased.” (My capitals.)
The next quote is from the book Variation and Fixity in Nature, by Frank L. Marsh (M.S. Zoology, Ph.D. Botany), published by Pacific Press Publishing Association, California, 1976, pages 106 to 107:-
“Evolutionists - - - accept their - - - theory blindly. - - - - Having committed themselves for evolution, they lose the power for open-minded study IN A SMOG OF DOGMATISM - - - With the evolutionist it blinds him to the testimony of nature - - - the evolutionist pushes past natural fact.” (My capitals.)
The next quote is from the book Delusions in Science and Spirituality, by Susan B. Martinez (Ph. D.), published by Bear and Company (USA), 2015, page 112:-
“Signatories against the - - - theory of evolution include scientists from the National Academies of Science in Russia, The Czech republic, Hungary, Poland, India, Nigeria, and The United States. Many are Professors at major institutions, such as MIT., Cambridge University, Moscow State University, Chitose Institute of Science and Technology in Japan, and Ben-Gurion University in Israel.”
The next quote is from the book A Challenge to Evolutionists, by Douglas Dewar (Fellow of The Zoological Society), 3rd edition, 1948, published by Uplift Books (Croydon, UK) Ltd, pages 32 to 33:-
“Mt McCabe asked me to name some biologists who do not believe in evolution - - - Professor Fleischmann - - - who was - - - Professor at Erlangen - - - and Professor Vialleton - - - - Biologists who openly oppose evolution are E. G. Dehaut, D. Carazzi, M. Thomas, J. Lefevre, G. K. Hebbert. In England, Professors of biology who do not accept evolution ARE NOT LIKELY TO PROCLIAM THIS FACT LEST IT HAVE AN UNFAVOURABLE EFFECT ON THEIR ACADEMIC CAREER.” (My capitals.)
The next quotes are from the book Evolution – Fact or Fiction?, by John Blanchard, published by Evangelical press. 5th impression, 2006,
Page 7:- The author quotes Ambrose Fleming, President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. He called evolution “baseless – quite incredible”.
Page 9:- The author quotes David Kitts, Professor of Geology at The University of Oklahoma:- “Evolution requires intermediate forms between species; and palaeontology does not provide them.”
Page 19:- The author quotes Fred Hoyle (Plumian Professor of Astronomy and Experimental Philosophy at Cambridge University.):- “The notion that - - - the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at in a primordial soup is evidently NONSENSE OF THE HIGHEST ORDER.” (My capitals.)
Page 20:- The author quotes Stephen Grocott (Fellow of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute):- “The spontaneous origin of life is a CHEMICAL NONSENSE.” (My capitals.)
The next quote is from the book Discourses Biological and Geological. Essays by Thomas H. Huxley. ( In July 1854, Huxley became Professor of Natural History at the Royal School of Mines and naturalist to the British Geological Survey in the following year. In addition, he was Fullerian Professor at the Royal Institution 1855–58 and 1865–67; Hunterian Professor at the Royal College of Surgeons 1863–69; President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science 1869–1870; published by Macmillan and co, 1894, pages 341 to 342:-
“In answer to the question What does - - - - palaeontology testify in relation to the common doctrines of progressive modification (ie:- the theory of evolution) - - - - - I reply – It negatives these doctrines - - - no evidence for such modification.”
Here is a quick summary of the “hurdles” to the formation of biological life-forms in “the primordial soup”. (You can see precise details of these points on my website www.theintelligentdesignwebsite.com)
Life cannot emerge from the primordial soup. It would have to surmount too many insurmountable hurdles. Starting with the Minimal Complexity Hurdle:- A self-replicating organism must be vastly, vastly, vastly complex to survive. Anything simple (“evolving” on its way to complexity) could not possibly survive in the interim. If proteins emerged from the primordial soup, they could not replicate themselves. Nucleotides might theoretically replicate themselves, but would be impossible to synthesize in the first place. The formation of life would be hampered by The Clutter Problem Hurdle – lots of inappropriate chemicals would create interfering cross reactions. Many of the monomers of the molecules of life cannot be synthesized. If RNA did form, it would be useless unless proteins were already in existence. Different isomers of the monomers would join together to form misshapen, and therefore non-functional, molecules of life. Any molecules of life would decompose in water (hydrolysis). Any molecule of life would require a multi-stage process of synthesis, each stage representing entirely different environmental conditions. The formation of life molecules flies in the face of The Second Law of Thermodynamics (ie:- entropy), which requires a progression towards DISorder, rather than a progression towards order, which the emergence of life from the primordial soup implies. The ribose required for RNA cannot be synthesized under the same chemical conditions as the chemical conditions required for the synthesis of RNA’s other components. There is no available phosphorus to make the phosphate group required by RNA. In a primordial soup, the chirally uniform molecules required for biological life cannot form. If, by some miracle, a self-replicating RNA molecule formed, there would be errors in the replication process that would cause “error catastrophe” and degeneration. In any case, RNA, in general, cannot self replicate. If the molecules of life could form, ultraviolet light would destroy them. If there were oxygen in the atmosphere, life could not get started; but, once started, life could not survive WITHOUT oxygen. In any case, a cell membrane would be required to protect the molecules of life from chemical pollution and inevitable death. Such a (highly complex) cell membrane would be unavailable in the primordial soup. If life did form, it would have no form of nutrition, unless the highly complex process of photosynthesis were already in place – which it could not be. In any case, the molecules of life would require an input of information in order to function – but there was no information source in the primordial soup. The idea that life started with minerals is a non-starter. Minerals are crystals that cannot contain the necessary quantity of information required by life forms.
Here is a quote from Francis Crick (Co-discoverer of the structure of DNA):- The origin of life (if it could have occurred) would be “almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have to be satisfied to get it going.”
The notion that life emerged from the primordial soup is effectively pseudoscience – wishful thinking – an ideology adopted in the teeth of the scientific evidence. This notion should be consigned to the ranks of scientific curiosities and fads, such as The Flat Earth Theory, The Phlogiston Theory, The Hollow Earth Theory, Alchemy etc - - - . The only reason scientists support the primordial soup theory is because they have been bullied into it (basically with threats of job-loss, loss of funding, loss of tenure, etc. - - - ) by atheists who have seized control of the scientific community, and exert a sinister stranglehold.
I would love to add a further two hundred pages of similar material to this book; but then the book would be too long! I would urge the reader to get my two books:-
The Sixty One Scientific Hurdles of Atheism, by Roger Elliott; and The Atheist Censorship Conspiracy, by Roger Elliott.
And also visit my website www.theintelligentdesignwebsite.com