This is part 7 of a series on Who AM I?

Concerning The Scientific Consensus of Evolution
You may think that all Modern Scientists are on the same page when it comes to a belief in Evolution. Especially with a lack of any dissenting voices. This leads people to believe that Modern Science today is in complete agreement on the Evolution question.
But in my search to find answers to my own questions, I discovered that there are other opinions. A few brave souls have risked ostracization from the scientific community, as the unpopular realists and critics of the theory; and are willing to admit to its flaws and weaknesses.
Dissenting Voices on Evolution
Dr Michael Denton (a British Scientist), recognizing problems that exist with the theory of Evolution has stated:
“Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we’ve made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world.” (1)
Michael Denton, who holds an M.D. from Bristol University, as well as a Ph.D. in biochemistry from King’s College in London, and has been active in molecular biology; makes these striking arguments into the scientific fallacy on which Evolution rests. His work was a great find in expounding certain conclusions I had reached; as well as additional weaknesses he demonstrates exist within “Evolutionary Theory”.
His expertise in this field of biology, brings pertinent and authoritative evidence as a chemist in understanding the details involved at the heart of the issue.
He successfully reveals many of Evolutions fallacies and lack of credibility behind the facade Modern Science has constructed to conceal it.(2)
“In a very real sense, therefore, advocacy of the doctrine of continuity [evolutionary theory] has always necessitated on retreat from pure empiricism, and contrary to what is widely assumed by evolutionary biologists today, it has always been the anti-evolutionists, not the evolutionists, in the scientific community who have struck rigidly to the facts and adhered to a more strictly empirical approach … It was Darwin the evolutionist who was retreating from the facts.” (3)
— Dr. Michael Denton
Denton’s findings and conclusions bring into view the selective nature with which Atheistic Scientists have cherry picked their ideas and theories. They have only allowed to be published those views in alignment with Darwinism. It is from this body of material the curriculum for the classrooms of academia are assembled; so that their belief system of Evolution cannot be attacked, challenged, or unseated from its throne.
You would never know it—because you almost never hear it said; but it has come to my attention that many scientists do not believe in, or cannot accept evolution; or at least admit the theory has serious problems and contradictions. The reason these voices are not heard in the main stream culture; is because the Atheists won the upper hand in the courts in the 1950’s and 60’s and have continued to hold the legal system as a tool of support to beat back religious thought or anti-evolutionist views and teaching from the class rooms.
This shift away from a religious foundation in favor of a secular one in our nation has taken place gradually over the last 90 years. I will go into more detail about this later.
This political wall of separation is carefully guarded and maintained— so, the illusion continues.
Since the mainstream culture has been educated for 70 years in these selective false theories, it has successfully produced a host of proselytes and defenders for the evolutionary atheist cause, among religious and non-religious alike. Most of you will be hearing a different side to the argument for the first time— from accredited scientists.
Curiously, not all of the voices pointing out Evolution’s contradictions are Theists. Some are Atheists who see the contradictions in science and are willing to call them out. These opinions shared below never reach the mainstream culture; but are out there to be found for those who will seek. I maintained an asterisk next to the names of scientists who also claim that they are Atheists.
“The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination.” (4) —*Dr. Albert Fleishmann (Professor of Comparative Anatomy at Erlangen University)
“Science positively demands creation.” (5) —Lord Kelvin (Professor of Natural Philosophy at the University of Glasgow for 53 years.)
“Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.” (6) —*Bounoure, Le Monde et la Vie (Director of Research at the National Center of Scientific Research in France)
“Therefore, a grotesque account of a period some thousands of years ago is taken seriously though it be built by piling special assumptions on special assumptions, ad hoc hypothesis [invented for a purpose] on ad hoc hypothesis, and tearing apart the fabric of science whenever it appears convenient. The result is a fantasia which is neither history nor science.” (7) — *James Conant (Chemist and former president, Harvard University)
“The overriding supremacy of the myth [of Evolution as scientific fact] has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research—paleontological, zoological and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology—has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth. (8)
—Dr. Michael Denton
A Falsehood is Preferable to the Truth
I have discovered these voices, and many more, testifying that evolution is questionable or false science; which remains a theory because its unprovable. Yet Modern Science proceeds as if it is real. Why would this be the case? Why would you want to keep certain facts of your theory from seeing the light of day? Why would you want to ignore significant problems within your thinking and belief system— if it helps you to determine what is actually true? Why would you put forward a theory— which in its foundational premise is in contradiction to the facts of what science is currently revealing; and continue to defend it and conceal its fallacies?
BECAUSE EVOLUTION NEVER WAS ABOUT TRUTH! If it was, the scientific hierarchy would admit to its limitations and impossible claims. So why doesn’t it?
Evolution was concocted to provide an alternative to creationism. For those who do not believe in God, they needed an explanation for the existence of things. Anti-God theories of the unfolding of life have been around since the beginning of time for those who did not believe. But since believers have always been in the majority, the surprise is why most creationists have also accepted the theory of evolution and natural selection. They have just decided since this is the popular theory that has risen to the top in academia— that this was the way God worked to bring about creation. Most uneducated people will believe what they are told if it sounds reasonable. Most people are busy with other pursuits in life, and don’t take the time to study these issues and reach a level of education so they can make decisions for themselves what they believe.
Most people today have no idea of the history, because they grew up after this deception had already taken place and gone into effect. They accept it, and defend it with the same arguments they were taught in their education. The additional problem is that too many scientists in the field are followers; and are mostly comfortable just repeating what it is that they have been told by their educators and superiors. They are told a positive story with all the surface answers provided, and they don’t look beyond.
Modern Science scrutinized religion; and modern professors attack religion, and shame students if they dare mention a belief in creationism.
Students go to houses of higher education to learn and get a degree. To succeed in your education: good grades are required. Of course, students do not want to challenge the person who is going to be grading them— for fear of having their grades negatively affected. Everyone who has entered higher education knows this. They live it.
If you advance to become a teacher or professor, those who dare step outside the lines of the official doctrine of Evolution, are also shamed; and will not be published or listened to in the scientific community at large.
But the free-thinking scientist who will go below the surface, and is really seeking, and asking, and working things out in their own mind, begins to see the contradictions, and the side stepping that is going on. They can see the truth, and are revealing it.
Once an idea like Evolution has become the foundation of a society and everyone has given it national credibility, it becomes so institutionalized and the people are so invested in it— no one dares question it. There is so much at stake. If Evolution were suddenly declared to be false, it would set off a firestorm! It would wreck careers, upset all of academia, and undermine the foundations of science as it has been written about and established for 70 years in all or our institutions. Sometimes people accept a lie because it is easier than believing the truth. Yet that does not change the fact, that everyone is invested in and believing a lie!
“With the failure of these many efforts [to scientifically prove evolution], science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.” (9)—*Loran Eisley
Eisley states very accurately, once the Atheistic scientists of Darwinism and Evolution could produce no conclusive proof of their theory, and in fact advancing modern discovery refuted and undermined their early foundational scientific philosophies (rather than supported them), MODERN SCIENCE WAS IN THE SAME POSTION IT ACCUSED RELIGION OF! The necessity of resorting to a stance of blind faith in its beliefs; and postulating mythical (invented) hypothesis to bolster up its lagging theoretical claims which could not hold up under the light of true advancing science.
Modern Science does not want to lose the ground it had gained of false legitimacy in society. It has done this by successfully dethroning God, and enshrining Atheism.
“Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the creator of organisms from the sphere of rational discussion. Darwin pointed out that no supernatural designer was needed; since natural selection could account for any new form of life, there is no room for a supernatural agency in its evolution.” (10)
—*Julian Huxley (Evolutionary Biologist, Eugenicist)
Julian Huxley (a noted atheist) here expressed the boone that Darwin gave to Atheism. The Atheists desire and need for an alternate theory to God’s existence and creationism. To be taken seriously and rise to positions of power and influence, Atheists needed to destroy God.
Atheism has always been a religion; and created its own doctrine and articles of faith to appear to be official, and legitimate.
Darwinism is masked in a mystery of complex theories (few are educated enough to understand), concepts that appear logical and reasoned on their surface. These assumptions gave Atheists the tool they needed to clear the playing field of religion and any discussion on God. To hold this illusion in place, Evolutionary theory must be protected and supported at all costs. Truth is not a part of the equation! Just control, societal respect and honors, and the rewards of fame and fortune.
They had to resort to concealment of the facts of science, because the real modern science had turned on their own theories. They could not tell the truth or let the truth be known— because to lose the theory of Evolution, would be to lose the Atheists foundation for their belief system, and their control over Modern Science in the culture.
The more complexity they could spin into their theories and assumptions, the better they can divert your attention, leading their audience into their desired conclusions. This also keeps people focused on their ideas, rather than on significant weaknesses missing from their theory that are not explained or delt with. This also averts probing unanswerable questions evolution can’t deal with.
Keeping the façade of Evolution and Natural Selection in place, allows them to keep up appearances and keeps public attention centered on their narrative, so the truth does not get out. This keeps them in control, and deciding the kind of world we live in; which is the world they desired and wanted to create.
The more detailed and complex the lie, the better they can deceive potential converts, followers, and believers in a respectable foundation made to appear as true science. This also allows them to embrace their own deception—creating a broad-based illusion they could all sink their teeth into.
This was the realization that James Conant of Harvard University came to understand.
“Therefore, a grotesque account of a period some thousands of years ago is taken seriously though it be built by piling special assumptions on special assumptions, ad hoc hypothesis on ad hoc hypothesis, and tearing apart the fabric of science whenever it appears convenient. The result is a fantasia which is neither history nor science.” (11) — *James Conant (Chemist and former president, Harvard University)
This body of scientific confusion was constructed to hypnotize a less educated audience into focusing their attention elsewhere. As Michael Denton and others scientists have exposed: when people believe the science is already settled and the facts already exist that “Evolution” and “Natural Selection” are proven theories— and have been for over 100 years; you have already won the battle for legitimacy. Even though the whole foundation is built on unproven speculations and invalidated hypotheses.
That is why we must look at the actual science and what it proves, and not these popular “myths” (12) of the past. And the truth is: Evolution is a theory which “is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination”. (13) And “a fantasia which is neither history nor science”. (14)
The Scientific Imperatives Behind a Complex World
When it comes to viewing the big picture scientifically: with the diversity in our world of millions of life forms living in a contained and balanced system on this earth, self-perpetuating and beyond our scientific capability to recreate— or even produce a single working part of its cellular construction; the attempt to explain the entirety of it all away as a bunch of happy accidents, which kickstarted and then guided all the magnificent life we observe genetically to exist in this harmony and balance; it cannot square with logic or reason. This case of molecular complexity and irreducible systems being required for life, is strong enough on its own to verify the need of an advanced intelligent creator to produce it. But Evolution also has other challenges.
Evolution is also mathematically impossible as a workable theory.
How could all of these necessary components come together sequentially, in the precise and right order to construct this life, in the magnitude of millions of individual parts; to produce the biological world we see before us?
To challenge this claim of Evolution in a simple mathematical comparison, scientist and author A. Cressy Morrison, (an American chemist and former president of the New York Academy of Sciences) points out if life was made up of even just 10 basic components that had to come together in exactly the right order, but must be arranged in that exact order from 1 to 10 to work; what are the odds of this possibility happening by mere chance? It doesn’t seem that difficult, does it? This has been one of the most basic claims of evolution as a viable theory. That unintelligent chaotic life found a way over billions of years of evolution. (15)
Dr. Morrison was responding to claims made by Ernst Haeckel (a German Zoologist), that “if given water, chemicals, and time, he could create a man”. (16) [Clearly Haeckel and his successors were premature. They are still struggling to create even the first living cell, or even a working component of a cell; let alone a man.]
Morrison states that if you had 10 coins in your pocket numbered from 1 to 10 and attempted to draw them out in numerical sequence; if you took them out one at a time, but then each was replaced so that 10 options remained with each pick, (which are far better odds than the countless combinations lying on the ground in the real world) your chance of drawing out first number 1, and then number 2 in succession would be 1 in 100. Your chance of drawing 1, 2, and 3 would be one in 1000. Your chance of drawing out 1,2,3 and 4 would be one in 10,000 and so on, until your chance of drawing out 1 to 10 in succession would reach the unbelievable figure of one chance in 10 billion. This demonstration reveals how enormously figures multiply against mere chance! (17)
I discussed the conceptual reality of “Irreducible Systems” in part 6 of this series, and again this was mentioned by Dr. Denton. An irreducible system is one in which all parts are required to have a functioning system. If even one of them is removed then the system cannot work or function. That is what makes it irreducible.
Dr. Dentons has shared his findings: “that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world…containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND MILLION ATOMS…” (18)
If getting just 10 components of a system to come together in sequence with only 10 options available, is one chance in 10 billion; how about getting one hundred thousand million atoms right!
Again, for evolution to have ever occurred, this would have been the only path upon which it could have come about, as we understand the structure of life. The assemblage of the parts of a living cell, or the genetic coding meticulously arranged in the DNA, (all of which are required for life, and irreducible) proves to be an impossible task for a self-constructing universe through accidental forces to ever have been a mathematical possibility of happening.
After 60 years of trials, and no success, what science is up against, is akin to trying to demonstrate that if you move things around and shake them up enough, eventually a cell phone or an automobile is going to build itself and pop out on the other end.
Such a concept as evolution is as impossible as Haeckel’s flippantly ignorant assumption: that “given water, chemicals, and time, He could create a man”.(19)
Your common sense will tell you, that is just not going to happen. And you don’t need to be a scientist to understand that.
As Dr. Denton pointed out, biological life is“far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world.” (20)
Biological life, in its most simple form (a bacterium), being far more complex than any of the inventions we as humans have constructed, is an “inescapable proof” of INTELLIGENT DESIGN! There is no other way to have the creatures we witness, or beauty and symmetry and complexity of functionality they possess.
This process of Evolution and Natural Selection (small accumulative changes over generations, advancing life; and self-generating new species of life evolving from simper ones) has no evidence in the natural world. We can only find whole creatures, designed to fit the circumstances in which they exist or have existed, presently or in all strata layers of the soil. There are no evolutionary chains of creatures changing species in the fossil record. In each layer of the soil we find different life, but no evolving chains between them. These biological imperatives are inescapable!
“Nowhere was Darwin able to point to one bona fide case of natural selection having actually generated evolutionary change in nature … Ultimately, the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century.” (21)
— Dr. Michael Denton
Life Not Shaped by its Environment; But Designed for It
This is a topic I am going to spend more time on later, but I want to touch on it here and bring it into the discussion. Living creatures spread throughout this world do things that they do not have the self-awareness or intelligence to understand the implications of— in providing critical contributing roles to support the balance of life on this planet. Yet because they instinctively do them, they accomplish a needful service; and contribute to this balance we find in operation in this world. Life does not have the self-awareness or intelligence to build itself. LIFE SEEKS ITS OWN ENDS HERE! Yet in the process, fulfils a needful role to balance the effects of the other life, in recycling the bio-components of our world.
The variety of life here accomplishes this role in being the food source themselves for other life to perpetuate its existence; or their by-products or waste gives needed biological fuel to other life, providing this critical bio-balance necessary for all life to exist, recycle, and function.
If such a balance were not created and self-maintaining, a few dominate species would quickly over consume and stress all other life out of existence; undermining the whole system and causing their own destruction.
Only one species on earth is capable of recognizing and understanding this reality, and acting morally to respect and preserve it. That is human kind.
Something very advanced must have designed and built life to its purpose— to provide this balance; in both its rate of offspring, and its specific impact inherently to provide some critical need, and to solve some problem in the chain towards the sustainability of all life in both the animal and vegetable world.
Therefore, if this high level of intelligence was involved, what would that intelligent life be? What was the reasoning and meaning behind such a creation? If such a highly intelligent creature exists, where do we go to learn about it?
We are going to continue to dig out that truth.
Atheism Comes up Short
Another individual I also came across, while searching for answers to my questions, was Anthony Flew; an author and “Atheist crusader” who had been a leader in the Atheist movement for most of his life. But, which later, completely reversed his position and embraced Theism. Like Dr. Michael Denton and others, he came face to face with facts of reality he could not simply ignore.
In describing his transition from Atheism to Theism, he shares these perceptive conclusions:
“I must stress that my discovery of the Divine has proceeded on a purely natural level, without any reference to supernatural phenomena. It has been an exercise in what has traditionally been called natural theology. It has had no connection with any of the revealed religions. Nor do I claim to have had any personal experience of God or any experience that may be called supernatural or miraculous. In short, my discovery of the Divine has been a pilgrimage of reason and not of faith.” (22)
“I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so. With every passing year, the more that was discovered about the richness and inherent intelligence of life, the less it seemed likely that a chemical soup could magically generate the genetic code. The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological [ finding meaning behind existence] and not chemical…
No, I did not hear a Voice. It was the evidence itself that led me to this conclusion.” (23) —Anthony Flew
Flew was of British nationality, and a university professor of philosophy. During his career he taught at the universities of Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele and Reading, and at York University in Toronto. (24)
I was deeply impressed by this metamorphosis, of someone so immersed in one belief system, to be open minded enough to be influenced by a larger truth that emerged later in his life. This took great courage and honest personal introspection against a lifetime of defending a position, and then making a complete 180% turn into the teeth of your perceived enemy. A journey few are willing to take. It is so much easier to remain where you are comfortable, respected and secure. He had no other reason to do this, except to succumb to a sincerity and honest intellectual internal realization which he could no longer ignore. It was a true and honest shift in his foundational principles of belief.
A belief that under the weight of his own intellect and sense of reason, found himself convinced he had been mistaken, and wrong in his earlier assumptions.
He also makes it clear—his change of heart and belief was not a spiritually motivated event. He was finally convinced by the evidence of ongoing scientific discovery into the “richness and inherent intelligence of life”, (25) that the only logical conclusion was a maker and creator of life.
Reaching Honest Conclusions
If we are to ever find the truth; we must begin by being honest with ourselves!
We can’t hide from the truth— if we want to know what it really is!
The solar system, and known universe we see is independent of mankind, (as we are certainly not the creators). And as we speculate at how these conditions came to be, we must rely on reason and theory where we do not have hard facts or evidence. But the clear truth is, the science behind our world and solar system precedes the life here and its beginnings. The truth behind the science here precedes us; and was all set-in motion before we existed and began to ask our questions; or to learn about how this all functions.
“Finally, there is only one attitude which is possible… It consists in affirming that intelligence comes before life. Many people will say, this is not science, it is philosophy. The only thing I am interested in is fact, and this conclusion comes out of an analysis and observation of the facts.” (26)
—*G. Salet
What we witness, (both discovered or to be discovered), has been going on for billions of years; as we peer back into the age of the universe.
But remember the “trick of Life” (27) I explained in part 2 of this series. When we attempt to explain and understand the miracle of life, or any other truth we investigate; we are not capable of extending ourselves beyond our current levels of knowledge. It is by the application of study and investigation that our knowledge base grows. Later when ideas or beliefs are reexamined within our growing intellect, more often than not, we see so much more— because of our expanded capacity.
When examining the deep and searching questions of life within this natural growth process, it is likely many of our earlier positions will need to be adjusted. Sometimes abandon, and replaced. THAT IS THE REASON WHY COMING TO UNDERSTAND WHO WE ARE, AND WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF LIFE, AND THE DISCOVERY OF TRUTH, IS A PROCESS AND NOT AN EVENT!
And what we learn today, can always be added to— by what we may learn tomorrow, or in the coming days, months, and years. As we are learning truth, all of us will be missing things, because of the limitation of our natural circumstances or personal strengths and weaknesses. Therefore, our knowledge is always incomplete. But it is in this very recognition of our inadequacy that we can be humbled into keeping an open mind and to continue the learning process going forward.
Science Great Conclusion
The growing field of science has been a blessing and help to improve our lives and circumstances, and the quality of our own existence. But to say it has replaced religion, is to ignore the very substance of science. It is true, that within religion is much error, and superstition; but religion also raises questions and provides answers that are sound, and which science supports. Not only has it not been able to replace religion, but it can’t help but provide evidence for it.
Today, those who want to attack religion, in support Atheism refuse to admit to the proof of their own experiments and findings. If seeing is believing, they will not see what is right before their eyes.
The harder they work, and the deeper they dive into their efforts to substantiate their own anti-god claims, they keep finding more and more layers of complexity that they have no reasonable alternative to explain away. So, they overlook the obvious conclusions of their own findings, and twist themselves into paradoxical knots, to offer up substitute theories that do not explain the evidence, or satisfy the truth of the science they themselves have revealed.
Modern Science itself has now raised the very question, where did this complexity come from? And who or what was behind it?
To be Continued . . .
Sources:
1.Website: All About Science.Org, Article: Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, Section: A Theory In Crisis Darwin’s Theory Of Evolution (darwins-theory-of-evolution.com)
2. An Interview with Michael J. Denton – YouTube
3.Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (London: Burnett Books, 1985) [ Pg 353–354 emphasis added]. Evolution Handbook 3 (evolutionfacts.com)
4.*Fleishman, Albert, Victoria Institute, Vol. 65, pages 194, 195. Evolution Handbook 3 (evolutionfacts.com)
5.Lord Kelvin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1988), p. 94. Evolution Handbook 3 (evolutionfacts.com)
6. *Bounoure, Le Monde et la Vie (October 1983) [Director of Research at the National Center of Scientific Research in France] Evolution Handbook 3 (evolutionfacts.com)
7. *James Conant [chemist and former president, Harvard University], quoted in Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1982, p. 2.Evolution Handbook 3 (evolutionfacts.com)
8. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), Pg 77 Source: https://quotepark.com/authors/michael-denton/
9. *Loran Eisley, The Immense Journey (1957), p. 199. Evolution Handbook 3 (evolutionfacts.com)
10. *At Random, A Television Preview, in Evolution after Darwin (1960), p. 41.
11. *James Conant [chemist and former president, Harvard University], quoted in Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1982, p. 2.
12. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), Pg 77 Source: https://quotepark.com/authors/michael-denton/
13.*Fleishman, Albert, Victoria Institute, Vol. 65, pages 194, 195.
14. *James Conant [chemist and former president, Harvard University], quoted in Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1982, p. 2.
15. Book: Man Does Not Stand Alone by A. Cressy Morrison, Copyright Jan 1, 1946, Chapter 1, pg 13
16. Book: Man Does Not Stand Alone by A. Cressy Morrison, Copyright Jan 1, 1946, Introduction, pg 9
17. Book: Man Does Not Stand Alone by A. Cressy Morrison, Copyright Jan 1, 1946, Chapter 1, pg 13
18. Website: All About Science.Org, Article: Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, Section: A Theory In Crisis
Darwin’s Theory Of Evolution (darwins-theory-of-evolution.com)
19. Book: Man Does Not Stand Alone by A. Cressy Morrison, Copyright Jan 1, 1946, Introduction, pg 9
20. Website: All About Science.Org, Article: Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, Section: A Theory In Crisis
Darwin’s Theory Of Evolution (darwins-theory-of-evolution.com)
21. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crises (Bethesda, Maryland: Adler & Adler, 1986) pp. 62, 358. Defining Evolution 10: Natural Selection – The Creation Club | A Place for Biblical Creationists to Share and Learn
22.Website: Creation.com Review There is a God by Antony Flew – creation.com
23. How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind : Strange Notions
25. How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind : Strange Notions
26. *G. Salet, Hasard et Certitude: Le Transformisme devani la Biologie Actuelle (1973), p. 331.
27. Who Am I part II Blog, Heading: The Trick of Life, Mountain Star Network Who Am I? Part II – Mountain Star Network
*The asterisk before a name indicates a scientist who is considered an atheist.




