Evolution is a typical mid-19^th century theory of materialism. Only the material world matters and all material changes conform to 'laws' which propel an 'evolution' to end-stages. Marx, Hegel and Chuckie Darwin presented simplistic, nay one should say simpleton ideas in which phases, constancy, and 'stage theory laws' govern everything from political-economic creation and subsequent 'evolution' [Hegelian-Marxian Phaseology]; to naturalistic, biological and hominid development [Darwinism]. Marx dedicated his book Das Kaptial to Darwin, a philosopher [Darwin was not a scientist], whom he much admired.

As with Marxist cant, when evolution is analyzed with facts, including micro-chemistry, cellular complexity, fossil records, cosmological catastrophes, the mass appearances and disappearances of flora and fauna, and even quantum physics; it utterly fails. There is no proof whatsoever which supports the idea of Darwinist evolution. If empirical evidence was prevalent and validated, it would be happily received and accepted even by its critics. Yet the sad reality is that no empirical evidence for Darwinism exists. It is mere dogma.

Rejecting evolution does not mean you believe the Genesis account of creation, or that spacemen pace 'scientist' Stephen Hawking, brought life to earth. Neither does it mean that you believe the earth is 6.000 years old, or that Adam played with pet dinosaurs. Questioning evolution and asking hard questions about its supposed scientific validity is what any sentient human should do. People who do not question the cult of Darwin, are the same people of course who deride Christianity and its apocryphal hatred of science. Modern science comes out of medieval Christianity of course.

Yet these same 'broad thinkers' and so-named 'liberals', cannot answer simple questions about how evolution could possibly have occurred given its myriad problems, discontinuities and lack of evidential proof. Evolution is thus described by biologist Denton as a 'paradigm' or a way of thinking in which the belief system eschews evidence, ignores facts which contradict the paradigm's ideals; and impels its members to demonize and attack those who question the paradigm's assumptions. Calling evolution a 'paradigm' is a nice way of naming it as a cult, which it surely is. Taking God out of society and relegating man to an evolved sponge via the lemur, has been the greatest metaphysical revolution in modern times, as Denton writes:

“The acceptance of this great claim and the consequence elimination of God from nature was to play a decisive role in the secularization of western society.”

Evolution was premised upon 2 great ideas – gradual changes over time; and geological uniformitarianism or distinct strata of evolving life. Neither are correct of course.

“The twin concepts of gradualism and immense time are also crucial to the idea of biological evolution and, as many biologists later acknowledged, geological uniformitarianism, more than anything else, eased the way for their acceptance of evolution.”

As Denton elaborates the geological record is not in strata but in a jumbled mess. There is no clear separation of endlessly marching 'stratum' starting at the 'bottom' and proceeding upwards to the surface of the earth mother's crust in determined, well-formed and understandably distinct layers. The reality is that the geological record is a complex mess of wildly fluctuating and changing strata, with no clear discernment between supposed 'layers'. This means there has never been 'climate' stability, nor unchanging, unswerving processes and gradualism. Geological uniformitarianism is thus a nonsense.

“...no purely random process of extinction would have eliminated so effectively all ancestral and transitional forms, all evidence of the trunk and branches of the supposed tree, and left all remaining groups: mammals, cats, flowering plants, birds, tortoises, vertebrates, molluscs, hymenoptera, fleas and so on, so isolated and related only in a strictly sisterly sense.”

Darwin stated many times that evolution needs stability, and that catastrophic change simply did not occur. The geological record however, clearly evinces a series of incredible catastrophes which eliminated 70-80% of fauna and most of the flora. There are many theories as to what caused these disturbances, both great and small. Circa 1600 BC there was a cosmological event with a comet, meteor or as some claim with the new planet Venus, which wiped out both man and beast in great numbers. In every culture around the globe, stories abound about poles flipping, carbon raining down from the sky or manna, oceans rising, flooding, death, pestilence, and cities evacuated.

A similar event happened 800 years later. These smaller cosmic disasters can be juxtaposed against the KT and Permian extinctions of 65 and 238 million years ago. Did the human eye really evolve in just 65 million years ? Isn't the variable 'time' – interminable time that is – crucial for selling evolution ?

Further, no fossil record exists of gradual life forms and the millions of 'transitory' life forms which connect the sponge, to the fish, to the reptile, to the mammal or dinosaur, and on to the ape and man. None.

“Darwin's theory required that not just one or two intermediates of dubious status but 'innumerable' transitional forms and the fossil record provided no evidence for believing that the infinitude of connecting links had ever existed.”

Darwinists have no explanation for the obvious record of natural catastrophe or how the 50 trillion cell complexity of the human could 'evolve' in a mere 65 million years and suddenly appear in the record, if one believes the false 'missing links' in nice Darwinian illustrations, some 2 million years ago. What happened between 65 and 2 million years to produce the human? Where is the chain from the sponge to the hominid ? Does the eye happen by random chance and genetic mutation ? Is there some naturalist feed-back loop which tells the flat worm for example to develop an eye ? Where would it get that information from ?

“The avian lung and the feather bring us very close to answering Darwin's challenge: 'If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory [Darwinism] would absolutely break down.'”

Darwinism not only breaks down, it is broken. Darwin's theory is a laughingstock when you analyze something as 'simple' as say a cell, or the avian lung, or the redoubtable feather – both of which apparently evolved from a reptile.

“In addition to the feather and the avian lung there are many other unique features in the biology of birds, in the design of the heart and cardiovascular system, in the gastrointestinal system and in the possession of a variety of other relatively minor adaptations such as, for example, the unique sound producing organ, the syrinx, which similarly defy plausible explanation in gradualistic terms. Altogether it adds up to an enormous conceptual difficulty in envisaging how a reptile could have been gradually converted into a bird.”

In other words the gecko did not evolve into the pterodactyl. Neither did the human evolve from the fish.

“We seem forced to propose that during the course of evolution the gradual accumulation of tiny independent and random changes in two independent structures – the pectoral and pelvic of a fish – hit on an identical yet apparently arbitrary ground plan for the design of the fore- and hindlimbs of a tetrapod. The problem is even more perplexing considering that neither the initial structures – the pelvic and pectoral fins of a fish – nor the end products of the process – the fore-and hindlimbs of a tetrapod – are in any strict sense identical. How this complex and seemingly arbitrary pattern was arrived at twice independently in the course of evolution is mystifying.”

So magically fish formed legs and voila! the 4 legged amphibian was created. This is science ?

“Over a period of about fifty million years, beginning about three hundred and fifty million years ago, a number of archaic and now extinct groups of amphibia make their appearance as fossils. Again, however, each group is distinct and isolated at its first appearance and no group can be construed as being the ancestor of any other amphibian group.”

No evolution within the amphibians apparently.

Moreover, natural selection, in which through magic, some properties or 'traits' are deemed to be a competitive advantage and are passed down to offspring, has never been proven, seen, or recorded.

“...nowhere was Darwin able to point to one bona fide case of natural selection having actually generated evolutionary change in nature, let alone having been responsible for the creation of a new species.”

and

“...the degree of change that can be experimentally induced in a wide variety of organisms, from bacteria to mammals, even under the most intensive selection pressures, is always limited by a distinct barrier beyond which further change is impossible...”

In other words a cat is a cat. A mouse does not acquire 'traits' to give it a longer tail, a bigger body, or the claws and incisor teeth of a common wild cat. Mice are mice. They do not mutate by random chance genetic mutation, into a cat or a monkey. DNA, RNA and the arrangement of the building blocks of amino acids are all species specific.

In fact the differences between genus or species, is so vast that we can arrange the presumed 'tree of life' into many different flows, with many different trunks and branches. There is no coherence to the current dogma in which the human came from the sponge. Maybe the sponge came from the human?

“...traditional sequence: amphibia-->reptile-->mammal. There are as many detailed aspects of their comparative anatomy which do not support it, for example the aortic arches.....we might just as well arrange them circumferentially with reptile and mammal equidistant from amphibia. Moreover, even though the sequence fish --> amphibia --> reptile is slightly more convincing, thre is again much justification for considering the cardiovascular system in amphibia and reptile as unique specializations approximately equidistant from a typical fish.”

In other words the detailed structures of various genus and species are so different, who is to say which came first ? They all share little in common when you start to analyze their complexity.

Denton does a first rate job of asking important questions premised around science, biology, chemistry and the fossil record. Instead of Darwinists screaming that they are right and everything else is bunk; maybe they should spend more energy on providing proof, empirical evidence, and logical rational explanations as to why their cult's dogma is correct. That is after all the real scientific method.