Your Subtitle text

For the first time in Publishing history...Reversing 160 years of falsehood –– sharing the true spirit of quantum science from Albert Einstein and Max Planck both, this book goes where no one has gone before –– showing not everyone even agreed with Darwin, especially not the most revered and famous science minds of our time...


"There’s no evidence showing man developing step by step from lower forms of life; there is nothing to show that man was in any way connected with monkeys – He appeared suddenly and in substantially the same form as he is today . There’s no such thing as missing links.

So far as the major groups of animals the creationists appear to have the best argument. There is not the slightest evidence that Any one of the Major Groups Arose from another. Each is a special animal-complex related more or less closely to all the rest and appearing therefore as a species and distinct creation.”
Dr. Austin H. Clark, biologist- Smithsonian Institute

I remember my 5th grade teacher telling a group of West Texas children that evolution is how it all happened. I was raised metaphysically so I found her attempt somewhat shocking; a number of others kids did too. She was quite defensive, and we noticed. Like most of the educated in modern society I was raised on Darwin’s Theory of Evolution in school. Yet almost everyone agrees that it is no longer taught as a theory (even Darwin called it a Theory himself as seen in his quote above).

He did not live in a societal time where people could forcibly demand others bow down to it, like today’s educational system does. When it purports to give an explanation for the invisible past of billions of years – coming out in 1859 (circa Abraham Lincoln’s presidency in the U.S.) how can we call it anything other than a theory or assertion? It’s interesting that it’s 150 years old and still honored when we possess electron-microscopes among other amazing advances, revealing its falseness.

Let us take a look at the most famous case (of who is probably the first or second most recent recognized atheistic scientist) who ‘believed in Darwinian Evolution’ (and that, for his entire professional life as a teacher and writer). This case is famous because he converted to a deistic cause to the universe, giving up on atheism – accidentalism. This quote came from WIKIPEDIA on his recent life changes.

“Antony Garrard Newton Flew (11 February 1923-8 April 2010) was a British philosopher. Belonging to the analytic and evidentialist school of thought he is noted for his works on the philosophy of religion. Flew was a strong advocate of atheism, arguing that one should presuppose atheism until empirical evidence of a God surfaces. He also criticized the idea of life after death, and the free will defense to the problem of evil, and the meaningfulness of the concept of God.”

“However, in 2004 he stated an allegiance to deism, more specifically a belief in the Aristotelian God, stating that in keeping his lifelong commitment to go where the evidence leads he now believes in the existence of God. He later wrote the book There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, with contributions from Roy Abraham Varghese.

Flew stated that “the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries” and that “the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it”. He also answered in the affirmative to Habermas’s question, “So of the major theistic arguments, such as cosmological teleological moral and ontological – the only really impressive ones that you take to be decisive are the scientific forms of teleology?”

[Ontological arguments are arguments for the conclusion that God exists from premises which are supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world-e.g., from reason alone. In other words, ontological arguments are arguments from the analytic only –  a priori- a premise on a conclusion that ‘a God’ must exist because it’s necessary. (Stanford Dictionary) A teleological or design argument is an a-posteriori argument for the existence of God based on apparent design or purpose in the universe.]

Flew supported the idea of an Aristotelian God with “the characteristics of power and also intelligence” stating that the evidence for it was stronger than ever before. He rejects the ideas of an afterlife, of God as the source of good (explicitly stating that God has created “a lot of” evil) or the resurrection of Jesus as a historical fact – though he has allowed a short chapter arguing for Christ’s resurrection to be added into his latest book.” “Flew was particularly hostile to Islam, and said it is “best described in a Marxian way as the uniting and justifying the ideology of Arab imperialism.”

Flew subsequently changed his position given in the Habermas interview as justification for his endorsing of deism. In October 2004 (before the December publication of the Flew-Habermas interview) a letter written to the historian and atheist, Richard Carrier of the Secular Web, stated that he was a deist and also said that:

“Flew said: “My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a Naturalistic theory of the origin of DNA and of the first reproducing species..[In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first Reproducing Organisms.

In another letter to Carrier of 29 December 2004 Flew went on to retract his (earlier positions) – writing “a deity or a ‘super-intelligence’ [is] the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of all nature,” and “I now realize that I have made a fool of myself believing there are no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter, up to the first living creature capable of reproduction.” He blamed his error on being “misled” by [evolutionist] Richard Dawkins, claiming Dawkins “has never been reported as referring to any promising work on the production of a theory of the development of living matter.”

His 2007 book revisited the question, however, and questioned contemporary models: “the latest work I have seen shows that the present physical universe gives too little time for these theories of a-biogenesis to get the job done.” He added: “The philosophical question that has not been answered in origin-of-life studies is this: How can a universe of mindless matter produce beings with intrinsic-self-replicating capabilities and coded chemistry (and coded-chemistry preceding them). ‘Here we are not dealing with biology but an entirely different category of a problem’. The work of the Orthodox Jewish nuclear physicist Gerald Schroeder had also been influential in Flew’s new belief.”
Wikipedia. End.

What he is saying here is what any intellectually honest person would say. How can Dead-matter spring to life or spring to self-conscious ‘Awareness’? This is a natural and reasonable cosmic question. This is a question that only Darwinians would say happened by an ‘accident’. After a while that reason and that argument become vacuous and silly. No one in history has ever said that (only atheism). Everyone else in history has said there’s Causation in the cosmos. The idea of something springing from nothing is infantile logic that children often use in their daily talking-thinking.
When Sir Antony Flew saw the interior of the cell through an electron microscope as we perused in the Introduction here, it became unreasonable (in the extreme) for him to see all that design-complexity and systems (working only with other myriad systems) and then to believe accident after accident congealed a self replicating cell system (that doesn’t even rip itself apart every time it splits in two).
Why doesn’t that cell membrane just rip open and let all that cellular fluid out every time it splits. HOW does the cell-membrane have an inherent wisdom OR ability to remain Whole when splitting itself? Friends THAT is the Miracle you will probably never hear any one talk about  –  ever.
Let’s go on to a few other anomalies in Darwin’s theory.


Darwin ‘made hay’ out of this word Variations. It's one of his "words" in his book and theory. Darwinists love saying that word, like its special. Reading his book is amusing in ways. When I finally got around to it in my life, reading this much touted tome
by Darwin; I was amazed at its primitive simplistic quality.
One chapter he talks shoulder blades, in another ankles, and most of it is a rambling stream of ideation, that just touches upon things, but with no depth - and certainly No Proof  - Not a stitch of proof anywhere. Truly. For those who thought it or hoped it, be aware, it is simply mere theorizing on "wouldn't it be interesting if..." And there is not a striking force anywhere, or main thrust begging attention. It's like a bunch of inartful musings. It would be passed off today in any degree-
program as non-science, not-scientific and foolish speculation.

How some powers that be have passed it off as relevant for over a century is the greater amazement - not his ideas at all. The Killer? He did not even know about DNA- which is everything.  His ideas on Variation of bodily attributes among creatures – like bird beaks, claws, tails among endless examples – are now known to be an attribute of the DNA qualities or programming (and DNA’s amazing modifiability and intelligence to allow a longer version of the beak or a flatter tail for whatever) but it’s not an evolutionary change as he tried describing in dumb inanimate matter. Besides, modification of a specie isn’t really evolution anyway as it’s considered: changing from one species to another one (changing into another type of creature – their false assumption).

No, getting taller, hair color, or longer beaks are just DNA refinements to a ‘need’ arising, answered in the 3 billion codes there. Darwinism often tries to mix the two types of change, because one can be pointed to, the other cannot. They always Try to mix trans-species transformation with simple refinements. That impossible trans-formation just does not happen, and has not ever happened.
There are no halfway skeletons we have found anywhere on Earth of a fossil being between two creature states IN ANY SPECIES in all of all of HISTORY.  What we see is that because the DNA is so richly varied in its capacities it can respond to experiential states with 3-billion-codes of awesome Variations spontaneously, as an amazing quad-triplet-computer code (not binary like a PC - and billions of years before our computers); but it can turn on a genome-Codon now if needed. It does not even Have to wait for the next generation.
We’re even just discovering We can help program our own personal DNA with interior disciplines and activities – to manifest our self AS  (this is an example of Life choosing to become more complex).
DNA’s so marvelous you now read about new DNA computers and DNA computing. Art copies Life so to speak. Scientists are now copying DNA. Cool huh? DNA was supposed to be a dumb luck accident yet scientists are copying it because it is so advanced; after many decades of computer science and manufacturing, we are learning to make Better computers, from the Prime Mover's brilliant DNA.

“These misconceptions stem largely from the metaphorical ways in which the concept has been expressed, even by Darwin himself –  But as Darwin noted, such poetical expressions can lead us to view natural selection as “an active power or Deity” --- omniscient omnipotent and depending on one’s view-point either beneficent shaping species into perfect form or malevolent – yet Natural selection however, has none of these qualities – It is no more than a statistical measure of the difference in survival or reproduction among entities that differ in one or more characteristics. Selection is not caused by differential survival and reproduction; it IS differential survival and reproduction, nothing more.”
(Futuyma, Douglas J. [Professor of Evolutionary Biology, State University
      of New York, Stony Brook], “Evolutionary Biology,” [1979], Sinauer Associates: 
      Sunderland MA, Second Edition, 1986, p.150. Emphasis in original).

Natural Selection is a curious phrase isn’t it. It kind of sounds Reasonable but it’s non-specific as a phrase with no inherent deducible meaning of method. Have we ever asked our self just what is this natural selection force supposed to be anyway? And what is it affecting?  We know today it’s DNA that is being affected by mutations not a dumb natural selection force and not acting on dumb matter. Mutations only happen 10 to-10 million times because DNA has error reading capabilities. Now that’s smart.

When quanta are finally comprehended we see that there is no dumb matter. When we finally get down to asking Darwin, or Anyone how computer programming of trillions and trillions of bits of information got Inside DNA and is then able to communicate that information in some language to proteins to do something productive, how’ll they be able to answer this query?
They won’t. It’s too miraculous for our minds. Does it mean proteins talk-listen-communicate variables? Yes.Does this mean Darwinism often turns questions away – like heads in the sand – for having no answer? Yes.

Before we knew of DNA we did not even know it was this vast inexplicable Living computer in the center of every cell in the body, or plant (the size of an incredible grouping of intelligent molecules) controlling everything in the living life form.
Darwin's foolishness in explanatory reasoning was mere specu-lation, and childish prior to DNA’s truth being known. They were making completely silly postulates, living with them for decades or longer but then we conveniently forget that they gave these foolish explanations earlier. We forget to be embarrassed  –  for them, for us.

And may I tell you they only give natural selection Lip Service today. By attending evolution classes today (like Evolution 101) they mention it, because it is sacred to them, like the tablets of stone in Moses’ story, but they only have Darwin’s book to point to and some knuckle or leg bone that looks like another creature’s; (so that it is referred to reverently) but they then go on to DNA because it is where the science is.
Website Builder