British scientist Joe Farman, who died recently, was famous for discovering the “hole” in the Earth's ozone layer. That atmospheric layer is important because it shields life on Earth from intense UV radiation from the sun. It seems that the ozone layer was being destroyed by man-made pollutants, chemicals such as those used in spray cans of paint, shaving soap, hair spray and so on.

Working at a weather station in the Antarctic, back in 1982, using weather balloons to sample the atmosphere, Farman was amazed when his trusty but basic “Dobson” instrument starting showing sharp dips in the ozone layer. Sceptical of this observations, Farman was forced to purchase a replacement meter – which then showed an even greater decline. According to the London Daily Telegraph, when he published his discovery, he was “was met with scorn and disbelief” – particularly since the more sophisticated satellite equipment used by NASA had not detected the problem.

Astonishingly, NASA also had a Dobson meter at the South Pole, which confirmed Farmsn's observations – but the anomalous readings had simply been dismissed as being “clerical errors”. Apparently, “American science is embarrassed by what is regarded as one of the greatest scientific errors of all time”.

As I read Farmsn's fascinating obituary (Daily Telegraph , Tuesday 14 May 2013) instructive parallels with Darwinism were clear.

It struck me that just as the earth is surrounded by ozone layer, which shields us from dangerous ultra-violet light, so Darwinism has engulfed the planet and shields scientists in particular from “Truth”. However, to continue the parallel, just as Farman found a “hole” in the ozone layer, so Darwin himself, on one occasion, admitted that his theory was full of “holes”. And so it still is.

A further parallel is that just as NASA worked with their sophisticate instruments, but still failed to find that hole – so today, the likes Professor Sean B. Carroll probe the unfathomable complexity of human, plant and animal structure using their sophisticated DNA sequencing machines, hoping for a Nobel Prize-worthy discovery, yet cannot see the more easily observed gaping “holes” in evolution made obvious by more basic tools.

For example, just as Farman went out in the wilds to take basic chemical observations that showed up the hole in the ozone, so geologist with their little hammers and picks have dug up zillions of fossils, simple lumps of patterned rock, that plainly show that Earth never has been populated by anything but perfectly formed organisms.

In other words, there has been no evolution. It is a myth. Darwin himself admitted that the real test of his theory would be that every fossil bed should be dominated by the fossils of failed, unfit, intermediate or transitional organisms. But that was not the case in his day or today. That is why he also once admitted that his theory was like a rotten dishrag, full of “holes”.

Even now, a century and a half later, those unfit forms have not been found. How astonishing, then, that those who choose to believe the Genesis account of creation are met with “scorn and disbelief “ by our scientific community. When, far worse than NASA, they themselves are actually making “the greatest scientific error of all time”.

Science is not always objective activity that many people assume. As evolutionist professor Richard Lewontin admits – there are reputations to be made and Nobel Prizes to be won. And “scorn and disbelief” for those heretics who dare to question the dogma of the Great Lord Darwin.

A friend of mine woke up a few weeks ago thinking she was having a stroke. She could not close her one eye, or eat or drink properly because of a loss control over the muscles in one side of her face. She also had earache. The condition was diagnosed as Bell's Palsy, a condition for which there is no known cause or cure. You just have to wait for it to clear up over a period of weeks or months.

A key problem with the palsy is the inability to close the eye – with the result that the eyeball soon dries out and starts to get scratches on it. A major part of the care regime is constant lubrication with eye drops, with the eye being kept taped shut at night to avoid damage from rubbing on the bed linen.

Another Miracle of Design

Automatic lubrication illustrates yet one more aspect of the miraculous design of the human eye that scared the living daylights out of Charles Darwin. The human eye is designed to blink frequently in order to keep the eyeball moist. We can only wonder what happened to all the mythical human ancestors who had not yet somehow acquired the ability to blink, and also, of course, to generate the tears required to do the lubricating. Did they stumble around for millions of generations with badly scratched eye-balls and bloodshot eyes?

To lubricate itself, the eye requires upper and lower eyelids of the right size and flexibility, sets of muscles to control them, and some kind of timing mechanism, so that they blink at a sensible but effective rate. And ditto for the other eye. Can any sane person really believe that we acquired the ability to blink as the result of fortuitous and coordinated DNA copying errors?

Evolution deals in vague generalities, happy to leave the messy and miraculous design detail to the magic wand of Natural Selection – e.g. "Blinking would be an advantage because it would lubricate the eyes. Thus, man learned to blink. That's how Natural Selection works. Nuff said. Q.E.D.” Such explanations explain nothing in credible cause-and-effect detail – but do give comfort to evolutionists who, like Darwin himself, are desperate to believe his infantile theory. How much longer can evolution carry on posing as serious science?

Common Sense?

It is interesting that Darwin had such problems with the eye, because the light that enters the eye serves as a metaphor for knowledge and Truth. We use our eyes to acquire knowledge, but how reliable is that knowledge?

Common sense suggests that the earth is basically flat – but science shows that it is not. Common sense tells us that the sun rises in the morning and sets at night – but science shows that the apparent rising and setting is actually due to the rotation of the earth. Common sense also suggests that an object needs a force to keep it moving – but Newton realized that in a friction-free environment, a moving object would just keep on moving, like the moon going around the earth.

Common sense and similarities between organisms convinced Charles Darwin that they had all developed from a common ancestor. Yet once again, science shows the easy error of common sense. His theory required that the vast majority of fossils would be those of unfit intermediate forms. They should dominate the fossil record – but they cannot be found. Evolution cannot explain the existence of male and female forms possessing complex but complementary sex organs. Evolutions has no credible mechanism to explain the mythical process, beyond the accumulation of random DNA copying errors -- and even evolutionists find that preposterous claim hard to swallow. Let alone mind, emotion, instinct and even the nature of “life”. And more recently, the Human Genome Project has shown that the genes simply do not contain the detailed morphological blueprints required to grow an embryo or create any bodily detail. The DNA simply serves to manufacture protein building materials.

On a clear sunny day, for example, the sky is blue, but science has found that this is an illusion. There appears to be a massive blue “structure” up there – a kind of dome. However, what we are really “seeing” is blue light from the sun that is passing overhead, some of which is scattered down to us due to the action of tiny dust particles in the atmosphere. There is no blue “structure” or “thing” up there at all.

It is not until night time, with a cloudless sky, that we see what the space above the earth really looks like – masses of stars grouped into galaxies, a number so incredible that it would be possible to give one or more galaxies to every human being who ever lived on earth.

The difference between Darwin's evolutionary scenario and that of the literal reading of Genesis is as great as that between the blue sky of day and the star spangled heavens of night. For further discussion, check out “EvoGenesis – the New Synthesis” and get the real facts.

I have often wondered why bees buzz around flowers in an apparently random fashion – rather than working systematically from one blossom to the next as they search for nectar. Scientists at Bristol University have just discovered the astonishing answer.

Positive and Negative

They have discovered that plants not only “communicate” with bees by emitting scents, but also by means of electrostatic fields. Apparently, as bees fly through the air, they acquire a positive electric charge. The flowers, on the other hand, acquire negative charges because they are connected to the earth. Just as magnets create magnetic fields, so the electrostatic charges on the flowers create invisible “electric fields” around them.

When a bee lands on a flower, a little bit of the blossom's negative charge is neutralized. As a result, each time a bee visits a flower to take away some nectar, it also neutralises a bit more of its electric charge. Since other bees flying by can apparently detect and assess the strength of a flower's remaining electric charge, they can tell which ones are worth checking out – and which ones to leave alone.

All this was discovered by using artificial flowers, giving them natural scents, and applying various electric charges to them. Then bringing on the bees. Astonishingly (forgive me for overworking this word!) the scientists also found that by varying the shape of the electric fields around artificial flowers that had the same charge, the bees preferred visiting flowers with fields in concentric rings like a bullseye. Wow!

Exploiting the Bees

Although this amazing discovery understandably had the scientists “jumping up and down" – even more amazing to me is their determination to attribute this miraculous phenomenon to Darwin's infantile theory of evolution.

According to the New Scientist magazine: “The researchers speculate that flowers evolved different shaped fields in the competition to attract pollinators.” "Flowers are a ruthless expression of evolution," says the lead scientist. "They exploit bees."

Please notice yet again the use of vague verbosity as they attribute to the flowers some kind of near-human intelligence and sense of purpose – totally contrary to Darwin's stated principle of mindless Natural Selection.

However, since the whole world seems befuddled by Darwinism, the men in white coats know they can afford to be sloppy in their supposed “explanations” – keep it vague and so avoid getting bogged down in messy questions of “How? How? How?” all this could possibly have happened.

They just know it happened. And best play safe, anyway, and stick to the party line, or you may lose your research grants and ruin your career. Thus, the whole miracle is dismissed as “a ruthless expression of evolution”. An explanation that explains nothing.

Can any person of sound mind really believe that bees acquired the ability to sense an electric field, measure its strength and relate that to the amount nectar in a flower, all by the accumulation of random DNA copying errors as they reproduced generation by generation?

Come back John McEnroe – and pass me the honey please,

{Ed the editor: Evolution is dead. Please help us put the lid on the coffin.]

In the “Song of Songs”, Solomon compares the human mind to an ancient walled city with watchmen patrolling the walls and keeping guard at the gates. The citizens are slumbering and the job of the watchmen is to turn away potential trouble-makers who might might disturb that slumber – using force if necessary.

It is interesting that modern-day gurus, such as Tony Robbins, suggest that even today many or most people are metaphorically sleep-walking their way through life – blissfully ignorant of the way circumstances are controlling their lives, not really thinking, and failing to ask and answer important questions and challenge assumptions that could change the directions and destinations of their lives.

Are You Programmed?

One key lesson that Solomon wants us to learn is that we are inclined to judge unfamiliar ideas on the basis of the information we have already accepted into our minds as “Truth” – having been programmed by our parents, school, our upbringing. As a result, new ideas can be disturbing, and the easiest reaction is to reject them in a knee-jerk fashion rather than giving them careful consideration. That is how our mental watchmen work – going on the defensive and, if necessary, getting angry, even violent.

This is why one of the key principles of problem solving is to deliberately identify basic assumptions and consider the consequences of reversing them. For example, a struggling business may start working to give customers the best possible value – rather than trying to rip them off.

Thinking About Thinking

So why not take a few minutes to take conscious charge of your thinking – to start thinking about thinking, something many people are afraid to do. What about those metaphorical walls that surround your mind. Who built those walls? How were the building blocks put in place? And what about those watchmen? Could they be re-trained and given new guidelines? Consider also the fact that if you are an “expert”, perhaps in a specialized field such as biology, your “walls” are probably much higher and thicker than those of the non-specialist. So what steps can you take to achieve an open, “un-programmed” state of mind?

Reversal

We might assume that a person who is an evolutionist embraces Darwinism because he believes the arguments. However, consider the following reversal. Could it be that they really embrace evolution because they reject the unscientific claims of creationists who insist, contrary to all scientific discovery, that the earth is only about six thousand years old? i.e. Young-earth creationism is clearly wrong – so evolution must be correct.

It is often said that there are two sides to every argument, but in yet another kind of reversal, could there actually be third side to this particular problem – namely the “old earth” or “gap theory” teaching that was in fact a majority view among Christian people decades before Darwin came on the scene? . . . By the way, what was your reaction to reading the term “gap theory”? Did your watchmen rankle a bit?

EvoGenesis

Could it be that the real Truth of the situation is to be found by combining the valid claims of evolution (e.g. the earth really is old and its former flora and fauna were destroyed and are now extinct) and creationism (the earth's present flora and fauna were created in six days about six thousand years ago) – to form a simple new Synthesis, that might well be called “EvoGenesis”?

Just consider some of the implications and simplifications of EvoGenesis: e.g. There was a prehistoric age populated by bizarre and now-extinct creatures such as trilobites and dinosaurs. That world was annihilated in catastrophic events still witnessed to to by the present condition of the moon and planets – leaving the earth in the darkened and flooded condition describes in Genesis 1:1, before the famous “creation week” had even begun. As a result, those extinct organisms were not the “ancestors” of today organisms. So there was no evolution – which simply resolves the massive problem of the conspicuous absence of transitional form fossils.

Thinking About Evolution

But if you are still an evolutionist, how deeply are you prepared to think about the claims of evolution? As NLP psychology stresses, we think and communicate with ourselves and other people on various levels, from general to specific. For example, a salesman might complain: “I just cannot sell anything”. The good sales manager would point out that this is a vague generality, and pose specific questions such as: “What do you mean by cannot sell ?” Can you make a phone call? Can you make an appointment? Can you find some prospects? Can you better organise your time? Etc.

Likewise, In my experience, the more closely and specifically the claims of evolution are examined, the more clear it becomes that they are also vague generalities that explain nothing in specific cause and effect manner. However, since Darwin's general claim has been accepted as a kind of “faith”, the media bombards us with vague verbosity, such as – evolved, developed, acquired, and even invented. And many people accept it.

Meet Mr Jones

The key cop-out is that Natural Selection supposedly moulded all organisms to their environments by favouring some random DNA copying errors and rejecting others. The supposed survival of the fittest is the Mantra of evolution. Simply mouth those words, and no further explanation if necessary. They just “know” it happened that way.

But how deeply have you thought about such claims? Are you, like civil servant Reg Jones, Churchill's personal assistant in WW2, prepared to challenge so-called experts with a series of simple questions” – Why? Why? And again Why? When challenged by Reg, much of what the military experts presented to Churchill turned out to be mere opinion, guesswork and wishful thinking, rather than reality.

Can you really believe that every tiny detail of your human body was “designed” by the accumulation of random DNA copying errors? How, for example, were tiny blood vessels formed inside each of your teeth? And how were incisors, canine and molars formed? And again, how could DNA copying errors possibly form two sets of teeth?

Did some imagined ancestor really thrive and out-multiply his competitors because some DNA copying errors made his teeth fractionally “fitter” in some small aspect? How fortunate this mythical man must have been that Natural Selection also kindly endowed him with the best eyes, arms, legs, toes, heart valves, etc., etc.

And speaking of our miraculous circulation system, how can evolution explain the creation of vitamin K, without which the blood would be too thin to clot, and would seep through the walls of the blood vessels. I wonder how many unfit “missing links” bled to death from cuts as Natural Selection waited patiently for just the right combination of DNA copying errors to occur. And spare a thought for their primitive partners who had to give birth. Without vitamin K, every mother would have died of childbirth.

What infantile rubbish Darwin's theory really is – as even dedicated British evolutionist Derek Hough has actually admitted in his book “Evolution – a case of stating the obvious”.

I don't know if his admission has been retracted in more recent editions.

And as you ponder these matters, consider the fact that the “Human Genome Project” has confirmed that our DNA does not contain the morphological blueprints required for the formation of any part of the body, be that a nose or a hair follicle. It simply enables the production of protein building materials.

Meet Another Mr Jones

How bizarre that even intelligent people can accept such infantile nonsense – even university professors such as the prolific Dr Steve Jones who expects us to believe that man acquired hearing because “part of the lower jaw migrated into the ear to become the hammer and the anvil”. The good doctor is deceiving himself – but can he deceive you, dear reader, with his typically vague verbosity? Migrated? Became? How? How? How?

The reality is that there is no actual specific cause-and-effect proof of evolution. It is just an imagined scenario that atheists would love to be true. Meanwhile, despite their inability to provide any credible explanations, they live in hope that somehow all will one day be resolved. Oh, I forgot – it is still just a theory, of course, so they cannot be expected to have all the answers yet. Isn't that right Mr Darwin? . . . Mr Darwin, where are you? . . . Oh, sorry, you are dead. Let's hope there is a God after all.

P.S. Have you read our free e-book – “Charlie is my Darwin”?