Darwinism is an Illuminati Scam
August 6, 2013
James Perloff shows why Darwinism
makes no scientific sense.
By James Perloff
(henrymakow.com)
"We are constantly, by means of our press, arousing a blind confidence in these theories... Do not suppose for a moment that these statements are empty words: think carefully of the successes we arranged for Darwinism." (Protocols 2:2-3)
The Illuminati have long known that if you destroy belief in God, people will cease to fear God and to obey the Ten Commandments. They then become pawns of the Illuminati, willing to serve money instead of principle, and carry out iniquities from sexual misdeeds to even murder.
In the Illuminati propaganda arsenal, the greatest tool for destroying faith in God has been Darwin's theory of evolution. I know some say "I believe in evolution and God." Nonetheless, countless people have become atheists from being taught the theory as "fact" - I was once one of them.
However, Darwinism cannot be challenged on morals alone. The public has been told evolution is "science," on a footing with physics and chemistry. Therefore Darwinism must be challenged on scientific grounds.
As author of two books on Darwin's spurious theory, I know one cannot discredit, in a few paragraphs, an idea which the Illuminati have spent millions to indoctrinate society with. But let's dent it, shall we?
GENETIC CODE DERIVED FROM CHANCE?
Darwin claimed life began eons ago from chance chemical processes. From the first living cell, all life evolved. This might have been plausible in Darwin's day, when cells were considered simple. But no longer. Even a bacterial cell requires thousands of different proteins Â- each composed of hundreds of amino acids in precise order. Francis Crick, who co-discovered DNA's structure, estimated the odds of getting just ONE protein by chance as one in 10 to the power of 260 - a number beyond imagination.
To function, cells require the genetic code, which is far more complex than Windows 8's codes. Would anyone argue the latter could derive from chance?
Further, the primordial cell must have perfected - in the span of one lifetime - the process of cellular reproduction; otherwise there never would have been a second cell. Yet, despite mathematic implausibility, and a dearth of supporting evidence, schoolchildren are still taught that life began from a chance arrangement of chemicals.
According to Darwinism, single cells eventually evolved into invertebrates (creatures without backbones like jellyfish), then successively into fish, amphibians, reptiles, and finally mammals. Darwin said this occurred from creatures adapting to environments.
The discovery of genetics threatened this claim. New organs require new genes. Just moving into new environments doesn't give you new genes.
This initially stumped Darwinists, but they eventually found a solution. Random mutations - copying mistakes in the genetic code - occur very rarely, but DO alter genetic information. So modern evolutionists said animals gained new genes by chance mutations, which made them more fit, and which they adapted to evolve into higher forms.
Dr. Lee Spetner, who taught information theory for years at Johns Hopkins University and the Weizman Institute, discredits this in his book Not by Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution. Spetner demonstrates that random mutations destroy genetic information and function - never increase it. Mutations are to the genetic code what typos are to a book. In humans, mutations cause sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, Down's syndrome, and thousands of other diseases. Spetner shows that even the rare "beneficial mutations" evolutionists trumpet - such as bacterial resistance to antibiotics - actually result from functional losses.
If, as evolutionists claim, bacteria evolved successively into invertebrates, then fish, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals, there must have been countless "transitional stages." Think about it. For a fish to become a land creature, turning its fins into legs would require new bones, new muscles, new nerves - and while it was adapting to life on land, a new breathing system. Since this supposedly happened from chance mutations - very rare events - innumerable creatures would have to live and die during the intermediate period.
So where's EVIDENCE for these transitionals? Not in the living world. Among bacteria, invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals, there are many thousands of species, but no intermediate species between these groups. That's one reason why Carl Linnaeus, father of taxonomy (the science that classifies the living world) was a creationist. Evolutionists try to explain the missing intermediates by saying "they all became extinct" (a convenient euphemism for "we ain't got proof"). A more apt reason for their nonexistence: they never existed.
Evolutionists therefore rely on fossils of extinct creatures as their evidence for these transitional stages. Yet while fossils show variations within types, they do not validate the transitions between major animal groups Darwin's theory requires.
For example, while billions of invertebrate fossils exist, fossils illustrating their alleged evolution from simple ancestors are missing. Furthermore, the study of fossils has a storied history of error. In 1912, the announcement of "Piltdown Man" led the New York Times to exclaim in a headline: "Darwin Theory Proved True." For four decades the British Museum displayed this supposedly 500,000-year old "apeman" - until it was exposed as a hoax: an orangutan jaw and human skull had been planted together, stained to look old, with their teeth filed down.
Genuine fossils can be equally deceiving. Evolutionists called the coelacanth - a fossil fish claimed to be extinct for millions of years - a transitional form between fish and amphibians, its fins said to be "limb-like." Then people started catching live coelacanths, and they were 100 percent fish - no amphibian characteristics. Why are fossils tricky? Because, as molecular biologist Michael Denton notes in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 99 percent of an animal's biology resides in its soft anatomy, which is inaccessible through fossils. This disposes them to subjective interpretations.
Which brings us to our closing point. Evolution is not a science like physics or chemistry, which comprise repeatable, testable knowledge. Water boils at 100 degrees centigrade. This can be tested countless times. If I argued that water boils at 75 degrees, you could easily test and disprove my hypothesis.
But take evolutionary claims. Darwin said we lost our body hair because our apelike ancestors preferred mates with less hair. How do you disprove that? How do you disprove that "Lucy" (fossil bones found in Africa) was our ancestor? Laws of physics and chemistry can be tested in present time. Evolution, however, mostly constitutes opinions about the past, and one cannot test the past with the same authority as the present.
I'm out of time - but you're not. For more information, see my book Tornado Junkyard, or my short Case Against Darwin, or websites such as www.trueorigin.org and www.answersingenesis.org.
--
James Perloff is author of The Shadows of Power and Tornado in a Junkyard. His newest new book, Truth Is a Lonely Warrior, is a comprehensive look at the satanic drive for world government. It is available here on Kindle.
Related-
Darwin's theory of evolution: good science or a steaming pile of dung?
James
Perloff is author of The Shadows of Power and Tornado in a
Junkyard. His newest new book, Truth Is a Lonely Warrior,
available in Kindle format, is a comprehensive look at the satanic drive for
world government. - See more at: https://henrymakow.com/2013/07/the-hindenburg-another-false-flag.html#sthash.gLvgt1ox.dpuf
First Comment from Dan:
Perloff's right. Charles Darwin had an agenda. He didn't come up with Darwinism, he was just the messenger.
Darwinism is the cosmology of Freemasonry. See 2001: A Space Odyssey for the Masonic version of Genesis, in which Cain is the 'good guy' and Abel is the schmuck. Darwin's grandfather had attempted to pass off evolution as a science hypothesis in the 18th century. In his version, all life came from a single microbe. That never got traction, so a generation later, grandson Charles gave took another run at it. Charles was bipolar and lacked charisma, so the orator Thomas Huxley took up the lance of 'Darwinism'. A genius publicist, the press dubbed him "Darwin's Bulldog".
Darwin's famous book was originally titled On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
The title is very important. He didn't simply propose that species change over time, but that 'fitness' is the only qualification for survival. In one stroke the human race becomes on par with animals. The highest authority in an indifferent Universe is the creature with highest kill ratio. Morality becomes what you can get away with, etc, etc.
Erasmus Darwin was initiated in the famous Time Immemorial Lodge of Cannongate Kilwinning, No. 2, of Scotland, 1758. As 3rd generation (at least) Charles Darwin qualified for the invisible secret society above exoteric Freemasonry.
http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/darwin_e/darwin_e.html
Tom said (August 9, 2013):
I don't know what to think of God or the devil, I've never met either as best I can recall.
However, I do think there are people that believe in both and others that don't believe
and yet use the mental constructs of God and the devil against those that do. Considering
what we know of Darwin from the historical accounts (for what they're worth) he could
very well been Illuminati/Satanist as it seemingly fit well with his disdain for humanity
and the world.
What are we to think of the fossil record as it exists, with all of its' flaws and holes?
Were all of the known variations created in one fell swoop? On such and such a day
by God? Were all of the variations on man and ape alive at once? There seems to
me no perfect theory. This topic will always be an intriguing but insignificant one in
my rather short lifetime. Without having the answer to the diversity of life on Earth,
I can conclude that Darwin was what you and I would "classify" as an evil man.