Some Surprising Facts About Evolution

Michael T. Griffith

2002

@All Rights Reserved

Fourth Edition

Revised and Expanded on 2/5/2002

1. Evolution Has Never Been Observed and Evolution Is Not A "Fact"

No scientist, nor anyone else in recorded history for that matter, has ever observed the supposed process of evolution occurring. In 1981 the prestigious Natural History Museum in South Kensington, London, presented an elaborate exhibit in which evolution was presented as a theory, not a fact. The museum also published a brochure which included a statement that began with the words, "If the theory of evolution is true. . . ." This presentation of evolution as a theory instead of a fact angered some evolutionists. The leading science journal Nature ran an editorial entitled "Darwin's Death in South Kensington." The editorial said the exhibit and accompanying brochure must have been prepared without input from the museum's distinguished staff of biologists, and that surely those biologists would "rather lose their right hands than begin a sentence with the phrase, 'If the theory of evolution is true. . . ."

What happened next is something that few if any evolutionists ever mention in their writings: The editor received a letter signed by no less than twenty-two of the museum's staff of biologists in which they defended the museum's exhibit and literature. To the journal's credit, it published the letter. I quote from that letter:

Sir, as working biologists at the British Museum (Natural History) we were astonished to read your editorial "Darwin's Death in South Kensington" (Nature 26 February, p. 735). How is it that a journal such as yours that is devoted to science and its practice can advocate that theory be presented as fact? This is the stuff of prejudice, not science, and as scientists our basic concern is to keep an open mind on the unknowable. Surely it should not be otherwise?

You suggest that most of us would rather lose our right hands than begin a sentence with the phrase "If the theory of evolution is true. . . ." Are we to take it that evolution is a fact, proven to the limits of scientific rigor? If that is the inference then we must disagree most strongly. We have no absolute proof of the theory of evolution.

British biologist and evolutionist L. Harrison Matthews, in fact, has called the theory of evolution "an unproved theory" (Introduction to The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin, reprinted by J. M. Dent and Sons, Ltd., London, 1971, p. xi, reference from Duane Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Say No, San Diego, CA: Creation- Life Publishers, 1978, p. 28).

Evolution is not a fact.

When I say evolution is not a fact, let me be clear what I mean by "evolution" in this statement. I do not mean microevolution. Speciation and adaptation do occur. These are microevolutionary changes or developments. Microevolution consists of limited change and adaptation. Virtually no one disputes the reality of microevolution. What I mean by "evolution" is macroevolution, or evolution at the macro level, The complete theory of evolution is the idea that life arose spontaneously from non-life (or abiogenesis), that these "primitive" cells somehow developed into "simple" organisms that swam in the ancient ponds and seas, that these organisms evolved into fish, that some fish evolved into reptiles, that some reptiles then evolved into mammals, and that some mammals evolved into man. This is the full-blown theory of evolution, and it is this theory that creationists strongly dispute.

Some evolutionists protest strongly that the theory of evolution does not include abiogenesis, that evolution only deals with the origin of species, not with the origin of first life. Other evolutionists, however, have contradicted this denial. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that evolution does not include abiogenesis, it most certainly does assume the occurrence of macro-level changes, such as a creature from one genus changing into a creature of a different genus. And evolution most certainly does posit that some "simple" organisms in the oceans evolved into fish, that some fish evolved into reptiles, that some reptiles evolved into mammals, and that some mammals evolved into man.

With this understood, let's continue. Not only has evolution not been observed, but scientists have been unable to change one genus into another genus even in sophisticated breeding experiments. This casts great doubt on the idea that one genus could change into another genus as a result of mutations. For that matter, there is doubt that mutations are capable of producing a new unambiguous species. Jewish scholar Lawrence Keleman observes:

Another theoretical flaw grew out of Darwin's incomplete understanding of genetics. Darwin assumed that any species could slowly evolve into any other species through a series of small changes. But scientists now know that genes have mutability limits. A DNA chain will stretch only so far from its original form before breaking or snapping back.

Keleman goes on to discuss the results of tests on the Drosophila melanogaster fruit fly:

The fly naturally grows about thirty-six bristles, but Mayr was able to breed otherwise normal flies with as few as twenty-five and as many as fifty-six bristles. When Mayr pushed the fly's genetic material beyond these limits, samples became sterile and died out. When allowed to breed normally, though, even the most mutant strains returned to almost normal bristle counts within five generations. Similarly, scientists have changed the famous peppered moth (Briston betularia) from speckled to silver, silver to black, and black back to speckled. But the moth never became green, purple, or blue; and it always remained a moth.

In 1982 Francis Hitching reported, "Every series of breeding experiments that has ever taken place has established a finite limit to breeding possibilities." He cited a remarkable series of tests in which mutant genes were paired to create an eyeless fly:

"When these flies in turn were interbred, the predictable result was offspring that were also eyeless. And so it continued for a few generations. But then, contrary to all expectations, a few flies began to hatch out with eyes. Somehow, the genetic code had a built-in repair mechanism that reestablished the missing genes. The natural order reasserted itself."

The fact that neither Darwin nor any subsequent biologist has ever succeeded in causing or even witnessing the evolution of one species into another cannot help but disturb those who would like to believe in the theory of evolution. (Keleman, Permission to Believe: Four Rational Approaches to God's Existence, Southfield, MI: Targum Press, 1990, pp. 57-58)

Dr. Dean Kenyon, a professor of biology at San Francisco State University and co-author of a standard textbook on chemical evolution, Biochemical Predestination, and Percival Davis, a professor of science at Hillsborough Community College and the author of several college-level biology texts, likewise point out that studies of mutations have failed to produce evidence of evolution and in fact strongly tend to refute it:

As the central mechanism of evolution, mutations have been studied extensively for the past century. The fruit fly has been the subject of many experiments because its short life-span allows scientists to observe many generations. In addition, the flies have been bombarded with radiation to increase the rate of mutations. Scientists now have a pretty clear idea what kind of mutations can occur.

Mutations do not create new structures. They merely alter existing ones. Mutations have produced, for example, crumpled, oversized, and undersized wings. They have produced double sets of wings. But they have not created a new kind of wing. Nor have they transformed the fruit fly into a new kind of insect. Experiments have simply produced variations within the fruit fly species. . . .

The changes observed in the laboratory and the breeding pen are all limited. They represent microevolution, not macroevolution. These limited changes do not accumulate the way evolutionary theory requires in order to produce macro changes. The process that produces macroevolutionary changes must be different from any that geneticists have studied so far. . . .

How likely is it that random mutations will come together and coordinate to form just one new structure? Let's say the formation of an insect wing requires only five genes (a very low estimate). Most mutations are harmful, and scientists estimate that only one in 1,000 is not. The probability of two non-harmful mutations occurring is one in one thousand million million. For all practical purposes, there is no chance that all five mutations will occur within the life cycle of a single organism. (Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins, Dallas: Haughton Publishing Company, 1989, pp. 11-13)

Professors Kenyon and Davis also point out there is no evidence of the "prebiotic soup" from which evolutionists claim life somehow came into existence:

It is worth noting also that we have no geological evidence of any massive pre-life (prebiotic) accumulation of organic matter. The clay deposits of the time, found in abundance, would have retained large amounts of hydrocarbons and nitrogen-rich compounds from the prebiotic soup. The surface of the clay has tiny cavities that would have imprisoned these molecules where they would still be evident today. Thus if the "prebiotic soup" had really existed, we would expect to find such surviving traces of it in the oldest rocks, but we do not. (Of Pandas and People, p. 50)

Lynn Margulis, a professor of biology at the University of Massachusetts, said history will judge neo-Darwinism as "a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology," adding that "Neo-Darwinism, which insists on (the slow accrual of mutations) is in a complete funk" (in Science, 1991, vol. 252, pp. 378-381, from Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, The Free Press, 1996, p. 26).

2. No Genuine, Clear-cut, Undisputed Transitional Form Has Ever Been Found in the Fossil Record.

According to classical (or Darwinian) evolutionary theory, life slowly evolved in stages, e.g., the certain "ape-like creatures" gradually evolved into man, some reptiles evolved into mammals (to include birds), some dogs evolved into horses, etc., etc. If this were the case, we would expect to find numerous "transitional forms" in the fossil record, i.e., fossils of animals that were half dog and half horse, or that were half ape and half man, or that were half reptile and half bird, etc., etc. However, not a single clear-cut transitional form has been found.

In recent years paleontologist Henry Gee has sent a small tremor through the scientific community by authoring a book that argues that fossils can't be linked with certainty and that traditional paleontology amounts to story telling. Evolutionary scientist Gert Korthof summarizes Gee's arguments in his review of Gee's book In Search of Deep Time: Beyond The Fossil Record to a New History of Life (Detroit: The Free Press, 1999):

Henry Gee is an editor for the weekly science magazine Nature and has been trained as a paleontologist in the group of Colin Patterson at the Natural History Museum in London.

According to Henry Gee a revolution has been going on in paleontology. . . . Gee is a critic of old fashioned 'missing link' paleontology: the well-known type of paleontology that constructs trees of ancestors and descendants. Almost synonymous with 'the theory of evolution'. Paleontologists produced narratives and scenarios how some dinosaurs got wings and became birds. How some fishes got legs and evolved into land animals. How some apes got brains and evolved into humans. (Mere the fact that the word 'story' is used instead of 'theory' means a lot.) But fossils are isolated points in deep time says Gee, and can never be linked with certainty. The fossil evidence is unable to support evolutionary narratives. These scenarios can never be tested by experiment and so are unscientific! Traditional paleontology is story telling. We can never be certain that Archaeopteryx is the missing link between birds and dinosaurs. Not surprisingly exactly these stories were often attacked by the critics of evolution! But from the lips of a mainstream scientist as Gee, these statements sound quite revolutionary. Gee attacks what once was orthodoxy! (Gert Korthof, "A Revolution in Paleontology," December 8, 2000, Was Darwin Wrong?, http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/)

Says Dr. Duane Gish,

. . . it can be said that the fossil record reveals an explosive appearance of highly complex forms of life without evidence of evolutionary ancestors. This fact is a great mystery to evolutionists; but creationists ask, what greater evidence for creation could the rocks give than this sudden outburst of highly complex life? Furthermore, the fossil record fails to produce transitional forms between the major invertebrate types, between invertebrates and vertebrates, and between the major fish classes. (Evolution: The Fossils Say No, p. 71).

Some modern evolutionists, reacting to the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record, now hold that evolution occurred in giant, "rapid" leaps ("rapid," that is, in comparison to the incredibly slow pace posited by Darwinian evolution). This new theory of origins is, in reality, a marked repudiation of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. Roger Oakland, a former evolutionist with a degree in biology, and Caryl Matrisciana make the following comment about the fossil record in relation to the modern theory of evolution:

In an attempt to explain away the lack of evidence of transitional forms in the fossil record many evolutionists claim that evolution takes places over millions of years and is too slow to be observable. Another, more recent, explanation says that it is happening too fast for us to see.

This newest modification is called punctuated equilibria, and it is yet another theory resulting from lack of evidence to support the original theory! Such circular reasoning is certainly a challenge to logic.

Punctuated equilibria supposes that a group of species breaks away from the parent group of species and rapidly develops into a new species. With this model of biology paleontologists are now able to explain away the lack of fossil evidence.

Still, the fact remains that there is no evidence in the fossil record to support either gradual or rapid evolution. Under normal reasoning one would deduce such a lack of evidence to be a positive conclusion that no species have ever changed into another, as the evolution hypothesis maintains. Rather, the opposite has occurred. The evidence that hasn't been found in nearly a hundred and fifty years of diligent searching is called "the missing link," and hundreds of scientists continue in their attempts to find evidence that missing links are indeed missing. Sound scientific reasoning!

The concept of evolution is a hypothetical assumption. It should not be confused with science, which Webster's Dictionary defines as "knowledge derived from observation, facts and principles."

When animals die they are not normally fossilized. Their carcasses usually decompose and rot, or perhaps scavengers eat their remains. If left unprotected, the elements may destroy much of the personal information regarding the creature.

Even so, many scientists have convinced the public that the fossil record is replete with examples of missing links. Most often these missing links are confirmed not by factual evidence but rather by the use of hypothetical artistic representations. Science textbooks are full of proposals and illustrations supposedly proving the existence of transitional forms. Museums often display models of fishlike creatures crawling out on the land, then growing legs instead of fins, and so on. But what are these models based on?

Many evolutionists attempt to determine characteristics like hair color, skin tones, and features that are not possible to deduce from fossil finds. Bent on fitting the evidence into their evolutionary worldview, they conjecture how many millions of years old the evidence is, what animal it was before it came to be found in its present state, what it ate while in another state, or how it walked before it became what the fossil evidence states it to be at the time of the finding. The same is true of fossilized bones. Bones, if not smashed beyond recognition, may certainly be identified without too much trouble as belonging to a dog or a cow. But the color of the skin or hair of that dog or cow may not be deduced from the bone! These attempts, at best, are wild imaginary guesses, and at worst, the propagation of a theory based around the bias of the person who found the fossil or bone. The conclusion cannot be supported to be a sound scientific evaluation, but a furthering of a philosophy of life. (The Evolution Conspiracy, Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 1991, pp. 99-101).

Professors Kenyon and Davis note there is no evidence in the fossil record of evolutionary descent from one taxon to the next:

There is still no positive fossil evidence for evolutionary descent from one taxon to the next. At best, punctuated equilibrium [the theory that evolution occurred in "sudden" leaps] advances an explanation for evolution's lack of evidence. (Of Pandas and People, p. 25)

It should be pointed out that evolutionists do claim there are some transitional forms, but they disagree about which fossils constitute transitional forms and which evolutionary model those alleged transitional forms support. For example, advocates of the punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution argue that most or all of the few fossils that Darwinian evolutionists cite as evidence of gradual evolution do not actually constitute evidence of the Darwinian model. Evolutionist Dr. Donald Prothero has said the following about Niles Eldredge and Stephen Gould's punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution:

Eldredge and Gould not only showed that paleontologists had been out-of-step with biologists for decades, but also that they had unconsciously been trying to force the fossil record into the gradualistic mode. The few supposed examples of gradual evolution were featured in the journals and textbooks, but paleontologists had long been mum about their "dirty little trade secret." Most species appear suddenly in the fossil record and show no appreciable change for millions of years until their extinction.

When the punctuated equilibrium paper first came out, reactions were mixed. Since 1972 there have been many traditional paleontologists who denied its importance, and trotted out their favorite example of gradual evolution. Many of these "classic" examples were restudied in critical detail, and turned out to be ambiguous, or actually demonstrated punctuated equilibria better than gradualism. (See Prothero, "Punctuated Equilibrium at Twenty: A Paleontological Perspective," Skeptic, vol. 1, number 3, 1992, pp. 40-44, emphasis added)

It's important to note that not one of the alleged transitional forms that evolutionists cite is a clear-cut, self-evident transitional form. In 1979 Dr. Colin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History admitted in writing that there was not a single alleged transitional form "for which one could make an airtight case" as being evidence of Darwinian evolution (Luther Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma, Santee, California: Master Books, 1988, p. 89). Dr. Patterson was asked about this comment with the question, "You stated in your letter that there are no transitions. Do you know of any good ones?" He replied, "No, I don't, not that I would try to support. No" (Darwin's Enigma, pp. 89-90). (Some evolutionists argue that Sunderland "misused" Patterson's comments because Patterson had previously argued in print that there were some transitional forms in the fossil record. But Sunderland's questions to Patterson were clear and straightforward, and Patterson's answers were just as clear and specific. It was not Sunderland's fault that Patterson contradicted his own previously expressed views.)

Patterson made those comments in 1979. Have any transitional forms been found since then? Evolutionists claim some such fossils have been found, but creation scientists argue that those fossils, like the ones that were commonly cited in Patterson's day, are not clear-cut transitional forms and that they are based on doubtful, subjective assumptions. For instance, evolutionists argue there are transitional forms that provide clear evidence of the alleged evolution of the whale. Creationist scientists, however, strongly challenge this claim, noting that these supposed "series of transitional fossils" cannot be arranged in a procession from ancestor to descendant, and that until fairly recently the consensus among experts in the field was that the archaeoceti could not be regarded as direct ancestral forms of the modern cetaceans--in other words, that the extinct archaeoceti were not the ancestors of modern marine mammals (see, for example, Ashby Camp, "The Overselling of Whale Evolution," Creation Research Society Quarterly, volume 3, number 3, 1998; available at http://www.creationresearch.org/).

3. No "Missing Link" Between Ape and Man Has Ever Been Found.

We are all familiar with the drawings and illustrations of ape-like male and female creatures that regularly appear in popular magazines and in science textbooks. In recent years we've heard a lot about "Lucy." Before "Lucy" there was "Nebraska Man," "Java Man," "Piltdown Man," "Neanderthal Man," "Peking Man," etc., etc. When I saw these drawings, I automatically assumed that scientists had found the remains of the pictured creatures, that skeletons of these beings had been discovered. I was surprised to learn that in fact these drawings were based, not on hard physical evidence, but almost entirely on supposition. I was equally surprised to learn that in some cases these "apemen" had been exposed as hoaxes. "Nebraska Man" was based on a single tooth. "Java Man" was based on a few teeth and on two bones that were found 50 feet from each other. "Java Man's" femur bone was later determined to be entirely human, and not half-ape at all. What's more, the man who discovered "Java Man" later changed his mind and concluded "Java Man" was nothing more than a large gibbon. "Lucy" was based on a skeleton that was no more than 40 percent complete. "Lucy" was designated a missing link on the basis of her knee joint, which supposedly showed she had been bipedal (or able to walk upright). However, it is still not certain that Lucy walked upright. Indeed, British scientist Dr. Alan Hayward observes that evidence indicates Lucy probably did not walk upright like a human:

Much was made of Lucy by her finder, Don Johanson, and others. He assigned her a date of around three million years ago, and claimed that she represented the earliest known ancestors of the human race. Books and magazines began to publish imaginative drawings of Lucy and her family, looking almost as human as the nudists on Brighton beach.

Then in 1983 two American anthropologists, Stern and Susman, rather spoiled the artists' fun. They published the results of a reexamination of Lucy's skeleton, which had led them to very different conclusions. Many of her bones were more like chimpanzee bones than those of a human. She probably did not walk upright like a woman, but in a slouched position like an ape. And she probably spent much of her time climbing trees, since her skeleton was better suited to that than walking.

So what really was Lucy? A forerunner of the human race, or just an extinct species of ape? The short answer is that there is no way of knowing. (Creation and Evolution: Rethinking the Evidence from Science and the Bible, Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, Bethany House Publishers Edition, 1995, pp. 52-53)

4. Many Evolutionists Have Admitted that the Fossil Record Contradicts the Theory of Evolution and that Science Has Been Unable to Duplicate Evolution Even in Highly Controlled Circumstances in Sophisticated Laboratories.

Dr. David B. Nitts, Department of Geology, University of Oklahoma:

Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate [or transitional] forms between species and paleontology does not provide them. . . . (Evolution, vol. 28, 1974, p. 467)

Norman Macbeth, who started off believing firmly in evolution and later rejected it:

Darwinism has failed in practice. The whole aim and purpose of Darwinism is to show how modern forms descended from ancient forms, that is, to construct reliable phylogenies (genealogies or family trees). In this it has utterly failed. (American Biology Teacher, November 1976, p. 495, reference from Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Say No, p. 176)

Dr. Stephen Gould, Harvard University:

All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. ("The Return of the Hopeful Monsters," Natural History, vol. 86, 1977, reference from Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Say No, p. 176)

Dr. Richard B. Goldschmidt, who was a professor at the University of California:

It is true that nobody thus far has produced a new species or genus, etc., by macromutation. . . .

Neither has anyone witnessed the production of a new specimen of a higher taxonomic category by selection of micromutants. (American Scientist, vol. 40, 1952, pp. 94, 97, reference from Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Say No, p. 28)

Pierre-Paul Grasse, a distinguished French zoologist:

This text [a Darwinist textbook] suggests that modern bacteria are evolving very quickly, thanks to their innumerable mutations. Now, this is not true. For millions, or even billions, of years, bacteria have not transgressed the structural frame within which they have always fluctuated and still do. . . . To vary and to evolve are two different things. . . . (Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 6, from Hayward, Creation and Evolution, p. 25)

Despite their innumerable mutations, Erophila verna [whitlow grass], Viola tricola [wild pansy], and the rest do not evolve. This is a fact. (Evolution of Living Organisms, p. 225, from Hayward, Creation and Evolution, p. 25)

Oakland and Matrisciana make the following point about the evolutionists' assumption that living cells somehow evolved from nonliving material and about the failure of science to duplicate evolution even in sophisticated, highly controlled laboratory experiments:

Evolutionary theory accepts without question that nonlife can become life (simple and gradually more complex) by a process taking place over millions of years of time guided by nothing more than random chance events.

What do observable evidence and logic tell us? The observation made when we examine living things is that all life originates from life which already exists--life comes from preexisting life. This is commonly known in the field of biology as the "law of biogenesis."

The cell is described by biologists as the basic unit of life. No scientist has ever observed a cell originating from nonliving raw materials by spontaneous processes. Even controlled experimentation by the advanced technology of our day has never been able to produce a living cell. Cells can only come from cells that are already in existence.

Multicellular organisms never arise spontaneously from nonliving material. The perpetuation of life can only take place as living things beget a new generation of living things. Plants produce seed which produce new plants of the same kind; cats produce kittens which develop into mature cats. Life can only originate from life which already exists. This is powerful evidence that clearly supports the law of biogenesis and clearly contradicts the evolutionary view. (The Evolution Conspiracy, pp. 85- 86)

A Little Logic

Let's take one of the "simpler" man-made devices, the mouse trap. Compared to a computer, the mouse trap is "simple." Yet, no one would ever believe that a single mouse trap resulted from random processes. No matter how inventive or creative a scenario proposed for the accidental formation of a mouse trap, no one would ever believe it. How about something as simple as a child's mud pie? A certain amount of planning and design is necessary even for something as simple as a mud pie. Even in the case of a child's mud pie, no one would believe it came about by purely random processes. In other words, no one would never accept a scenario that said things as simple as the mouse trap or a child's mud pie resulted purely from chance processes. No one would believe it. We just wouldn't. Our own common sense would tell us that these things did not and could not have resulted from random processes.

How, then, can anyone believe that the myriad of complex life forms arose by random processes? Let's consider the "simplest" of all life forms, the one-celled creature, such as a bacterium. This is an amazingly tiny cell that is about one-thousandth of an inch long. Yet even this tiny "simple" cell is astonishingly complex. Sir James Gray, a Cambridge professor of zoology, said:

A bacterium is far more complex than any inanimate system known to man. There is not a laboratory in the world which can compete with the biochemical activity of the smallest living organism. (In Marshall and Sandra Hall, The Truth: God or Evolution?, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1975, p. 89)

The cell is as complicated as New York City. It is more complicated than the most advanced computer. Thus, the simplest form of life is more complicated than the most sophisticated man-made device. If we can reach the common-sense conclusion that a mouse trap or a child's mud pie is the result of intelligent design, we can also logically and reasonably conclude that even a single-celled organism surely must be the result of intelligent design.

One is reminded of Sir Isaac Newton's model of our solar system that he had built for an atheist friend of his. Newton had a friend who was an atheist. For his friend's sake, Newton had a small-scale model of our solar system constructed. He then invited his friend over for dinner. When the friend saw the finely built model of the solar system, he asked Newton who had made it. Newton replied, "Nobody." Shocked, his friend retorted, "Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked who made this." Newton answered, "Nobody. What you see just happened to assume the form it has now." Newton's friend was insulted, saying, "You must think I'm a fool!" Newton then drove home his point:

This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?

********************************************************

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:Michael T. Griffith holds a Masterís degree in Theology from The Catholic Distance University, a Graduate Certificate in Ancient and Classical History from American Military University, a Bachelorís degree in Liberal Arts from Excelsior College, and two Associate in Applied Science degrees from the Community College of the Air Force.He also holds an Advanced Certificate of Civil War Studies and a Certificate of Civil War Studies from Carroll College.He is a graduate in Arabic and Hebrew of the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California, and of the U.S. Air Force Technical Training School in San Angelo, Texas.In addition, he has completed an Advanced Hebrew program at Haifa University in Israel.He is the author of five books on Mormonism and ancient texts, including How Firm A Foundation, A Ready Reply, and One Lord, One Faith.