Inspired by some of the interesting comments in response to my Blog DARWINISM IS DEAD, I went back last night to one of my many pieces of source material – the TV programme on Life which was presented by Dawkins. And Yes Walker5 this programme was why I raised Dawkins and The God Delusion in my comments.

You Walker5 are absolutely right, neither the book nor Dawkins approach is in any way “scientific.” Dawkins tries to use Darwin’s theory just to disprove Creationism and God. He is (as was Darwin himself) a campaigning agnostic. There is however an important difference Darwin goes on to try to present a scientific explanation/justification of his Theory of Evolution. Dawkins does not – he remains locked in his anti God obsession.

In one part of the programme Dawkins walks through a massive collection of fossils and talks of them as through they justify his stance. He provided no explanation nor specific illustration – it smelt of fudge. Vast though the collection is it does not illustrate nor prove the level of evolution that Darwin’s theory claims. The collection does support the fact that evolution does occur but within a species even a genus. The millions of years that evolution from one species to another would have taken should have produced massive quantities of missing links fossil debris show continuous but gradual change; it is this that has not been found.

Lets now come to the second argument currently used by Evolutionists, and very strongly by Dawkins, it is woven around the Tree of Life – The argument is that because we all share some elements of DNA we must have come from a single source. Does not that single fact play completely into the hands of Creationists and make their claims as ‘scientific’ as the Evolutionist’s. But let’s take this argument a step further.

All matter – including animals, plants, minerals and earth itself are made from a single source. The whole lot is composed of atoms – atoms which exist as various forms of matter. But in fact all atoms are made of the same basic building blocks – protons, electrons, neutrons etc etc. Everything shares the same fundamental nature. So are you saying that the earth, even the planetary system itself Evolved?

Evolutionists may think that they have all the answers (and some even claim that they do) however they have very many, and far bigger issues that they quietly ignore.

Let’s start with the Big Bang. How did it evolve, where did it come from? Science tells us that matter can not be created or destroyed – only changed in form. Now apply Einstein’s theory to the Bang. The Energy required to cause/fuel the bang Equals the Mass of material involved/created/altered in form in the whole universe - Times - The Speed of Light, Squared.

As if that is not enough to cause you to wonder then there is another set of questions. We are told that before the BANG there was nothing – a void. Of course no one can prove that. However in the instance of the Bang the ENTIRE raft of scientific laws came into existence. Laws of motion, of Gravity, of chemical interaction, of radiation and heat loss, Ohms law, the DNA tree. Magnetism and hundreds more. There appears also to be a set of systems mechanisms. Plate tectonics revitalise land – they have a side effect of producing volcanoes, earthquakes, and tsunami. There are systems that build rocks (from existing materials) and which have produced mineral and hydro carbon fuels. Others which reverse the earth’s magnetic polarity, control climate and overall temperatures etc. Then there are systemic candidates that could be possibly be seen as self correcting mechanisms. They include heart attacks for over eating; plagues and disease for filth and unsanitary living, AIDS for sexual excesses, economic crashes for greed and over consumption, ‘Global Warming’ if we pollute too far.. These did not evolve, have not evolved, mutated, modified etc. They are there, and have been there since day one – FIXED.

Now I am going to stick my neck out. The ‘scientific’ ‘Laws that came into existence with the Bang were/are so comprehensive, so elegant, so all encompassing, so supremely intelligent that it would be surprising if their designer had not built in elements of evolution and natural adaptation. If you do not accept that, please tell me just how it all Evolved.