| Home - Latest News | Introduction | Bayside Messages | Directives from Heaven | Testimonies | Veronica Lueken | Miraculous Photos | Videos |

Darwinian evolution: The modern anti-science


"Man cannot rationalize sin; man cannot rationalize his being which eliminates the Creator and His creation from history. My children, it is a delusion set upon the world by satan." - Our Lady of the Roses, July 25, 1977


Times have changed, and so has our knowledge of the physical and biological world. We are at the point today--more than ever--of determining scientifically the question of whether or not species evolve (acknowledging always that God is the Creator and all creation is His handiwork, regardless of the laws and processes He has ordained that affect His creation). 

In 1925 at the revolutionary Scopes trial in Dayton, Tennessee, leading scientists of the day presented the tooth of the "Nebraska Man" as proof of the theory of evolution. Years later, more fossils were unearthed and it was discovered that the tooth was that of a pig, not a prehistoric man. Despite the fraud, the victorious Scopes trial launched evolutionary theory into the public classroom and has effectively excluded the topic of theistic creation from textbooks and classroom discussion. As the debates concerning this theory escalated, Pope Pius XII issued his famous encyclical Humani Generis. Fr. David Becker, editor of the creationist magazine, Watchmaker, mentions that this encyclical "was written in 1950-before the discovery of DNA, and when the Piltdown Hoax[1] was still heavy evidence for evolution. The theory was at its apex and the Church was in a defensive position."[2] Fr. Becker goes on to say in the same article that it is critically important for the Church to now distance itself from evolutionism, lest history repeat itself. We should recall that during the Middle Ages many members of the Church became engrossed in the pseudo-science of the Ptolemaic system (the erroneous system which stated that the earth was at the center of the solar system, with the sun and planets revolving around it). Fr. Becker says that the Church must repudiate its 20th century equivalent. 

To say that the Church allows us "to believe in a limited form of evolution" is a half-truth; the Church does not propose positively to the faithful (either by command or encouragement) a belief in this theory at all, but proposes rather a healthy freedom in which science may arrive at the truth explaining the great diversification of species. We are not indifferent to the implications and evidence surrounding a theory of origins. The Church, however, does not wish to oppose legitimate scientific progress. She has no fear of science or of knowledge, as the recent defense of Galileo will prove.[3] The Church as the champion of truth would positively desire us to search for the truth, attain the truth, and promote the truth, whatever it may be. To say that we have no responsibilities regarding the present implications and influences of this theory is not true. It is naive to believe that this theory has had minimal impact. The majority of courses and textbooks mentioning anything at all about biology or the origin of the universe are overwhelmingly atheistic, either explicitly or implicitly. Presently, the Church is encouraging the scientific world to pursue knowledge of the mechanisms found in living things; the Church supplies knowledge of the Mechanic, God Himself. 

Many people are wandering without direction in the trackless wastes of the desert of evolutionary theory; they are misinformed by the evolution propaganda that fills the media and textbooks of our school systems. Yet many of the current articles on this issue--especially in the secular press--have neglected the two essential aspects, that of the boundaries Church teaching has set regarding this theory, and the scientific evidence for or against this theory. Rather than supply useful information, some articles have at most supplied a rehash of what was already known some 40-50 years ago. Has the Church's teaching changed? No. Has our understanding of the biological world changed? Yes it has. Then where are the facts and information to show us where progress has been made? 

The purpose of this article is to examine several angles of the theory of origins debate and to bring to the reader's attention an idea of just how much is not being said by the scientific community. Many of the following citations are from evolutionists, who have supplied some of the most devastating attacks against evolution, stemming from a disillusionment with the theory from the force of objective evidence. Yes, some of the most powerful assaults have come from evolutionists, some of which have come to see a glimmer of light, as revealed to them in the glory of God's creation. 

The medieval man

The medieval man, that poor fellow in those fearful "Dark Ages," you couldn't ask him a thing about the "Big Bang," the immensity of the universe, or anything of the like. "Poor fellow," you say? Ask him another question: "Do you believe in God?" He would probably look at you, startled at first, and then, with a look of concern, hope that you were joking. Of course he believed in God. In his simplicity and humility, he had a richness of spirit above that of the typical modern man. He had the true faith, he had belief in the one true God and knowledge of the Savior of mankind, Jesus Christ, as well as the sweetness of His most loving Mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary. What, you may ask, has this to do with evolution? As Scripture says, "You have hidden these things from the wise and the prudent, and have revealed them to little ones" (Lk 10:21). The medieval man understood the concept of a Creator, a concept which, despite the continual discoveries of our universe's complexity, is paradoxically losing ground today. "Now it may well be true that our ancestors were less well informed about physical and quantitative matters than we are today. But they cannot be accused of 'thinking small'; it is we, rather, who tend to be guilty of that charge."[4] We live in a spiritually bankrupt period of history, especially in the West. Associated with this spiritual bankruptcy is a lessening of the desire to seek the truth. As Huston Smith has pointed out, "The modern West is the first society to view the physical world as a closed system."[5] For the typical modern man, we are all alone in the universe, horribly so because there is no God outside of it. Without God, modern man has substituted the ridiculous for the rational: A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything. And so the theory of evolution mesmerizes the modern man. "The hold of the evolutionary paradigm is so powerful, that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth-century theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."[6] How such a theory could take such universal hold is truly perplexing. One cannot but agree with Ludwig von Bertalanffy (a distinguished biologist): "The fact that a theory so vague, so insufficiently verifiable, and so far from the criteria otherwise applied in 'hard' science has become a dogma can only be explained on sociological grounds."[7] Yet not all scientists subscribe to this belief system. What is very interesting is that, for the most part, these "experts have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances regretfully, as one could say."[8] 

Implications of evolutionary theory

So how did the scientific world come to such a sorry state? As James Gray (himself an eminent evolutionist) has said: "No amount of argument, or clever epigram, can disguise the inherent improbability of orthodox evolutionary theory; but most biologists feel it is better to think in terms of improbable events than not to think at all."[9] Evolutionists are beginning to feel the "heat" of contrary evidence to their sacred theory. In fact, even evolutionists are turning against other evolutionists, who they fear have abandoned the cause. Michael Ruse, professor of history and philosophy of biology at the University of Guelph, Ontario, has written a defense of evolutionary theory entitled Darwinism Defended in which he accuses some of his fellow evolutionists of thinking the following: 

"Why is it that something so bogus, so clearly inadequate when judged by the stringent criteria of genuine science, should have gone so far? Why has Darwinism been such a success for 100 years, despite the sense of unease that so many clear thinkers have felt? It is simply because Darwinism has no rivals!"[10] 

In a lamentable sense, this accusation is true. The rational arguments for creation have often been poorly framed. Worse yet, the debate has not been engaged in by many Catholics who are seemingly afraid of appearing anti-scientific. 

The atheistic implications of this theory are immense. According to A.N. Field, "Its principal achievement has been to empty the churches by mass manufacture of atheists and materialists."[11] The powerful ideological foundation of evolution is expressed by Bozarth: 

"Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing."[12] 

Furthermore, "In the evolutionary pattern of thought there is no longer either need or room for the supernatural."[13] The Creator is stripped of His creative power in the modern mind, and soon fades from memory: "... Darwinianism amounts to no more and no less than a denial of God's creative efficacy in the sphere of biogenesis and speciation."[14] 

On the ashes of destroyed Christian belief, an idol arises. Pierre Paul Grassé, France's foremost zoologist states, "Directed by all-powerful selection, chance becomes a sort of providence, which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but which is secretly worshiped."[15] In this ideological void, a new belief system arises to replace the old: "... the evolutionary vision is enabling us to discern, however incompletely, the lineaments of the new religion that we can be sure will arise to serve the needs of the coming era."[16] 

Before creation

Evolutionary scientists are often guilty of crossing the threshold between empirical science and metaphysics (that is, the science of being, also called the philosophy of first causes). In the words of John Stuart Mill: "The causes with which I concern myself are not efficient but physical causes. They are causes in that sense alone, in which one physical fact is said to be the cause of another. Of the efficient causes of phenomena, or whether any such cause exists at all, I am not called upon to give an opinion."[17] But sometimes the scientist turns metaphysician and denies the validity of the concept of efficient causality as proposed by the philosopher. According to the scientist, "physical causes" are the only true causes. In other words the question, "What made the universe?" has no place. 

The reason for the exclusion of the First Principles of metaphysics is crucial to understand. To remove these principles is to remove the rational foundations for the criticism of evolutionary theory. For instance, one of these First Principles, the Principle of Causality, states that "whatever happens or becomes must have a cause for its happening or becoming." Seems like common sense? Remember, the Catholic Church teaches as a dogma of the faith that God can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from created things.[18] To come to this conclusion, though, requires correct reasoning and correct principles: 

"Finally, the Principle of Change shows conclusively that no theory of complete evolution, whether mechanistic or vitalistic, can fully explain the origin and development of living beings and of the world at large. The very idea of evolution involves change and development. It means the unfolding of forces in the direction of being possessing more complicated structures and higher forms of organization from a more or less primitive and amorphous state. This implies a movement of an upward trend, with a constant and gradual acquisition of higher perfection; it is a transition from potency to act on a world-wide scale, an actualization which becomes more complete in the course of the ages. Such an evolution, however, if it took place, could never occur in virtue of the inherent forces of nature alone. There must be an actual Being outside the whole process of evolution, to activate these forces and give them direction toward higher actuality: whatever changes is changed by another."[19] 

Not only are metaphysical principles excluded, but so are certain rules of logic: 

"Scientists, unless they are also philosophers, simply refrain from considering intelligence as a factor in the order of nature. From the standpoint of 'science' such an attitude is permissible. To refrain from considering intelligence is one thing; to deny its existence is an unwarranted step outside their restricted field of research. Hence, when a scientist denies intelligence as a factor in the order of nature, he is guilty of the fallacy of false exclusion."[20] 

Evolutionists recognize the implications of these metaphysical principles. Ruse states: 

"The objection [to evolution] is as straightforward as it is popular and devastating, if well taken. It is claimed that Darwinian evolutionary theory... is no genuine scientific theory at all. Despite appearances, it is just not about the empirical world; it is rather, at most, a speculative philosophy of nature, on a par with Plato's theory of forms or Swedenborgian theology. It is, in short, a metaphysical wolf masquerading as a scientific lamb."[21] 

Scientific observation is the litmus test for the scientist, but for man the origin of the universe will always remain an unobservable event. In the words of Celestine Bittle, O.F.M. Cap., "Since the origin of life in general lies beyond the scope of observation and experiment, the solution of the problem exceeds the competence of the scientist."[22] France's foremost zoologist Pierre Grassé, who rejects both mutations and natural selection as contributing factors in evolution, asserts that biology can tell us nothing about evolution, and perhaps must yield to metaphysics.[23] Truly, the origin of the universe lies beyond the scope of scientific investigation. In this area, science can have nothing to say. 

Evolution's insurmountable barriers

The principles of metaphysics tell us that there can be no effect without a sufficient cause for that effect. Now, let us examine several major contradictions in evolutionary theory. 

A universal law of the cosmos is the Law of Entropy, also known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Entropy means the steady disorganization of a closed system, which is witnessed by all of us on a daily basis. If you do not put energy into cleaning and organizing your room, for instance, it naturally tends towards disorganization; it becomes messy. The Second Law states that the universe is going from the organized to the less organized. Evolutionary theory, however, states just the opposite: species are tending towards greater organization and complexity, in opposition to the universally applicable Law of Entropy. How can this be? 

"A final point to be made is that the second law of thermodynamics and the principle of increase in entropy have great philosophical implications. The question that arises is how did the universe get into the state of reduced entropy in the first place, since all natural processes known to us tend to increase entropy?... The author has found that the second law tends to increase his conviction that there is a Creator who has the answer for the future destiny of man and the universe."[24] 

Let us now consider physical evidence regarding this theory. In order to demonstrate that evolution did in fact occur, evidence of transitional forms between species (showing the transition from one species to another, such as from a reptile to a bird) must exist. And these transitional-form fossils (if they exist) must be very numerous, as they are a record of a very long period of evolution, leaving a "trail", so to speak, in the rock strata. Is there evidence for this occurrence? No, there is not. But what we do find is what has been called the "Cambrian Explosion", where the fossils appear so suddenly and numerously in the Cambrian rock strata that it has received this name. "The first abundant fossil record of complex invertebrates appears in rocks of the so-called Cambrian Period.... In Cambrian rocks are found fossils of tribolites, sponges, brachiopods, worms, jellyfish, sea urchins, sea cucumbers, swimming crustaceans, sea lilies, and other complex invertebrates. The appearance of this great variety of complex creatures is so startlingly sudden that it is commonly referred to as the 'Cambrian explosion' in geological literature."[25] The evolutionist Niles Eldredge, a paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History, states: 

"Creationists have made much of this sudden development of a rich and varied fossil record where, just before, there was none... 
"Indeed, the sudden appearance of a varied, well-preserved array of fossils, which geologists have used to mark the beginnings of the Cambrian Period (the oldest division of the Paleozoic Era) does pose a fascinating intellectual challenge."[26] 

The fossil record was key to Darwin, and he recognized that ultimately the proof for evolution would have to come from this fossil record. "He (Darwin) was embarrassed by the fossil record, because it didn't look the way he predicted it would, and, as a result, he devoted a long section of his Origin of Species to rationalize the differences...."[27] According to the biogeneticist Michael Denton, the absence of transitional forms is "one of the most striking characteristics of the fossil record."[28] Stephen Jay Gould, professor of zoology at Harvard University, calls the lack of fossils "the trade secret of paleontology."[29] There is consistency in the fossil record, but not of the kind hoped for by evolutionists: "But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places."[30] As G.K. Chesterton once said, "The evolutionists seem to know everything about the missing link except the fact that it is missing." 

When the fossils do appear, they appear complete. George Simpson (an ardent evolutionist) points out, "It remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families, appear in the [paleontological] record suddenly, and are not led up to by gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences."[31] Furthermore, the fossil record is not a witness of "transitional forms fading into each other, but to the stability of the type."[32] Therefore, fossil evidence to support the theory of gradual transitional changes in species does not exist. 


Most of us have been told, at one point or another, that evolution started with a simple cell, from which all species eventually evolved. How simple is "simple"? "The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle."[33] Also, "Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance of their being formed through random shufflings of simple organic molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed where it is insensibly different from zero."[34] Maybe simple is the wrong word. 

Current articles have touched on the cell's intricacy. Dr. Michael Behe, an associate professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, several years ago began looking for scientific descriptions of how chemicals might be assembled into viruses, single-celled organisms, and even replicating molecules. What he found was only an "eerie and complete silence"[35] on this subject in scientific writings. He has written a book on this very subject entitled Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. An article commenting on his book reads: 

"Behe's real quarrel with Darwin, however, goes below the level of gross anatomy. As a biologist, he's struck by the incredible intricacy of the molecular machines that power the cell. These machines have finely calibrated parts, the absence of any one of which would disable them. How can Darwinism explain the exact cascade of chemicals that must be triggered in order for blood to clot? It can't - if you remove but a single link in the process, it won't work. Any precursor to the blood-clotting mechanism would not have been functional, and therefore would not have been available for natural selection. In other words, there's no gradual Darwinian route between these mechanisms and whatever preceded them."[36] 

Dr. Behe's Trojan horse to the evolutionists' camp is what he calls "irreducibly complex systems." Just as a mousetrap won't work if just one part is removed, so too, many, many systems in the human body are irreducibly complex. In his book, Darwin's Black Box, Dr. Behe writes, "The result of these cumulative efforts to investigate the cell--to investigate life at the molecular level--is a loud, clear, piercing cry of 'design!' The result is so unambiguous and so significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science." 

Furthermore, the existence of cell enzymes poses a very great mystery. "Even the simplest cell contains several thousand different kinds of proteins (and many billions of each specific protein) plus all kinds of DNA, RNA and other highly complex molecules. DNA and RNA are required to produce protein enzymes, but protein enzymes are required to produce DNA and RNA. Which, then, came first?"[37] Another author says essentially the same thing: 

"The amino acids must link together to form proteins; and the other chemicals must join up to make nucleic acids, including the vital DNA. The seemingly insurmountable obstacle is the way the two reactions are inseparably linked - one can't happen without the other. Proteins depend on DNA for their formation. But DNA cannot form without pre-existing protein."[38] 

The genetic code within the cell presents another sticky problem for the evolutionists: 

"The origin of the genetic code presents formidable unsolved problems. The coded information in the nucleotide sequence [the basic structural units of RNA and DNA] is meaningless without the translation machinery, but the specification for this machinery is itself coded in the DNA. Thus without the machinery the information is meaningless, but without the coded information the machinery cannot be produced! This presents a paradox of the 'chicken and egg' variety, and attempts to solve it have so far been sterile."[39] 

The orderly chemical arrangement of the cell is another marvel. Thousands of different enzymes must be arranged in just the right order. "The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (1020)2000 = 1040,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court."[40] At this point, the authors mention that the theory of intelligent design has a vastly higher probability, but this view is not accepted, for reasons "psychological rather than scientific."[41] 

In an article in New Scientist magazine, the famous British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle stated: 

"Now imagine 1050 blind persons each with a scrambled Rubik cube, and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving at the solved form. You then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling of just one of the many biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on Earth is evidently nonsense of high order. Life must plainly be a cosmic phenomena."[42] 

Things appear more and more bleak for the evolutionist. But let us continue, and shed more light on this absurd theory. Evolutionists speak frequently about the value of mutations regarding the differentiation of species. After all, if all species ultimately came from a single cell, there must be a mechanism for this diversification to take place. For evolutionists, this mechanism is mutation. But there are, again, real problems. Pierre-Paul Grassé, the famous French zoologist, says, "Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given direction. They modify what preexists, but they do so in disorder...."[43] If a mutation did in fact occur, is it likely to be beneficial? W. R. Thompson, in his introduction to The Origin of Species, states, "If we say that it is only by chance that they [mutations] are useful, we are still speaking too leniently. In general, they are useless, detrimental, or lethal."[44] 

The survival of these supposed primeval ancestors to all life poses other problems as well: 

"How could the immune systems of all animals and some plants have evolved? Each immune system can recognize bacteria, viruses, and toxins that invade the body. Each system quickly mobilizes just the right type of defenders to search out and destroy these invaders. Each system has a memory and learns from each invasion attempt. If the extensive instructions that direct an animal or plant's immune system were not already programmed into the organism's genetic system when it first appeared on the earth, the first of thousands of potential infections would undoubtedly have destroyed the organism. This would have nullified any rare genetic improvements that might have accumulated. In other words, the large amount of genetic information governing the immune system could not have started to accumulate in a slow, evolutionary sense."[45] 

There are further problems: "A gamete [reproductive cell] with too few chromosomes (unless the missing chromosome is a sex chromosome) cannot produce a viable embryo."[46] Going from the simple cell to the human being we find an ever-increasing hierarchy of complexity. This complexity cannot be over stressed. In the words of Alexis Carrel: 

"An organ builds itself by techniques very foreign to the human mind. It is not made of extraneous material, like a house. Neither is it a cellular construction, a mere assemblage of cells. It is, of course, composed of cells, as a house is of bricks. But it is born from a cell, as if the house originated from one brick, a magic brick that would set about manufacturing other bricks. Those bricks, without waiting for the architect's drawings or the coming of the bricklayers, would assemble themselves and form the walls. They would also metamorphose into windowpanes, roofing-slates, coal for heating, and water for the kitchen and bathroom. An organ develops by means such as those attributed to fairies in the tales told to children in by-gone times. It is engendered by cells which, to all appearances, have knowledge of the future edifice, and synthesize from substances contained in blood plasma the building material and even the workers."[47] 

Recent genetic discoveries have not only shattered evolutionary theory, but some discoveries have confirmed the genetic descent of man from one set of parents. An article in U.S. News & World Report stated, "'We are finding that humans have very, very shallow genetic roots which go back very recently to one ancestor,' says the University of Arizona's Michael Hammer, author of one of the studies. 'That indicates that there was an origin in a specific location on the globe and then it spread out from there.'"[48] 


In 1931 the U.S. scientist Professor H.F. Osborn, described by Britain's Royal Society as the greatest paleontologist of the day, made the following comment to a congress of the British Association: 

"We are more at a loss than ever to understand the causes of evolution. One after another the Buffonian, Lamarckian, Darwinian, Weismannian, and De Vriesian theories of causation have collapsed... All that we can say at present is that Nature does not waste time or effort with chance or fortuity or experiment, but that she proceeds directly and creatively to her marvelous adaptative ends of biomechanism."[49] 

The geologist Joseph Le Conte stated: 

"The evidence of geology today is that species seem to come into existence suddenly and in full perfection, remain substantially unchanged during the terms of their existence, and pass away in full perfection. Other species take their place, apparently by substitution, not by transmutation."[50] 

Professor Adam Sedgwick, the geologist, condemned the Origin of Species emphatically. He declared that the paleontological record defied the evolutionist at every turn. Writing in the Spectator he said: 

"I cannot conclude, without expressing my detestation of the theory, because of its unflinching materialism; because it has deserted the inductive track, the only track that leads to physical truth; because it utterly repudiates the final causes and thereby indicates a demoralized understanding on the part of its advocates... Not that I believe that Darwin is an atheist, though I cannot but regard his materialism as atheistical... And I think it intensely mischievous... Each series of facts is laced together by a series of assumptions and repetition of the one false assumption. You cannot make a good rope out of a string of air bubbles."[51] 

Dr. Colin Patterson was the Senior Principal Scientific Officer in the Paleontology Department at the British Museum (Natural History) when his following statements were made. In a talk he gave on November 5, 1981 to leading evolutionists at the American Museum of Natural History, he presented new data on amino acid sequences in several proteins of a number of animals. The relationships of these animals, according to evolutionary theory, has been taught in classrooms for many decades. He told a stunned audience that this new data contradicted the theory of evolution. In his words, "The theory makes a prediction, we've tested it, and the prediction is falsified precisely." Although he acknowledged that scientific falsification is never absolute, he went on to say that he recognized now that "evolution was a faith," that he had "been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way," and "that evolution not only conveys no knowledge but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge, apparent knowledge which is harmful to systematics [the science of classifying different forms of life]."[52] 

In the words of Arnold Lunn, "I object to the mythology of Science... I object to fancies being represented as facts."[53] Evolutionists themselves have admitted to the contradictions and inadequacies of the evolutionary model. Modern genetics and other discoveries in biochemistry and biology have demonstrated conclusively that an unbridgeable gap exists between the living and the non-living worlds, so much so that there is a law that expresses this truth, the Law of Biogenesis: life comes only from life. What, then, is the adequate explanation for life? Life is essentially above the powers of matter. Therefore, we must attribute the cause of life to some power beyond the material world. As we know from our catechism, the cause of life is the same cause of the physical universe: the First Cause, better known as the God of Revelation. 

"But all men are vain, in whom there is not the knowledge of God: and who by these good things that are seen, could not understand Him that is, neither by attending to the works have acknowledged who was the Workman: But have imagined either the fire, or the wind, or the swift air, or the circle of the stars, or the great water, or the sun and moon, to be the gods that rule the world. With whose beauty, if they, being delighted, took them to be gods: let them know how much the Lord of them is more beautiful than they: for the first Author of beauty made all those things. Or if they admired their power and their effects, let them understand by them, that He that made them, is mightier than they: For by the greatness of the beauty, and of the creature, the Creator of them may be seen, so as to be known thereby." (Wisdom 13:1-5)

1 In 1912 "evidence" for the Piltdown Man was brought forward, which was a piece of a jaw, two molar teeth, and a piece of skull. Experts acclaimed this to be the remains of an ape-man who was about a half million years old. In 1953 the hoax was exposed. The jawbone turned out to be that of a modern ape. The teeth had been filed down, and the bones were artificially colored to deceive the public: "The ease with which this fraud fooled the world's greatest authorities illustrates the powerful influence of preconceived ideas among evolutionists." ("Have You Been Brainwashed?" by Dr. Duane T. Gish) 
2 Surdum Corda magazine, Fall 1996, p. 61. 
3 Cardinal Poupard, "Galileo: Report on Papal Commission Findings," October 31, 1996. 
4 Wolfgang Smith, Teilhardism and the New Religion, p. 34. 
5 Forgotten Truth (New York: Harper & Row, 1977), p. 96. 
6 Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, ref. 5, p. 306 
7 Quoted by Huston Smith in Beyond the Post-Modern Mind (New York: Crossroad, 1982), p. 173. 
8 Wolfgang Smith, Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of the Teachings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, p. 1. 
9 Quoted by Stanley Yaki in Angels, Apes, and Men (La Salle: Sugden, 1983, p. 65, (taken from Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of the Teachings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, p. 11). 
10 Michael Ruse, Darwinism Defended, p. 135. (Taken from Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics, p. 50) 
11 A.N. Field, The Evolution Hoax Exposed, p. 61. (Note: The former title of this book was Why Colleges Breed Communists). 
12 G.R. Bozarth, American Atheist, September 1978, p. 30, (taken from Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics, by Dr. Duane T. Gish, p. 30). 
13 Julian Huxley, as quoted in an American Press dispatch, November 27, 1959, commenting on Huxley's keynote speech at the Darwinian Centennial Convention at the University of Chicago. (taken from Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics, p. 30). 
14 Wolgang Smith, Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of the Teachings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, p. 10. 
15 P.P. Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 107. (Taken from Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics, p. 61). 
16 Julian Huxley, Evolution After Darwin, Vol. 3, Sol Tax, ed., University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1960, p. 260. (taken from Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics, p. 31). 
17 John Stuart Mill, The System of Logic, III, V, 2. 
18 Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 13. 
19 Celestine Bittle, O.F.M. Cap., The Domain of Being, p. 111. 
20 Celestine Bittle, O.F.M. Cap., God and His Creatures, p. 87. 
21 Michael Ruse, Darwinism Defended, Addison-Wesley, Pub. Co., Longdon, 1982, ref. 22. (Taken from Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics, p. 46). 
22 Celestine Bittle, O.F.M. Cap., God and His Creatures, p. 138. 
23 Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977. (Taken from Creationist Scientists Answer Their Critics, by Dr. Duane T. Gish, p. 14). 
24 Gordon J. Van Wylen, Thermodynamics (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1959), p. 169. (Taken from In the Beginning, 5th ed., p. 47). 
25 Dr. Duane T. Gish, The Challenge of the Fossil Record, pp. 54-55. 
26 Taken from Challenge of the Fossil Record, Dr. Duane T. Gish, pp. 57-58. 
27 D. M. Raup, Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50:22 (1979). (Taken from Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics, p. 78). 
28 Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, p. 163. 
29 ibid., p. 194. 
30 Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (New Haven, Connecticut: Ticknor and Fields, 1982), p. 19. Taken from In the Beginning, 5th ed., Walter T. Brown, Jr., p. 33. 
31 G.G. Simpson, The Major Features of Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1953), p. 360. Taken from Teilhardism and the New Religion, by Wolfgang Smith, p. 2. 
32 Arnold Lunn & J.B.S. Haldane, Science and the Supernatural, p. 112. 
33 Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, (London: Burnett Books, 1985), p. 264. Taken from In the Beginning, 5th ed., Walter T. Brown, Jr., p. 41. 
34 Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creation (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), p. 3. 
35 David L. Wheeler, "A Biochemist Urges Darwinists to Acknowledge the Role Played by an 'Intelligent Designer,'" The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A13. 
36 Crisis magazine, "Doubting Darwin," by George Sim Johnston (book review of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, by Michael J. Behe), January 1997, p. 43. 
37 Dr. Duane T. Gish, "Have You Been Brainwashed?" pamphlet. 
38 Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, p. 55. 
39 John C. Walton, "Organization and the Origin of Life," Origins, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1977, pp. 30-31. 
40 Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creation, p. 24. (Taken from In the Beginning, 5th ed., p. 43). 
41 ibid., p. 130. 
42 Sir Fred Hoyle, New Scientist, November 19, 1981, pp. 526-527 
43 P.-P. Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, pp. 97-98. Taken from Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics, Dr. Duane T. Gish, p. 60. 
44 W.R. Thompson, "Introduction to the Origin of Species," Everyman Library No. 811 (New York: E.P. Dutton & Sons, 1956; reprint edition, Sussex, England, p. 10). Taken from In the Beginning, 5th ed., Walter J. Brown, Jr., p. 25. 
45 In the Beginning, 5th ed., p. 9. 
46 Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed., (Worth Publishers, Inc., 1989), p. 385. 
47 Alexis Carrel, Man the Unknown, p. 107f. (Taken from God and His Creatures, Celestine Bittle, O.F.M., Cap.) 
48 "The Genetic Eve Gets a Genetic Adam," U.S. News & World Report, December 4, 1995, p. 10. 
49 Nature, September 28, 1931. 
50 W. Bell Dawson, The Bible Confirmed by Science, p. 75. 
51 Darwin's Life and Letters, ii, 298. (Taken from The Evolution Hoax Exposed, by A.N. Field, p. 56). 

52 "Prominent British Scientist Challenges Evolution Theory," audio tape transcription and summary by Luther D. Sunderland, personal communication. (Taken from In the Beginning, 5th ed., Walter T. Brown, Jr., p. 42). 
53 Arnold Lunn & J.B.S. Haldane, Science and the Supernatural, p. 154.

"Man shall not create a new world as he seeks. For there cannot be a lasting world without His God. And I speak not of the false idols and gods that man creates in his human nature! There is only one Creator....
     "Little by little you go forward�I say, little by little, but I should stress that many is running fast and faster to the edge of the abyss. In his seeking for power and knowledge, man seeks to dethrone his God and create his own god. But who shall set himself above his Creator, even attempting to control birth and death? I say unto you, you shall never learn the secrets, the sacred secrets of death and life, for these are controlled by the Eternal Father." - Jesus, February 10, 1978

"A war far greater than any war fought in the history of creation shall come upon mankind soon. Flames shall engulf many nations, burning the skin from the bones, and the skin shall dry up and blow away as if it had never been! Eyes will see and still not believe that these are the fruits of their evil corruptive ways and loss of a belief in the Creator." - Our Lady of the Roses, May 28, 1978


The amazing Bayside prophecies
These prophecies came from Jesus, Mary, and the saints to Veronica Lueken at Bayside, NY, from 1968 to 1995.

"Man of science has rejected the supernatural. Man of science has rejected the true Presence of My Son among you." - Our Lady, February 1, 1977

Scientific man has found all means to alleviate suffering in the human race. But now the souls are sick, and what is science to do about that, My children? For all of their knowledge they have lost their beings." - Our Lady, May 13, 1978

"Will your men of science find a way to stop the Ball of Redemption? I say unto you: No! For the Eternal Father shall guide that ball!" - Jesus, May 30, 1978

"While the world cries peace, peace and salvation, they do not look in the right direction. They are depending on the scientists of the world, who are ever seeking but never coming to the truth. These scientists have created now arsenals of ammunition, and warheads and missiles, in which they seek to gain control of the world." - Our Lady, July 1, 1985

"Satan has poisoned their minds, and your great scientists now seek only one thing--to please the Bear [communism]. For money." - Jesus, July 1, 1985

"I assure you, My children, that those minds that have reached beyond the clouds seeking the impossible have now grasped the atoms from the heavens.... And now they are using them to destroy the earth." - Jesus, June 18, 1992

"In your errors and your darkness of spirit your scientists and your men of great knowledge are seeking to build a utopia upon earth for man. You are feeding his body and starving his soul." - Our Lady, May 27, 1978

"Man of science must recognize the supernatural and the existence of a God, and as such, do honor to God the Father. He must, as a man of science. And doctors in the world, you must do good and cure honorably. You have become murderers! You have used your profession to destroy the unborn. Woe unto any man who has any measure of involvement in the murders of the unborn!" - Our Lady, May 27, 1978

"Your scientists are masked with false faces shouting love and brotherhood, while they compound all manner of evil devices to destroy the bodies and minds of men." - Jesus, March 18, 1977

"The intellectual scientists of your decadent age have chosen to set up idols of worship. How foolish to set man before his God, when man is but a temporary pilgrim upon earth.... No man shall place himself above his God!" - Our Lady, April 14, 1973

"No man of science will ever have the secret for the restoration of the dead to the living. Life only goes over the veil; it begins a life anew. No dead body shall ever be restored to life until the final judgment at the end of all time. Unto that time, there is a Heaven; there is a purgatory, a place of purging--cleansing; and there is, sadly, a hell, the abode of the damned." - Our Lady, June 13, 1981


Directives from Heaven

D56 - Science  PDF LogoPDF
D161 - The Great Apostasy  PDF LogoPDF
D164 - Heresy


VIDEO: Origin of Man - Dr. Duane Gish

VIDEO: Polystrate Trees: Upright Trees Are Evidence of Catastrophe (David Rives)

The mathematical impossibility of evolution (Dr. Henry Morris)

Should We Expect to Find Transitional Forms in the Fossil Record?

Darwinian evolution incompatible with Catholic Faith says Cardinal and author of Catholic Catechism

Teilhard de Chardin is in hell

Adam and Eve: fact or fable?

"You shall be as gods": secular humanism and the kingdom of man (Part 1)

"You shall be as gods":  Secular humanism and self-idolatry (Part 2)



Email us:

| Home | Introduction | Bayside Messages | Directives from Heaven | Miracles & Cures | Veronica Lueken | Miraculous Photos |
Videos |


August 17, 2017