In the 1830s, a 22 year-old divinity student, Charles Darwin sailed on the HMS Beagle as naturalist (even though he was a divinity student - not a scientist) on a world scientific voyage. His observations led him to theorize natural selection as a basis not only to explain why some animals are different from others, but to a theory that all life evolved from a single source and that time and environment caused the differences we see today between living things. Even though they haven't yet come up with a rational theory of how life began, this idea is now taught in our schools as “scientific” - and that it accounts for the origin of all life on earth.

Gregor Mendel was an Austrian monk who was contemporary with Darwin, but who applied scientific study and experimentation to questions of plant differences. He applied scientific technique to an enormous number of experiments which gave us the Mendalian laws of genetics.

Both men died in the 1880s just as the scientific model was beginning to be adopted worldwide as a means of learning the truth about our world. Strangely, although Mendel’s work was truly science and Darwin’s work was simply theorizing based on observations of nature, Darwin’s was chosen by many people of science as “gospel” and so taught in our schools, while Mendel’s science is largely ignored as far as educators are concerned.

As time has gone by, the scientific accuracy of Mendel’s work has become so well proven that evolutionists have incorporated parts of it into their theory. This exercise has forced them to extreme logical gymnastics since the two are intrinsically opposed.

That theory calls for many, many intermediate stages over eons of time for a plant to become a fish, a fish to become a bird, and for a monkey to become a man. Since Darwin published his theory, millions of fossils have been unearthed - - - but no intermediate specimens are among them. For Darwin’s theory to have any credibility at all, there should be millions of intermediate specimens, some of whom should be walking the earth today, since this is supposed to be a natural process and therefore not to be shut off. But, they aren’t there because they have never existed. Darwin himself said that his theory depended on discovery of those intermediate specimens - so, would he still adhere to his theory if he were alive today? probably not.

Moreover, Darwin's theory does not include anything indicating how life originated in the first place. If GOD didn't do it, then who did? and how?

It appears that this theory has become so popular because it allows men to ignore GOD, THE CREATOR and, in fact pretend he doesn’t exist. However, it is not universally accepted in the scientific community, as some educators would like us to believe. The percentage of scientists who attend church is about the same as that of the general population.

When any sane person starts out to breed champion dogs, horses, cows, etc., he follows Mendel’s laws - not Darwin’s

If you want to produce a winning racehorse, you don’t take a nag and subject it to a certain environment, hoping it will produce a thoroughbred. When I wanted a good Great Pyrenese dog, I visited the breeder and looked at the parents. They had a big, beautiful female who had just produced ten beautiful puppies, identical in color and size - no runts, and a big, beautiful, very smart (could turn the knob and open the door with his paw) male. All puppies are cute, but I knew that what they would be when they grew up depended on their parents.

Out of this litter, I got a big (140 lbs), beautiful, healthy dog who was a great companion and a wonderful guard dog. (Unfortunately, last year he died. But, from the same breeder I was able to get his great nephew who is also a terrific dog) Breeding does count.

Francis Crick, who received a nobel prize as one of the discoverers of DNA, stated that the probability of life happening by chance was “too minuscule for consideration”. He was not a Christian - He believed that it came to earth from somewhere out in space (close to the truth). Each generation acquires more damage to the human DNA. The notion that it has been passed down to us over millions of years is just not possible. In a million generations it would have become so damaged no human beings would be born and live. The story of life is not "evolution" but "devolution".