The infinite delusion of a godless scientist

Rumour has it that Richard Dawkins is the smartest man alive.

In fact, he was acknowledged as the leading thinker on the planet in 2013. He might not believe in God but that has not stopped his disciples from turning him into a living deity.

And that is what evolution is all about really. It’s about creating a god out of nothing. When you think about it, that is even more stupendous than believing that God exists in the first place. But we’ll get to that little chestnut in a moment.

First, let’s deal with Mr Dawkins.

I like Richard because he is so easy to slay. And because he’s the greatest evolutionary dragon of them all, beating him is like beating them all. The best part about all of this is that the weapon we can use to exterminate Richard’s pernicious belief in evolution was crafted by his own hands. It’s his infamous and poorly-described magnum opus: The God Delusion.

Dawkins supposedly wrote this book to convince the world that God doesn’t exist. But it’s written like Richard is desperately trying to convince himself of that fantasy. Unfortunately, it is impossible to live comfortably while ignoring the niggling knowledge that you will meet your maker on the day you die. As a result, Richard’s book is an anguished read.

The God Delusion is about 400 pages long. It’s also pretty much entirely drivel. And in all these pages, there are only about five devoted to explaining Richard’s theory of how the universe came into being by itself.

That’s right. The world’s greatest mind has answered the unsolvable question of the spontaneous existence of scientific laws, matter and the human spirit, without the help of God – in just five paperback pages. On the surface, it would appear to be a case of breathtakingly arrogant elegance. But when you delve into those pages you quickly realise that Richard’s brevity is just an embarrassing admission that he doesn’t know much and is making the rest up as he bumbles along. There’s not much science and a lot of science fiction.

Richard’s narrative goes something like this:

Once upon a time, the laws and constants of physics just appeared by themselves and laid the basis for a universe. Furthermore, this unexplained phenomenon happened a billion billion billion times, to create a billion billion billion alternative universes that cannot be proven to exist. Or, our own universe has just replicated itself an infinite number of times in an infinite number of ways, which we have no way or proving. Or, and this is the bit I like most, universes ‘reproduce’ in black holes and pass on heredity traits to their children, which can never be proven either.

Whatever theory you choose, it’s all based on the fact that your consciousness has been raised by Darwin. Hence you believe that our universe, capable of supporting life, appeared by chance, even though the laws of that game of possibility still cry out in recognition of a regulator.

Then, after a billion years, the pinnacle of these events culminated in the mind of Richard Dawkins.

It’s like Richard mixed the plot of Planet of the Apes with Scientology.

In fact, Dawkins has written a fairy tale and it should be placed in the fiction section of the $2 shop.

The God Delusion deliberately avoids the question of what legislative power decreed scientific laws in the first place and does not consider who enforces them on every aspect of the material world throughout all of time. Of course, there is only one answer to that: God. The delusion of Dawkin’s book is found only in the mind of those who reject the truth of this awesome power.

Consequently, it is no surprise that such a deluded mind could accept a multitude of fantasies to build the theory of evolution. Apparently giraffes have long necks because the food got higher and higher. Seemingly, birds have wings because Tyrannosaurus Rex started getting hairy and flapping his useless forearms about. Obviously, snakes shed their legs because it made it easier to get around. Of course, plants grew flowers to take advantage of bees who evolved because daffodils were waving in the breeze. Finally, fish turned into wombats who got sick of the land and dived back into the water so as to become graceful aquatic mammals.

And all the in-between variants that were more advanced than the earlier prototypes died out once the new niche was filled, leaving behind just the latest models. And surprisingly, the original remained too. I suppose that’s because after an animal spent 27 million years adapting to meet the pressing environmental need that spurred change in the first place, the condition itself had long since passed. Obviously in those cases evolution was no longer necessary. Or something like that.

The only thing more bizarre is that seemingly once a lower species has given rise to new life-forms, the evolution switch just turns off. That explains why feathery lizards popped up in the bronze age but don’t do so today. No one can seriously suggest that a winged-komodo dragon wouldn’t be an improvement on the current version. But alas, it appears that once the brush of natural-selection has passed by, your species is stuck in a time-warp, no matter how much the climate changes.

My favourite evolutionary story is that fish developed lungs because their water supply lacked oxygen.

No they didn’t. They just did what every fish not designed for oxygen-depleted water does: dies. Every child knows this and I don’t see any scientists deliberately reducing oxygen levels in selected lakes to spur on a new round of evolutionary progress so that it can be captured on candid camera.

The multi-million year evolutionary timeframe is ludicrous when held up against factual reality of imminent death.

And evolution cannot account for the difficulty in explaining sexual reproduction. The whole concept is comical. Here’s supposedly how it went a bazillion years ago.

Older blob: “Kids! Have you got your lunch? We’re heading off to school.”

Younger blob: “Yes. But I’ve got news. I evolved a womb last night.”

Younger blob’s sibling: “Wow! That’s interesting. Just yesterday the blob next door grew a *****. We were all wondering what it is for. Now we know and you can reproduce. Bonus!”

Older blob: “That’s enough! I don’t know what a ***** is but I don’t like you bandying that word around the house. However, in the interests of evolution you may reproduce. I wouldn’t mind a grandchild that is an entirely different species.”

Or, if you like, this scene was replayed over and over again during a brief period of some millions of years (insert a random number here). However, this time asexually-reproducing organisms gradually grew bits and pieces that were not fully developed, of no use and which were ‘kept’ until eventually they were found to be just what was necessary for complementary sexual reproduction. Of course, this was helped by the fact that an organism of the opposite sex just happened to swing by at the right place and time. See, all the pieces of the puzzle can fall into place! And if you believe that, you will believe in anything.

True science does not support evolution. The fossil record only shows that previously there were animals alive that do not exist today. That makes perfect sense. Things have been lost. Including, it seems, all common sense.

There is variation within kinds. There is not variation of kinds. In fact, if such a thing was possible, there would be no kinds at all. There would simply be a spectrum of life, moving out from the point of origin, like a ripple in the water. And it would be constantly regenerating, like a stream of bubbles in a pond, causing a continual line of ripples within ripples. The factors that resulted in the spontaneous eruption of life would ensure that this process occurred over and over again. There would be no way of knowing that an organism was so many billion years old because it could have come from the life that sprouted yesterday.

And on top of this, there would probably even be multiple points of origin for life. The resultant chaos would be a mishmash of biological existence, capable of reproducing on multiple boundaries. There would be no species, only individuals.

But we do not have that. We see order, reflecting the character of the Creator. We do not observe evolution, either in its supposed process or in its effects.

And what we certainly do not see is life rising out of the rock. But if Dawkin’s beliefs held water, we should. In fact, it is simply nonsensical to argue that planetary conditions an aeon ago were ripe for the spontaneous formation of life, but that conditions which support the immense variety of life we see today are incapable of transforming pond-scum into newly-evolved bacteria.

The real reason people like Dawkins cling to evolution has got nothing to do with biology and everything to do with killing off God. But the theory cannot do this. It has failed in its task. Miserably.

And perhaps the most ironic joke is that, as I mentioned at the beginning of this piece, the end of evolution is the creation of a new god.

Evolution espouses the belief in the ongoing development of life to newer and higher forms of organisation. It’s pinnacle today is man. And if you subscribe to this religious belief, which Dawkins himself describes as being able to ‘raise consciousness’, tomorrow man will be a little more capable and conscious than today. Or at some point he will be superseded by a new, more advanced being. Eventualy the secrets of the universe will be unlocked and even able to be controlled and replicated. Dawkins might not believe that god exists today, but his theory postulates that a supreme being with ever higher levels of consciousness will be running the show tomorrow.

And if natural selection is so powerful when it is not controlled, imagine the possibilities when a sentient being starts directing the orchestra. It is the ultimate fool’s dream. But it is one that Dawkins cannot help but embrace. He wants to replace the true God that exists outside of time and impose the false god of the terrible future of man’s arrogance.

As history has always shown, such arrogance always ends in tears. God will not be mocked.

And for all Dawkin’s protestations, it is simply absurd to argue that God does not exist or that our world is purely material. It is spiritual as well. We know this precisely because we know of immaterial things that can’t be examined by science.

There is no temperature of love. There is no length of justice. There is no equation capable of determining the chemical composition of hope or the area of charity. Goodness is not based on biological cells and evil (which is a defect in something good) has no circumference.

But we all know these things exist.

These things are the characteristics of our souls. They are outside of the realm of physical science, but they are manifested in our physical world. In fact, the goodness or otherwise of our physical actions is determined by how we implement these virtues or vices in the world we inhabit.

This is proof that the material world is secondary to the spiritual. In fact, it only exists so that we can attain a higher level of knowledge – that of God Himself. So while it is good for scientists to help us understand the physical world, it is a pointless exercise when they do so in a spiritual vacuum.

I guess this is the crux of Dawkin’s dilemma. He wants to have a perfect understanding of the physical world we live in. But he also wants to pretend that the physical world is the totality of reality. It’s like trying to understand a building but pretending its foundations don’t exist.

To use another analogy, if the totality of reality was represented by a sheet of paper, the physical sciences are only capable of examining a small square marked off in the corner. They can never deliver a full understanding of the entirety of our existence. To do that you must literally think outside the box.

Furthermore, God exists outside of that box of the physical world. Or, more precisely, the physical world is merely a reflection of some of the essence of God. And none of us have a mind capable of looking into that darkened mirror and comprehending all of who and what God is. Our minds are limited. There is more chance of teaching an ant algebra than comprehending the immeasurable perfection that is our Creator.

That is hard to take for a scientist. The inherent humility involved becomes more difficult, I suppose, the smarter the scientist is.

But to struggle against this is to hold onto an idiosyncratic belief contradicted by reality. It becomes a form of mental disorder: a delusion. And that is exactly what Dawkins has – the godless delusion.

Author: Bernard Gaynor

Bernard Gaynor is a married father of nine children. He has a background in military intelligence, Arabic language and culture and is an outspoken advocate of conservative and family values.

Share This Post On


  1. The amount of ignorance, misunderstanding, and outright failure to grasp basic scientific principles displayed both in this original blog piece and the comments is astounding. To waste my time (I have no doubt) and try correct a couple of the biggest fallacies:

    1. Evolutionary theory specifies that all life on Earth evolved, over time through the mechanism of natural selection, from a common ancestor. Modern genetics quite admirably demonstrates how this is possible. Evolution has nothing to say about where that common ancestor came from. The origin of life itself is covered by theories under the heading abiogenesis.

    2. If you ‘believe’ in speciation, you believe in evolution. Same mechanism. Same basic principle.

    3. Evolution does not lead to ‘improvement’ of a species, but greater ‘fitness’, which is defined as the ability of a life form to survive long enough to successfully reproduce. Ergo, wings on a komodo dragon aren’t likely because they don’t improve its fitness.

    4. I love the “humans from apes, but how are apes still here?” bit, but humans and apes are evolutionary cousins that speciated from a common ancestor. This is demonstrable from molecular genetics.

    5. Regarding Bernard’s “but I’m not evolving,” well, that’s no surprise, because individuals don’t – populations do. Evolution is the result of tiny genetic changes in a population as a whole which produce tiny or great phenotypic changes. A great example of this is dogs – dogs are all one species; they have the same number of chromosomes and can readily reproduce with any other dog, yet they vary wildly in their physical characteristics – a chihuahua is the same species as a great dane, and they can interbreed, though their physical size and shape differences are immense. Dogs can interbreed successfully and produce viable offspring with wolves, which are much larger than most dogs (but also basically the same species). Foxes, which are closer to the size of small domestic dogs, are completely reproductively isolated from them. This is because foxes and dogs/wolves (Genus Canis) diverged and speciated further in the past, and their genetic changes render them reproductively incompatible (they no longer have the same number of chromosomes). All member sof the genus Canis, however, still do – though eventually wolves and domestic dogs may also become reproductively isolated from each other as common interbreeding between them diminishes and reproductive isolation expands.

    I know this won’t change a single person’s mind who is entrenched in their views and lack an interest in improving their understanding of genetics and science generally, but if it makes just one person consider educating themselves further, it’s valuable to someone.

    Post a Reply
  2. Congratulations on an absolutely brilliant article. It is so refreshing to see someone gutsy enough to take a stance against a poorly conceived notion of a theory as portrayed by Richard Dawkins. I cannot comprehend as to how these “so called” scientists who devote their life’s work to questioning, observing, gathering evidence, constructing and testing hypotheses can then set about writing a book on such an absurd topic as evolution. I’m so glad we have the platform to present the good truth of God. Time to give eveolution the flick and lets all stop evolving. Keep up the awesome work Bernard.

    Post a Reply
  3. ‘There is no temperature of love.’

    This has to be one of the most inspired sentences ever written.

    Post a Reply
  4. On this Good Shepherd Sunday we may remember not only the few good Bishops left in the Church, but also the hirelings like Archbishop Mark Coleridge who on national television on Easter Monday last year gave public praise to God for Charles Darwin, and then added injury to insult by proclaiming that he had no problem with the ridiculous “big-bang theory” of evolution.
    With “friends” like these, who needs enemies?

    Post a Reply
  5. “Researchers sequencing Neandertal DNA have concluded that between 1 and 4 percent of the DNA of people today who live outside Africa came from Neandertals, the result of interbreeding between Neandertals and early modern humans.” —————————————–

    Post a Reply
  6. Andre stated as an argument: “Marc, some advice for you “mate”: get a primary school level education in biology before you make failed analogies.”

    Andre, a question: Does my earned university degree count as an item better and bigger than your suggestion?

    Post a Reply
      • Troy,

        1. My degree is partially in The History and Philosophy of Science.
        2. Re change = evolution, “[W]hen there is a systematic increase or decrease in the frequency with which we see a particular gene in as gene pool, that is precisely what we mean by evolution.” (Richard Dawkins); “Biological evolution is a change in the genetic composition of a population over time.” (From my biology textbook, Life: The Science of Biology)
        3. What do you think The Peppered Moth saga exactly proved? (BTW,the followers of Kettlewell falsified the experiments. See J.A. Coyne, Nature 396(6706):35–36, 1998.)
        4. Natural selection works by REMOVING genes from the pool, not adding them. Evolution argues that genes must be added in order to get from a fish to a philosopher. Can you show me from these lab observations you believe occurred where novel genetic information had appeared in a genome?
        5. There is no common ancestor for humans and chimps. See Haldane’s Dilemma, for example. (BTW, Haldane was an evolutionist.)
        6. I repeat: You must study some creationist arguments instead of attacking a straw man. You must understand your opponent’s argument as well as he.

      • Troy said: “how much more more absurd is it to believe something as complex as God came from nothing, rather than something relatively simple?”

        So you must believe in the eternal nature of matter?

  7. I can understand the argument that evolution is such a slow process that needs billions and billions and billions of years to achieve anything. But two things I can’t understand.
    1. Why evolution stopped once recorded history started. Surely there was an evolutionary process that started 3 billion years ago that should have finished in AD1827?
    2. How, over billions and billions and billions of years, a monkey (and I presume it to be only one) had 2 offspring that were genetically altered in exactly the same way, only 1 was a male and the other was a female. And the parent monkey not only allowed these “mutants” to survive (which the animal kingdom does not do …) but nurtured them to full adulthood, where these “mutants” reproduced.

    Post a Reply
    • I am no scientist, but 1. Evolution didn’t stop when recorded history started. Evolution by natural selection is occurring right now (our flu vaccines, and a lot of other science, are based on this fact). Bacteria over decades have been shown to evolve in lab experiments. As for an example of an evolutionary process that might have appeared to have stopped, I gather crocodiles have not evolved much over millennia. That, I assume, is because they have become ideally adapted to their environment; but that is still an example of natural selection at play. 2. Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans and monkeys evolved from a common ancestor. Evolution happened even more slowly than you suppose. Our common ancestor didn’t just one day give birth to a human. In fact, it’s impossible to pinpoint when, as a species, we became “human”. The environment will affect which variations survive and which do not. For example, if there are two sets of moths (white and dark), and pollution makes the white moths stand out to predatory birds, then dark moths are more likely to survive and create other dark moths.

      Post a Reply
      • Troy,

        You really do need to research what the creationists (and evolutionists!) have actually stated before you, as a non-scientist, put their case forward. All of your arguments have been falsified or play the old game of ‘bait-and-switch’ with terminology (e.g. use ‘evolution’ to mean ‘any change’). Just one example to illustrate: if everything changes, including climate and genetic information due to mutation, how can your ideal crocodile remain exactly the same over millions of years? What? Does evolution just stop for your ideal crocodile for millions of years despite evolution meaning “everything changes” except the climate, genes and when I tell you it doesn’t?

      • Marc,

        if you think comparing a new model car to an evolved version of a particular species, I would not want to attend your “universities” lectures as they have clearly slowed down your thinking. And besides, a degree in marketing/communications, PR or English does NOT entitle you to make any assumptions about biology.. your analogy has proven that you have zero understanding of it.

      • Marc: you have used evolution to mean “everything changes”; I haven’t. Which arguments have been “falsified”? That humans and monkeys descended from a common ancestor? That Darwinian natural selection processes have been observed in the lab? That the example of peppered moth evolution actually occurred?

    • 1: It didn’t. 2: Animals do allow “mutants” to survive if the mutation is that the offspring happens to have a neck 0.5% longer than its parents. If that “mutant” survives and mates, several generations down the line, it is likely that two of its descendants, each carrying the mutated gene, will mate and increase the likelihood of the mutation continuing, especially if it provides an evolutionary advantage. No monkey gave berth to human twins.

      Post a Reply
  8. Troy, I don’t know about Bernard, but I believe the earth is about 6000 years old and about 4000 years ago there was a flood.

    Post a Reply
    • To accept a 6000-year-old earth, one has to ignore and reject a lot of objective evidence. There are trees today that are older than 6,000 years; we just have to count their rings. Continental drift, the fossil records, the light distance of the stars (assuming you believe God created the universe 6,000 years ago, too), erosion rates, a multitude of dating methods, ancient civilizations (such as the Australian Aborigines), evolution, rates of radioactive decay, and so on, all point to a much older earth. The idea of a worldwide flood 4,400 years ago is just as counter-factual. The 30,000,000 species or so that we have today could not have derived from the survivors on Noah’s ark 4,400 years ago. And the more one tries to limit the number of “kinds” on the ark, the bigger the problem becomes: how did we get 30,000,000 species so quickly? (to name just one obvious problem).

      Post a Reply
      • Why were evolutionists forced to fabricate fraudulent so-called ape-men (e.g. Piltdown man) if such a species did exist??? How could the human species have been evolving before Adam and Eve if there was no death before the eating of the forbidden fruit? Top geologists now acknowledge that “million-year-old” rock formations could have been formed in a much, much shorter time under sustained water pressure – such as in a worldwide flood!

      • Sure, there have been some frauds; but that is what science does: it weeds the frauds out. The miniscule proportion of frauds doesn’t outweigh the overwhelming evidence for evolution. Adam and Eve were not literally the first man and first woman; the story isn’t to be taken literally (just as serpents don’t literally talk or donkeys literally talk). To say Adam and Eve were the first humans denies the evidence we have for ancient civilizations and the age of the earth. There was no worldwide flood. Strikingly similar stories to Noah’s Flood predate Noah’s Ark. These fables were probably based on a local flood. If all the creatures we have on earth today derived from Noah’s Ark, then we would be seeing evolution occurring at astonishing speeds. A few thousand “kinds” on Noah’s Ark cannot possibly grow into the 30,000,000 species we have today in just 4,400 years.

      • In cases of demonic possession even animals can talk (or more correctly the demons are able to speak through them), much the same as demonically possessed humans speak in languages they have never learned. Also, the devil is able to appear in many disguises – a serpent being one of them.

      • @Troy Simpson
        “It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything.”

        -GK Chesterton

      • Kat: how much more absurd is it to believe something as complex as God came from nothing, rather than something relatively simple?

      • Rory: I mentioned a talking donkey. It wasn’t possessed by a demon. God allegedly spoke through it. You can believe in the supernatural, demons possessing snakes, and God possessing donkeys, if you wish; but you can’t impose those supernatural beliefs onto every other Australian — and certainly not onto secular law.

      • @Troy Simpson For a man who does not believe in a miracle, a slow miracle would be just as incredible as a swift one.

        Nobody can imagine how nothing could turn into something. Nobody can get an inch nearer to it by explaining how something could turn into something else. It is really far more logical to start by saying ‘In the beginning God created heaven and earth’ even if you only mean ‘In the beginning some unthinkable power began some unthinkable process.’ For God is by its nature a name of mystery, and nobody ever supposed that man could imagine how a world was created any more than he could create one. But evolution really is mistaken for explanation. It has the fatal quality of leaving on many minds the impression that they do understand it and everything else; just as many of them live under a sort of illusion that they have read the Origin of Species.
        GK Chesterton

      • Kat: Why are you quoting GK Chesterton, who died some 80 years ago? Why don’t you read some Stephen Hawking or Lawrence Krauss?

      • Too witty for you Troy? Or maybe more logical than you can handle.
        Also just because someone lived 80 years ago does not mean that it is irrelevant.

        The more we really look at man as an animal, the less he will look like one.

        It is the simple truth that man does differ from the brutes in kind and not in degree; and the proof of it is here; that it sounds like a truism to say that the most primitive man drew a picture of a monkey and that it sounds like a joke to say that the most intelligent monkey drew a picture of a man. Something of division and disproportion has appeared; and it is unique. Art is the signature of man.
        GK Chesterton

      • Troy,

        All your “evidence” and arguments have been answered and destroyed. See

        The question is: Are you brave enough to engage with the arguments and swap teams or are you just gunna stick your head in the sand?

  9. If Cardinal Pell and Archbishop Coleridge believe that they descended from monkeys, they should speak for themselves only – and not pretend to be speaking on behalf of the Catholic Church. Apart from permitting sodomites to proliferate within Catholic organisations under their jurisdiction “because any discrimination against homosexuals will not be tolerated”, they have also perverted young minds in the Catholic school system with their false doctrines in support of Charles Darwin and the ludicrous “big bang theory”. These corrupt Bishops would do well to meditate on the words of Our Lord this Lent: “But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea.”

    Post a Reply
  10. Animals evolve into new species, but it doesn’t happen overnight. They change ever so slightly during a Human lifetime, but over thousands and millions of years they can morph into new species. Environmental changes and adjustments to the food web spur on evolution. Cane toads in Queensland have adapted to their new environment by decreasing their body size. That’s happened in less than 100 years. Humans have grown significantly taller since the 1800s because we’ve altered our diet to include more calories and better nutrition. Exposure to radiation causes an increase in genetic mutations because it is harmful to DNA. Rapid rates of evolution probably occur when the Earth is blasted with abnormally high levels of cosmic radiation.

    Post a Reply
    • Bruce – let’s cut the crap and get down to basics. If you believe in evolution, then it is almost certain that you also believe life began spontaneously, a gazillion aeons ago. If my understanding of your belief about the origins of life is correct, I have a very simple challenge for you, which is this. I’ll give you all the completely STERILE rocks, sand, mud, dust, fresh water, salt water, atmosphere, sunlight, wind, cosmic radiation, volcanic activity and anything else you might need that is completely STERILE – you give me the miracle of life. I want to see you come back with something wriggling in a Petri dish that is the product of the things above that I have described. Actually, a single miracle – life itself – isn’t good enough. I require from you a triple miracle – your first miracle (life) must be accompanied by a second miracle – the ability to feed itself from the very first moment – and by an equally important third miracle – the capacity to reproduce from the moment it came into existence. That’s fair, isn’t it? I mean, what use is a wriggling life form in a Petri dish if it can neither feed itself nor reproduce? It won’t get very far at all, will it? So hop to it, Bruce – there’s a good chap! You show me the triple miracle of a life form that can feed itself and reproduce, made from a bunch of completely sterile and lifeless base ingredients, and you win the argument concerning evolution. How hard can it be? If it happened once purely by chance – surely someone as bright as you can make it happen again? Bruce – your time begins NOW!

      Post a Reply
      • rocks, sand, mud, dust, fresh water, salt water, atmosphere, sunlight, wind, cosmic radiation, volcanic activity are NOT sterile you idiot.

      • Shaun, Shaun, Shaun … every blog site inevitably attracts its very own village buffoon – I guess you’ve booked that gig on this one. The definition of “sterile” is as follows: “free from bacteria or other living micro-organisms; totally clean” – sort of like what rocks, sand, mud, dust, fresh water, salt water etc would have been before little wriggly things magically appeared. You know – STERILE – totally devoid of life – possibly like the void occupying the cranial space between your ears. You idiot.

      • You are asking for a university education in a post comment? Sigh. Ok, in a nut shell then.
        1) The Miller Urey experiment in the 1950s simulated the pre-life environment in a big glass bubble. At the end of the experiment we discovered that it is easy for that environment to produce amino acids. It is ceratin to have happened all over the Earth.
        2) We know that that same environment produced small, fatty bubbles in the ocean (vesicles wth a monolipid skin)
        3) We can show in a lab that such bubbles behave in certain ways – especially near deep ocean thermal vents they allow monomers (small compact molecules) through the skin, but once they flow away from the vent the monomers become trapped inside. These bubbles als “eat” each other, because of their chemistry. Larger bubbles absorb lipids from smaller ones. When they get really big they break up very easily into smaller bubbles again. Their contents, the trapped monomers, remain inside the child bubbles.
        4) Some of the molecules inside the bubbles can quite easily for polymers (repeating chains of molecules), Such polymers can stretch the bubble they are contained in (osmotic pressure). This will make that bubble more likely to eat its neighbours, making it bigger, break up and produce smaller bubbles with bits of the same polymer.
        5) Daughter cells will compete. The ones that end up with faster replicating polymers eat the ones that are slower. You now have lfe that eats and reproduces and evolves.
        All this is verified by lab work. Look up Dr Jack Szostak for the work of one of the leading researchers in this area.

        Your welcome.

      • Dan,

        Your [pseudo]science is about 40 years out of date – though, I do admire your nice cut-and-paste job.

        Ya just gotta look up what Miller et al found. I’ll give you a springboard: only racemates were made i.e. no optically active molecules. This is the reason why they have been looking in space. There is a universal law in place here: stochastic chemistry only produces racemisation but life need optical purity and in order to overcome this theoretical and empirical obstacle they set aside a universal principal of science i.e. physico-chemical laws apply universally.

      • Dan,

        On second reading of your argument, I can truly say that it reads more of wishful thinking than science. I think you need a few lessons in biochemistry. Life-forming polymers only appear with lots and lots of help from intelligent beings, not next to hot vents or by stochastic chemistry.

    • Creationism has no problem with the fact of speciation-variation within a kind of animal. What evolutionists have failed to show is evidence of one distinct kind of animal turning into a different kind ie, what was the common ancestor of the ape and the human, or the cat and the dog, or the fish and the bird? Leading Evolutionists have admitted this ie, Dr Colin Patterson: ‘Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.’3 [Emphasis added]. Other revealing quotes by evolutionists are available at

      Post a Reply
      • Even gung-ho promoters of the apes-to-man fraud now openly acknowledge that Piltdown man was an elaborate hoax, which was concocted in a vain attempt to provide some evidence to support their wild theory. The truth is that before Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, there was no death.

    • Ok, so the cane toad adapted…but the essence of the creature remained the same. The problem with Evolution is that they claim all this stuff and fluff about miliion years needed…why do we not see now, species that are halfway through an evolutionary change..a change that would have begun a million years ago…creatures adapt they do not evolve. The essential elements of a creature will always be the same. The DNA and genetic build up will always remain specific to that species. A cat will always have the same DNA as its ancestors…so to a fish, a dog ect ect. Small things about that creature may change as it adapts to its enviroment but a new species will never be created. Why? Because, any true scientist knows that matter can neither be created or destroyed. Its a law of physics, why is this important? because you cannot get more from less! a greater and better species will all of a sudden be created from an inferior species. Once a cat always a cat. That is because they have been created and ordered that way by a being who is not subject to the physical laws of our world and because He created the laws of physics and science to maintain and order his creation…that being is God.

      Post a Reply
    • Bruce,

      Your comment is not too dissimilar to Dawkins’ famous one of a few years back: “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”

      Wouldn’t you reckon that that is a brilliant statement for a scientist to make?

      Post a Reply
    • what..humans now have a different genome–and are a different species– from their forebears of a century ago..because of their ‘diet’?..and if we reverted to the diet of our smaller ancestors would that mean that we would go back to our original size– but keep our now altered DNA base?haha!..don’t think so,mate..

      Post a Reply
    • Bruce, even if evolution takes a long time, we couldn’t have just evolved from ape straight to man, there would have to be hundreds of stages of evolvement in between, many more than what the charts you would find in a classroom would show. But have they found any , a resounding no! which is strange when you consider that dinosaurs died out millions of years before mankind, yet we find bones from dinosaurs , even bones from small dinosaurs, with a similar bone density to our own, can you explain that?

      Post a Reply
  11. The problem many of us Catholics face is that so-called conservatives like Cardinal Pell and Archbishop Mark Coleridge publically support the apes-to-man via Neanderthals complete fraud – and that this trash is even taught as though it were dogma in modern Catholic schools. The truth is that Peking man, Piltdown man, and all the rest of the so-called “missing links” have been exposed as carefully glued pseudoscientific fabrications.

    Post a Reply
    • Unfortunately along with Charles Darwin, Society of Judas Priest Teilhard de Chardin was also implicated in the Piltdown man hoax. In Darwin’s collection, there were at least another 38 skulls in which jaws from apes had been filed down and glued to human remains.

      Post a Reply
  12. A truly infantile collection of strawman arguments and ad-hominem attacks from someone who is wilfully ignorant of the mountain of falsifiable evidences for biological evolution.

    Bernard joins the ranks of other misguided creationists like Ray Comfort and Ken Ham in ignoring the evidence and using bad analogies. He talks of “kinds” as if they were a scientific classification, ignoring the correct taxonomic classification system created by Linnaeus, a creationist himself.

    What is a kind Bernard? Is it a species, a genus, a family, an order, a class, a phylum, a kingdom, or a domain?

    Post a Reply
    • You can label it whatever you want, Pete. But I know a cat when I see when one and I also know that it won’t end up being something else at some point in the future.

      Post a Reply
      • Hi Bernard,

        This is where your lack of knowledge starts to show a bit.. Evolution is a extremely slow process, if you would compare todays cat with it’s ancestor from 2 million years ago, you WOULD see a huge difference. Same counts for humans and primates, we didnt evolve from current monkeys, we share a common ancestor, for some reason people, including you, dont understand the difference. 2 million years from now, a branch of cat descendants will be very different from the current cat.


      • Andre,

        If we are to believe your cat story is an example of evolution, then every year GM or Ford brings out a new model of car that too is evolution in action?

        Andre, some advice mate: if ya gunna criticise your opponents’ views, ya gotta know and understand them first.

        You really don’t understand what the creationist proposal is so it’s kind of weird to read what you’ve written here.

      • //Andre, If we are to believe your cat story is an example of evolution, then every year GM or Ford brings out a new model of car that too is evolution in action?//

        What on earth are you talking about? I’m trying to find an analogy here but honestly cant! Living creatures evolve/change with time, we have proof for this, bacteria evolve before our very eyes, cars dont. So Marc, some advice for you “mate”: get a primary school level education in biology before you make failed analogies.

      • Bad example there Bernard! although I enjoyed your article, we have proof that big cats were breed by ancient Egyptians until they were small and had dog – like traits, an early form of genetic manipulation, AKA speed – up evolution. You wouldn’t have known a cat if you lived before ancient Egyptian times!

      • Jos, not such a bad example. We would recognise a cat of Ancient Egypt. It might be different to our cats today but we would recognise it as a cat, just like we do around the world when the cat family varies so much. From a Lynx to a leopard to a lion to a tabby, we can understand and recognise them all from the same family as cats.
        This is the grand failure of teaching evolution (& watching too much science fiction). Evolution is fantastic for fantasy but very poor in understanding reality.
        Here we go Andre, basic biology. CHANGE does NOT EQUAL evolution. Evolution requires an INCREASE in information. Not a rearrangement. Not a reduction. Not change. An increase in information that wasn’t there before just doesn’t happen except in scifi. When you point to change and call it evolution, you just failed science class but they are quite happy for you to make that mistake and remain ignorant. It doesn’t matter how many millions of years you wait, intelligent information just doesn’t happen by chance even if driven by ‘survival selection’ or some ridiculous term of fantasy invented by story tellers like Dawkins or others. Natural selection is accepted by creationists because it’s observable & repeatable. The very term means selection of EXISTING genetic information for advantage but once genetic information is lost, it will not be regained unless another animal of the same species (or whatever!) breeds and brings it back it. A breeder knows that you cannot breed an animal with characteristics that are not present in the herd. Once too much information is lost, the animals are now in subsets and may not be able to breed with other subsets of the same kinds. Can a tabby could breed with a lion despite being of the same kind. This is de-evolution. Change in the opposite direction required for evolution. A LOSS of information and specialisation of an animal. It has LESS information than it’s predecessor and has less chance of survival in a variety of environments. Many domesticated species would not survive in the wild and often have genetic issues, hence that a mongrel is often stronger and more adaptable. No we don’t see evolution happening. It just doesn’t happen. Intelligent information only comes from design which is why evolutionists use the word design so often. Their folly is self evident.

    • Whenever I read the terms “strawman arguments” and “ad-hominem attacks”, I know for sure that full-on, unbridled wank-speak is imminent. Thanks, Pete, for keeping this generalisation true to form – your final sentence is an absolute classic example of intellectual snobbery from someone who really needs to give his phylum a rest. I agree with Bernard – it doesn’t matter what terms you so loftily and disdainfully use – a cat is a cat and will never become a carrot. To so foolishly believe otherwise is truly … what was your term? That’s right – “infantile”.

      Post a Reply
      • The last time I browsed the comments on this site, I witnessed Jim being torn to shreds by a schoolboy. He kept responding with walls of hysterical text, peppered with way too many dashes and hyphens. You need to find something constructive to do with your life, buddy!

      • Pete explain to me how the conscience works? how it is that after many millions of years humans have acknowledged a difference between right and wrong? how it is that every Society that has existed has determined murder is wrong and a thief who steals must pay retribution. Why is it that these elements of the mind have never evolved…and why do women still give birth in agony?why has evolution not sorted that one out I certainly would have if it was up to me…the point is physical creation is bound by laws that have existed from the very beginning. Natural laws, physical laws such as gravity ect. Logically, for these laws to be applied universally to every material being, they must be imposed by a superior being…example, the government of a state has the authority to force the members of that state adhere to the rules of that state. failure to do so results in punishment. Now as all humans are of the same level of creation, there are those that can decide to leave a state and live somewhere else and thats all good, but nowhere in the created world is there a community of physical, material beings that can decide to be seperate from the laws of physics. What authority may I ask do you suppose is superior to all that is of a material construct and can bind the entire existing physical dimension of life to these laws and without fail or rebellion? how is it that the natural law of justice can be found in every human conscience?

      • Does a baby/infant instinctively know right from wrong? Or is this learned via the influence of parents, family and friends?
        Many societies flourished for hundred’s if not thousands of years (Mayan/Aztec) who had little to no problem with murder on an enormous scale through human sacrifice of their own people. (Sadly, often at the behest of priests and divine rulers).
        As I understand it, evolutionists such as Richard would argue/claim that ‘morality’ is a meme that has flourished as is has lead to societal development. Morality is not genetic, but it’s easy to argue that as our brains have evolved over the millennia, our ability to understand, rationalise, store, and develop abstract philosophical concepts HAS evolved.
        Theories as to why child birth is still painful (although rational science has lead to epidurals to help with this) could be that a female’s need for support during childbirth, increased the likelihood that partners, friends and/or family/tribe members would be present, potentially leading to tighter bonds being formed that allowed a group to flourish. (By the way – assuming God is benevolent, and forgiving, it seems odd that he wouldn’t intervene in reducing the pain).
        After this, it seems your argument becomes hard to follow. “Logically, for these laws to be applied universally…” I don’t know whether that’s confusion, or obfuscation. “Laws” that define the behaviour of all matter, from quarks and bosons, up to planets, galaxies and beyond, are not the same ‘laws’ that mankind institutes to control/stabilize society.
        The “natural law of justice… in every human conscience,” is not ‘natural’ in the sense you’re referring to. Although I accept that ANYTHING that happens in ‘nature’ is ultimately, in fact ‘natural.’ Even those things that a faith might find reprehensible.
        What has become ‘natural’ I suppose, is the societal structure that requires parents/family to take on the responsibility of developing their child’s comprehension of right and wrong, and the benefits/consequences of opposing types of behaviour.

        Mankind’s ability to become top of the food chain, required a grouping together of individuals. That grouping required structure and rules. We evolved to be able to articulate, formalize and institute those rules as our brains developed, and we took our first steps towards education our offspring.
        I’m over simplifying massively, and perhaps I’m also not being clear enough as to how many millions of years were involved in the process described in the previous sentence.

        I hope you find nothing I have written above to be offensive in any way, although we have very differing opinions. I also hope you a wonderful life.

    • Why do evolutionists like to refer to themselves as “skeptics”? It seems to me they are anything but skeptics. Rather they are highly gullible individuals who believe impossible and unscientific things about the world. Like the fantasy that life can arise from non-life. I’m sure all good evolutionists can believe at least six impossible things before breakfast.

      Post a Reply
    • Hey, Pete, thanks for your ironically – QUOTE “truly infantile collection of strawman arguments and ad-hominem attacks from someone who is wilfully ignorant of the mountain of falsifiable evidences for biolog[y]” END QUOTE – and thus God. But please, babble on with the natural charm-free arrogance of the shallow, dreary atheist bore that you present yourself as. Yeah, we should dump God and believe in er, you and wait for it, Dawkins…Bwahahahahaha! Er, no. Outstanding mediocrity. Five stars.

      Post a Reply
    • hi sceptic pete
      I would be interested to know what evidence you have, as most so called evolutionary scientific work is guess work or hypothesis

      Post a Reply
  13. Hi Bernard,
    Whilst I understand where you are coming from and agree with your basic premise and even like some of the examples you gave, I still felt uncomfortable reading this article. My main reason for visiting your blog is to keep up with your work on the issues relating to homosexuality and Islam. For issues relating to evolution I visit creation ministries website. Your article comes across to me as having too much ridicule and of using too simply worded counterarguments which for someone who is familiar with the issues you raise, can be understood but for a visitor to your site not yet familiar with the more detailed arguments your more simply explained examples come from, may be a bit off-putting. I have evolutionary believing friends who are concerned about issues of homosexuality and the Islamisation of Western society. Though the issue of evolution and the other two can be related, I find it easier to deal with them separately, using your material and that of the ACL, and AFF whilst using creation ministries and intelligent design information for the evolution argument. I just feel that this article is either a little off track, or needed to be worded in a less ridiculing way if you are to appeal to the widest possible audience.
    Hope this feed back helps. Thank you very much for the stand you have taken and the informative articles on the militant style agenda of a significant number of homosexual activists.

    Post a Reply
    • Thanks for the feedback BobS.

      Post a Reply


  1. The Infinitely Dishonest Theists | Atheist Englishman - [...] I stumbled upon The Infinite Delusion of a Godless Scientist by Bernard Gaynor and within the first two paragraphs…

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Pin It on Pinterest