MetaFilter's site and server can always use upgrades of hardware, software, and bandwidth, as well as more stable funding for continued support of its small but high-skilled moderation and backend team! If you'd like to chip in, you can donate to Metafilter.

Darwin Copypaste

From Mefi Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Archived Cache

Living, for the moment in the google cache also. This is only a reference for this thread it does not represent the opinions or beliefs of MetaFilter. Following is Ray Comfort's 50-page introduction & rebuttal for Charles Darwin's Origin of Species.

This is the html version of the file Google automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web.

Page 1
Origin of Species
150th Anniversary Edition
Charles Darwin
Alachua, Florida 32615

Page 2
Alachua, FL 32615 USA
Origin of Species: 150th Anniversary Edition
by Charles Darwin
Copyright ©2009 by Bridge-Logos
All rights reserved. Under International Copyright Law, no part of this
publication may be reproduced, stored, or transmitted by any means—
electronic, mechanical, photographic (photocopy), recording, or otherwise—
without written permission from the Publisher.
Printed in the United States of America.
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: pending
International Standard Book Number 978-0-88270-919-2
Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture quotations in this book are from the
King James Version of the Bible.

Page 3

Page 4

Page 5
Special Introduction
The History of Charles Darwin
ChArLeS roBert DArwIN was born on February
12, 1809, in Shrewsbury, england. he was the fifth of six
children born into a wealthy, professional family. his father
and grandfather were both doctors, and his mother was the
daughter of Josiah wedgwood, of pottery fame. when he was
eight years old, his mother died. his father sent him to an
Anglican boarding school until he was age sixteen, but young
Charles showed less interest in studying than in hunting,
natural history, and scientific experimentation.
In 1825, he enrolled at edinburgh University. Darwin’s
father expected him to go into medicine, and although he
entered edinburgh University to pursue a medical degree, he
found he couldn’t stand the sight of blood and left after two
years. he then transferred to Cambridge (Christ’s College)
to study for the ministry. As a clergyman, he would have the
free time to follow his real intellectual love: natural history.
Darwin was a passionate student of nature, and while in
school he amassed a considerable beetle collection as well
as other specimens. After befriending botany professor rev.
John Stevens henslow, his interest in zoology and geography

Page 6
Origin of Species
At age twenty-two, Darwin was presented with an
opportunity that would change his life. henslow recommended
him for a position on a British Navy survey vessel, the HMS
Beagle, which was about to sail on a two-year coastal survey
expedition to South America. her captain was anxious to have
a naturalist and gentleman companion on board, and Charles
readily agreed.
the voyage ended up lasting nearly five years, during
which time Darwin was able to explore extensively in South
America and numerous islands in the Pacific ocean, including
the Galapagos Islands.
A young Charles Darwin

Page 7
on returning to england in 1836, Darwin set to work
examining and disseminating the extensive collection of
specimens he acquired during the voyage. he quickly established
a reputation as an accomplished naturalist on the London
In 1839 he married his cousin, emma wedgwood. that
same year he published his journal of the voyage of the Beagle,
which brought him immediate celebrity among London’s
In 1842 he and emma moved to Down house in Kent. It
was there that she bore ten children and she and Charles spent
the rest of their lives.
During his great adventure as the Beagle’s naturalist,
Darwin had studied certain aspects of the morphology and
biogeography of the many species of plants and animals
that he had observed. he eventually concluded that species
exhibited varying degrees of similarity because they were to
varying degrees related.
Emma and Charles Darwin

Page 8
Origin of Species
It appears that by 1838 his concept of descent with
modification by the mechanism of natural selection was
largely formed. Although Darwin is the most familiar name
associated with evolution, he was only persuaded to publish
his work when he learned that another young naturalist, Alfred
russell wallace, was developing ideas about the evolution of
species similar to his own. In 1858, at the urging of friends, he
prepared a brief paper which was read before the royal Society
along with the paper wallace had written. the following year
he published On the Origin of Species, which he considered an
abstract of a larger future work.
During the remainder of his life Charles Darwin continued
his research, publishing three additional books on explicitly
evolutionary topics, and other books on topics including
climbing plants, insect-orchid mutualisms, and earthworms.
At the age of seventy-three, Charles Darwin went to meet
his Maker at Down house on April 19, 1882, with his wife,
emma, by his side.
Timeline of Darwin’s life
1809: Charles robert Darwin is born on February 12 in
Shrewsbury, Shropshire.
1817: Darwin’s mother Susannah (née wedgwood) dies
when he is eight years old.
1825–1827: Darwin’s father removes him from Shrewsbury
Grammar School due to his poor progress and sends him to
edinburgh University. he later chastised his son, saying, “You
care for nothing but shooting, dogs and rat-catching, and you
will be a disgrace to yourself and all your family.”
1827–1831: Darwin enrolls at Christ’s College, Cambridge
University to study theology in preparation for life as a country
parson. he is introduced to beetle collecting and becomes
known as “the man who walks with henslow” through
spending a lot of time with the professor of botany.

Page 9
1831–1836: Darwin makes major natural history collections
as he travels around South America as the ship’s naturalist
aboard the HMS Beagle.
1835–1836: Darwin first considers the evolution of
species while pondering the variations among Galapagos
mockingbirds, writing in his notebook, “If there is the slightest
foundation for these remarks the zoology of Archipelagoes
will be well worth examining, for such facts would undermine
the stability of species.”
1837: Darwin draws a simple evolutionary tree in one of
his notebooks below the words “I think.”
1838–1839: Darwin starts to develop his theory of natural
1839: Darwin marries his cousin, emma wedgwood. they
move to London and have two children. eventually they
have ten children, although only seven survive to adulthood.
Publishes The Journal of a Naturalist.
1840: Publishes Zoology of the Voyage of the Beagle.
1842: Darwin wrote his first essay outlining his evolutionary
theory. he moves to Down house in Bromley, Kent, where he
lives for the rest of his life.
Charles Darwin
and his son William

Page 10
Origin of Species
HMS Beagle by Conrad Martens
Cross section diagram of HMS Beagle

Page 11
1844: Darwin secretly writes a landmark essay on evolution
by natural selection and instructs his wife to have it published
in the event of his death, writing in a note to her, “I have just
finished my sketch of my species theory. If, as I believe [...]
my theory is true, and if it be accepted even by one competent
judge, it will be a considerable step in science.” Darwin writes
to botanist Joseph hooker telling him of his evolutionary
ideas, saying it is “like confessing a murder.”
1851: Darwin’s first daughter, Annie elizabeth, dies at the
age of ten, probably from tuberculosis.
1854–59: Continues to develop the theory of evolution
through reading, consulting other naturalists, observation and
experimentation in his garden and the countryside around
Down house.
1856: Starts work on, On the Origin of Species.
1858: Darwin receives a letter from Alfred russel wallace
in Indonesia, a young naturalist who has independently
arrived at a theory of natural selection that is nearly identical
to Darwin’s.
1858: Both Darwin’s and wallace’s theories are presented
to the Linnaean Society on July 1. Darwin was unable to
present his paper—the funeral for his youngest son took place
on the same day as the meeting.
1859: Charles Darwin publishes On the Origin of Species,
putting forward his theory of evolution by natural selection.
1871: Darwin’s The Descent of Man is published, explicitly
applying his theories of evolution to humans.
1882: Charles Darwin dies. his friend, neighbor and
scientist John Lubbock MP secures his burial in westminster
Abbey. Darwin’s funeral is attended by england’s leading
politicians, scientists, and clergy.1

Page 12
Origin of Species
Statue of Charles Darwin in the Natural History Museum, London.

Page 13
The DNA Code
Consider for a moment whether you could ever believe
this publication happened by accident. here’s the argument:
there was nothing. then paper appeared, and ink fell from
nowhere onto the flat sheets and shaped itself into perfectly
formed letters of the english alphabet. Initially, the letters
said something like this: “fgsn&k cn1clxc dumbh cckvkduh
vstupidm ncncx.”As you can see, random letters rarely produce
words that make sense. But in time, mindless chance formed
them into the order of meaningful words with spaces between
them. Periods, commas, capitals, italics, quotes, paragraphs,
margins, etc., also came into being in the correct placements.
the sentences then grouped themselves to relate to each other,
giving them coherence. Page numbers fell in sequence at the
right places, and headers, footers, and footnotes appeared from
nowhere on the pages, matching the portions of text to which
they related. the paper trimmed itself and bound itself into
a Bible. the ink for the cover fell from different directions,
being careful not to incorrectly mingle with the other colors,
forming itself into the graphics and title.
there are multiple copies of this publication, so it then
developed the ability to replicate itself thousands of times
over. with this thought in mind, notice that in the following
description of DNA, it is likened to a book:
If you think of your genome (all of your
chromosomes) as the book that makes you, then the
genes are the words that make up the story.… the
letters that make up the words are called DNA bases,
and there are only four of them: adenine (A), guanine
(G), cytosine (C), and thymine (t). It’s hard to believe
that an alphabet with only four letters can make
something as wonderful and complex as a person!2
2 Kids Genetics, GlaxoSmithKline <

Page 14
Origin of Species
to liken DNA to a book is a gross understatement. the
amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA
in every human cell is equivalent to that in 1,000 books of
encyclopedia size.3 It would take a person typing 60 words per
minute, eight hours a day, around 50 years to type the human
genome. And if all the DNA in your body’s 100 trillion cells
was put end to end, it would reach to the sun (90 million miles
away) and back over 600 times.4
Aside from the immense volume of information that your
DNA contains, consider whether all the intricate, interrelated
parts of this “book” could have come together by sheer chance.
Physical chemist Charles thaxton writes:
the DNA code is quite simple in its basic structure
(although enormously complex in its functioning). By
now most people are familiar with the double helix
structure of the DNA molecule. It is like a long ladder,
twisted into a spiral. Sugar and phosphate molecules
form the sides of the ladder. Four bases make up its
“rungs.” these are adenine, thymine, guanine, and
cytosine. these bases act as the “letters” of a genetic
alphabet. they combine in various sequences to
form words, sentences, and paragraphs. these base
sequences are all the instructions needed to guide the
functioning of the cell.
the DNA code is a genetic “language” that
communicates information to the cell.… the DNA
molecule is exquisitely complex, and extremely precise:
the “letters” must be in a very exact sequence. If they
are out of order, it is like a typing error in a message.
the instructions that it gives the cell are garbled. this
is what a mutation is.
3 Denton, Evolution: Theory in Crisis.
4 “Genome Facts,” Nova online <

Page 15
the discovery of the DNA code gives the argument
from design a new twist. Since life is at its core a
chemical code, the origin of life is the origin of a code.
A code is a very special kind of order. It represents
“specified complexity.”5
Do you think that DNA’s amazing structure could have
come together by accident? or does it point to an intelligent
Designer? even the director of the U.S. National human
Genome research Institute concluded there is a God based
on his study of DNA. Francis Collins, the scientist who led
the team that cracked the human genome, believes there is a
rational basis for a Creator and that scientific discoveries bring
man “closer to God”:
when you have for the first time in front of you
this 3.1-billion-letter instruction book that conveys all
kinds of information and all kinds of mystery about
humankind, you can’t survey that going through page
after page without a sense of awe. I can’t help but look
at those pages and have a vague sense that this is giving
me a glimpse of God’s mind.6
In 2004, the atheist world was shocked when famed British
atheist Antony Flew suddenly announced that he believed in
the existence of God. For decades he had heralded the cause of
atheism. It was the incredible complexity of DNA that opened
his eyes.
In a recent interview, Flew stated, “It now seems to me
that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research
have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful
5 Charles B. thaxton, Ph.D., “DNA, Design and the origin of Life,”
November 13–16, 1986 <
6 Steven Swinford, “I’ve found God, says man who cracked the genome,”
June 11, 2006 <>.

Page 16
Origin of Species
argument to design.” Flew also renounced naturalistic theories
of evolution: It has become inordinately difficult even to
begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the
evolution of that first reproducing organism.
In Flew’s own words, he simply “had to go where the
evidence leads.” According to Flew, “It seems to me that the
case for an Aristotelian God who has the characteristics of
power and also intelligence, is now much stronger than it ever
was before.”7
DNA is an incredibly detailed language, revealing vast
amounts of information encoded in each and every living
cell—which could not have arisen by accidental, mindless
chance. Information requires intelligence and design requires
a designer. Janet Porter reasons:
7 rich Deem, “one Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest?” <www.godandscience.
Charles Darwin’s study room.

Page 17
there is a mountain in South Dakota that proves
what evolutionists have been saying all along: if you
just have enough time, wind, rain, erosion, and pure
chance, you can get a mountain with the faces of four
U.S. presidents on it! If we can all admit that the faces
of Mt. rushmore didn’t just accidentally appear, how
much more complex are the people standing behind
the podiums who want to be president?… which is
more complex? A. the faces of Mt. rushmore, B. a
747, C. your cell phone, d. a worm. If you guessed
“worm,” you are right. the DNA structures, digestive
system, and reproductive system are far more complex
than those other things that obviously had a designer.
Maybe, just maybe, someone designed that worm,
DNA Similarities
one typical “proof” given for ape-to-man evolution is
that chimpanzees and humans have very similar DNA. In
previous DNA studies, based on only portions of the chimp
genome, scientists announced that humans and chimps were
98–99 percent identical, depending on what was counted.
After completing the mapping of the chimp genome in 2005,
evolutionists are now hailing the result as “the most dramatic
confirmation yet” that chimps and humans have common
ancestry. their overwhelming “proof” is the finding that the
genetic difference is 4 percent—which is interesting proof,
because it’s actually twice the amount that they’ve been
claiming for years.9
8 Janet Porter (ne. Folger), “huckabee was right,” June 12, 2007 www.
9 David A. Dewitt, Ph.D., “Chimp Genome Sequence Very Different
From Man,” September 5, 2005 <

Page 18
Origin of Species
In addition, even if the difference is only 4 percent of
the 3 billion base pairs of DNA in every cell, that represents
120,000,000 entries in the DNA code that are different! In our
DNA instruction book, that’s equivalent to about 12 million
words—so that seemingly small percentage has a tremendous
impact.10 Men and monkeys also have another fundamental
difference: humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while
chimps have 24, so the DNA isn’t as similar as you’ve been
led to believe.
More importantly, this claim of evolutionists makes a
huge assumption. what is the scientific basis for assuming
that similar DNA means a common ancestor? when you see
a biplane and a jet—which share common features of wings,
body, tires, engine, controls, etc.—do you assume that one
must have evolved from the other naturally, without a maker?
that’s illogical. It’s more reasonable to conclude that similar
design indicates a common, intelligent designer. An architect
typically uses the same building materials for numerous
buildings, and a car manufacturer commonly uses the same
parts in various models. So if we have a common Designer,
we would expect to find that a similar “blueprint” was used in
many different creatures.
After all, DNA is the coding for the way our bodies
look and operate, so creatures with similar features or body
functions (eyes for vision, enzymes for digestion, etc.) would
have similar coding for these things in their DNA. Because
human cells have the same biochemical functions as many
different animals and even plants, we share some of the same
genes. the more we have in common, the more we find similar
coding in the blueprints. this is just simple reasoning—not
proof of common ancestry!
10 Don Batten, “human/chimp DNA Similarity,” Creation, vol. 19, iss.
1, December 1996, pp. 21–22 <

Page 19
So, even though we share 96 percent of our genetic make-
up with chimps, that does not mean we are 96 percent chimp.
Be careful you don’t fall for the illogic of this “evolutionary
proof,” or scientists will not only make a monkey out of you,
they’ll make a banana out of you. According to evolutionist
Steven Jones, a renowned British geneticist, “we also share
about 50% of our DNA with bananas and that doesn’t make
us half bananas...”11
Transitional Forms
when Darwin wrote Origin of Species, he had a lot of
ideas and conjecture about how this immense variety of life
came about. But what evidence do we now have that his ideas
were correct?
If evolution were true, and humans and chimps did have
a common ancestor, we would expect to find something that
is half-monkey/half-man. these intermediate stages where
one species supposedly evolves into another species are called
“transitional forms.”
Because evolution is said to have happened in the past,
we have to look to paleontology, the science of the study of
fossils, to find evidence on the history of life. well-known
French paleontologist Pierre-Paul Grassé explains:
Naturalists must remember that the process of
evolution is revealed only through fossil forms.…
only paleontology can provide them with the evidence
of evolution and reveal its course or mechanisms.12
whether the theory of evolution is a fable or a fact should
be seen in the fossil evidence. If evolution were true, the
11 Steve Jones, interview on The Science Show, broadcast on ABC radio,
January 1, 2002 <>.
12 Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms (New York:
Academic Press, 1977), p. 82.

Page 20
Origin of Species
fossil record should reveal millions of transitional forms, as
life gradually evolved from one species to another. Darwin
understood that evolutionary theory was dependent on these
“missing links.” he wrote in Origin of Species:
why, if species have descended from other
species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see
innumerable transitional forms? why is not all nature
in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see
them, well defined?… As by this theory innumerable
transitional forms must have existed, why do we not
find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust
of the earth?13
Darwin acknowledged that the absence of intermediates
put his theory in doubt, but he attributed their lack to the
scarcity of fossils at that time—and he had faith that they
would eventually be found. however, nearly 150 years later,
the situation hasn’t changed. After scientists have searched
diligently for a century and a half for evidence, we now have
over 100 million fossils catalogued in the world’s museums,
with 250,000 different species. Surely this should be enough to
give us an accurate picture of our past. remember, paleontology
holds the key to whether this theory is true. So do we see the
gradual progression from simple life forms to more complex?
Did we find the millions of transitional forms that would be
expected if evolution were true?
excited evolutionists believed that they found one back in
1999. A Chinese farmer glued together the head and body of
a primitive bird and the tail and hind limbs of a dromaeosaur
dinosaur, and completely fooled the worldwide scientific
community (including National Geographic magazine)
into thinking that they had found the “missing link”
13 Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species (London: John Mur ray,
1872), pp. 133–134.

Page 21
between carnivorous dinosaurs and modern birds.14 Called
Archaeoraptor, it was quickly exposed as a fraud.
Storrs L. olson, Curator of Birds at the National Museum
of Natural history at the Smithsonian Institution, stated that
the feathered dinosaur that was pictured is “simply imaginary
and has no place outside of science fiction.” he criticized
the magazine for publicizing this forgery, saying, “National
Geographic has reached an all-time low for engaging in
sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism,” and he
added, “the idea of feathered now fast becoming
one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age.”15
Aside from “feathered dinosaurs,” many other supposed
“missing links” have been debunked. For example, a Berkeley
website claims that “there are numerous examples of transitional
forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence
for change over time.” the only example they cite as proof is
14 Christopher P. Sloan, “Feathers for t. rex?” National Geo graphic, vol.
196, no. 5, November 1999, pp. 99–105.
15 Storrs L. olsen, open letter to Dr. Peter raven, Secretary, Na tional
Geographic Society, November 1, 1999 <

Page 22
Origin of Species
Pakicetus. the website, labeled “Understanding evolution for
teachers,” describes Pakicetus as an early ancestor to modern
whales. how can scientists tell this? According to the website,
“Although pakicetids were land mammals, it is clear that
they are related to whales and dolphins based on a number of
specializations of the ear, relating to hearing.”16
In an accompanying illustration, paleontologist Phil
Gingerich shows a swimming creature with its forelimbs on
the way to becoming flippers, claiming that it is “perfectly
intermediate, a missing link between earlier land mammals and
later, full-fledged whales.”
Although the body he drew does look like a very
convincing transitional form, his conclusion was based on only
a few fragments of a skull. Not a single bone of the body had
been found! once a more complete skeleton was discovered,
it proved that Pakicetus looked nothing like the creature he
Besides, many of God’s creatures have similar hearing
(how many different ways can you make an ear that hears
sound?). the eyes of many of God’s creatures are very similar.
Pigs have skin that is incredibly close to human skin—closer
than primates. we both have noses, ears, eyes, liver, kidneys,
lungs, teeth, and a brain. Did man evolve from the pig, rather
than the primate? It would seem so if we are going to be
consistent with the evolutionist’s logic. the pig and man have
many features in common.
the creatures that Gingerich was looking at were simply
different animals with similar hearing ability, created by the
same Creator, and his conclusion was nothing but wild and
unscientific speculation. Sadly, this happens all too frequently
16 “Understanding evolution For teachers,” University of California
Museum of Paleontology <
17 Alexander williams and Jonathan Sarfati, “Not at all like a whale,”
Creation, vol. 27, iss. 2, March 2005, pp. 20–22 <www.answersingenesis.

Page 23
in the evolutionary world. Many alleged “missing links” are
based on only a single fossil fragment and the wishful thinking
of evolutionists.
After acknowledging that “imaginations certainly took
flight over Archaeoraptor,” a U.S. News & World Report
writer added:
Archaeoraptor is hardly the first “missing link”
to snap under scrutiny. In 1912, fossil remains of an
ancient hominid were found in england’s Piltdown
quarries and quickly dubbed man’s apelike ancestor. It
took decades to reveal the hoax.18
Piltdown was a deliberate fraud, as a paleontologist filed
down teeth from an orangutan jaw and included it with
pieces from a human skull, treated them with acid to make
them appear old, and buried them in a gravel pit. As far as
man’s supposed ancestry is concerned, the Piltdown Man
fraud wasn’t an isolated incident. the famed Nebraska Man
was derived from a single tooth, which was later found to be
from an extinct pig. Java Man, found in the early 20th century,
was nothing more than a piece of skull, a fragment of a thigh
bone, and three molar teeth. the rest came from the deeply
fertile imaginations of plaster of Paris workers. Java Man is
now regarded as fully human. heidelberg Man came from a
jawbone, a large chin section, and a few teeth. Most scientists
reject the jawbone because it’s similar to that of modern man.
And don’t look to Neanderthal Man for any evidence of
evolution. he died of exposure—his skull was exposed as being
fully human, not ape. Not only was his stooped posture found
to be caused by disease, but he also spoke and was artistic and
18 Mary Lord, “the Piltdown Chicken: Scientists eat crow over so-called
missing link,” U.S. News & World Report, February 14, 2000 <www.usnews.

Page 24
Origin of Species
religious. In a PBS documentary, richard Leakey, the world’s
foremost paleoanthropologist, admitted:
If pressed about man’s ancestry, I would have to
unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question
mark. to date, there has been nothing found to
truthfully purport as a transitional species to man,
including Lucy.… If further pressed, I would have
to state that there is more evidence to suggest an
abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradual process of
evolving.19 (emphasis added)
even the classic example of horse evolution is fictionalized.
evolutionist Boyce rensberger addressed a symposium
attended by 150 scientists at the Field Museum of Natural
history in Chicago, which considered problems facing the
theory of evolution. he describes what the fossil evidence
reveals for horses:
the popularly told example of horse evolution,
suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-
toed, fox-sized creatures, living nearly 50 million years
ago, to today’s much larger one-toed horse, has long
been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change,
fossils of each intermediate species appear fully
distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct.
transitional forms are unknown.20 (emphasis added)
this is the case not just for horses but throughout the
entire animal kingdom. rather than the millions of transitional
forms evolutionists would expect to find, all we have at best
19 richard Leakey, in a PBS documentary, 1990 <www.wasdarwinright.
20 Boyce rensberger, “Ideas on evolution Going through a revolution
Among Scientists,” Houston Chronicle, November 5, 1980, sec. 4, p. 15.

Page 25
are a handful of disputable examples. harvard paleontologist
Stephen Jay Gould writes:
the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the
fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.
the evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have
data only at the tips and nodes of their branches;
the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the
evidence of fossils.… All paleontologists know that
the fossil record contains precious little in the way of
intermediate forms; transitions between major groups
are characteristically abrupt.21
The Missing Link
In May of 2009, scientists claimed that they had found
the missing link. headlines boldly stated: “Scientists Unveil
Missing Link In evolution: Scientists have unveiled a 47-
million-year-old fossilized skeleton of a monkey hailed as
the missing link in human evolution.”22 then they stated:
“the search for a direct connection between humans and the
rest of the animal kingdom has taken 200 years—but it was
presented to the world today at a special news conference
in New York.”23
that was a public admission that despite
many scientists claiming that Darwinian evolution is a proven
fact, they hadn’t found anything for 200 years. the media
Sir David Attenborough said Darwin “would have
been thrilled” to have seen the fossil and says it tells us
who we are and where we came from. “this is the one
that connects us directly with them.… Now people
21 Stephen Gould, The Panda’s Thumb (New York: w.w. Norton, 1980),
pp. 181, 189.
23 Ibid

Page 26
Origin of Species
can say ‘okay we are primates, show us the link.’…
the link they would have said up to now is missing—
well it’s no longer missing.” 24
All this proves is that some scientists are willing to lie in
an attempt to prove their pet theories, and they have a huge
incentive to lie. A fossil that’s believed to be millions of years
old, and an intriguing theory to match it could be a lucrative
book deal, high honorarium speaking engagements, and of
course a lasting legacy.
But was this the missing link? Not according to CBS news.
they said, “So while we don’t know exactly what Ida means
to human origins, she’s proof we are endlessly fascinated by
where we came from.”25 According to The Wall Street Journal,
“the discovery has little bearing on a separate paleontological
debate centering on the identity of a common ancestor of
chimps and humans, which could have lived about six million
years ago and still hasn’t been found.”26
Evolution’s Difficult Questions
Many have zealously embraced Darwinian evolution
without question, as if it were the gospel truth. But can
evolution stand the test of close examination?
Zoologists have recorded an amazing 20,000 species of fish.
each of these species has a two-chambered heart that pumps
cold blood throughout its cold body.
there are 6,000 species of reptiles. they also have cold
blood, but theirs is a three-chambered heart (except for
the crocodile, which has four). the 1,000 or so different
amphibians (frogs, toads, and newts) have cold blood and a
three-chambered heart.
24 (italics added).
25 May 21, 2009

Page 27
there are over 9,000 species of birds. From the massive
Andean condor with its wingspan of 12 feet to the tiny
hummingbird (whose heart beats 1,400 times a minute), each
of those 9,000 species has a four-chambered heart (left and
right atrium, left and right ventricle)—just like humans.
of course, the 15,000 species of mammals also have a
pumping, four-chambered heart, which faithfully pumps
blood throughout a series of intricate blood vessels to the rest
of the body.
here are some interesting questions for the thinking
evolutionist: Can you explain which came first—the blood
or the heart—and why? Did the heart in all these different
species of fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals evolve before
there were blood vessels throughout their bodies? when did
the blood evolve? was it before the vessels evolved or after
they evolved?
If it was before, what was it that carried the blood to the
heart, if there were no vessels? Did the heart beat before the
blood evolved? why was it beating if there was no blood to
pump? If it wasn’t beating, why did it start when it didn’t
know anything about blood?
If the blood vessels evolved before there was blood, why
did they evolve if there was no such thing as blood? And if the
blood evolved before the heart evolved, what was it that kept
it circulating around the body?
the only reasonable answer to these questions is that God
made the human body (and the bodies of all the other creatures)
with a heart, lungs (to oxygenate the blood), kidneys (to filter
wastes from the blood), blood vessels, arteries, blood, skin (to
hold it all in), etc., at one moment in time, as the Bible states.
Scientist Brad harrub sums it up well:
the final hurdle that evolutionists have not (and
cannot) overcome involves the co-dependence of the
respiratory system and the circulatory system. the heart

Page 28
Origin of Species
top: Charles Darwin
as an ape published
in the hornet,
published in 1871.
Below left:
Charles Darwin as a
monkey on the cover
of La Petite Lune,
published in the
Below right:
Charles Darwin
cartoon, published in
1871 in Vanity Fair.

Page 29
muscle requires oxygenated blood to remain alive. the
respiratory system depends on the circulating blood to
deliver oxygen and remove carbon dioxide. So which
came first, and how was it able to function properly
without the other? Yet, another chicken-egg problem
for Darwinians! evolution may continue to be taught
as a “fact” in the classroom, but it has yet to answer
such basic life-dependency questions as these.27
or, consider the human eye. Man has never developed a
camera lens anywhere near the inconceivable intricacy of the
human eye. the human eye is an amazing interrelated system of
about forty individual subsystems, including the retina, pupil,
iris, cornea, lens, and optic nerve. It has more to it than just
the 137 million light-sensitive special cells that send messages
to the unbelievably complex brain. About 130 million of these
cells look like tiny rods, and they handle the black and white
vision. the other seven million are cone shaped and allow us
to see in color. the retina cells receive light impressions, which
are then translated into electric pulses and sent directly to the
brain through the optic nerve.
A special section of the brain called the visual cortex
interprets the pulses as color, contrast, depth, etc., which then
allows us to see “pictures” of our world. Incredibly, the eye,
optic nerve, and visual cortex are totally separate and distinct
subsystems. Yet together they capture, deliver, and interpret
up to 1.5 million pulse messages per millisecond! think
about that for a moment. It would take dozens of computers
programmed perfectly and operating together flawlessly to
even get close to performing this task.
the eye is an example of what is referred to as “irreducible
complexity.” It would be absolutely impossible for random
processes, operating through gradual mechanisms of genetic
27 Brad harrub, Ph.D., “the Breath of Life—Not a Product of evolu-
tion,” February 2006 <>.

Page 30
Origin of Species
mutation and natural selection, to be able to create forty
separate subsystems when they provide no advantage to the
whole until the very last state of development. Ask yourself
how the lens, the retina, the optic nerve, and all the other parts
in vertebrates that play a role in seeing not only appeared
from nothing, but evolved into interrelated and working parts.
evolutionist robert Jastrow acknowledges that highly trained
scientists could not have improved upon “blind chance”:
the eye appears to have been designed; no designer
of telescopes could have done better. how could
this marvelous instrument have evolved by chance,
through a succession of random events? Many people
in Darwin’s day agreed with theologian william
Pauley, who commented, “there cannot be a design
without a designer.”28
And this marvelous design occurs not just in humans, but
in all the different creatures: horses, ants, dogs, whales, lions,
flies, ducks, fish, etc. think about what the theory of evolution
claims: the eyes, in working pairs, of all these creatures slowly
developed over millions of years. each of them was blind until
all the parts miraculously came together and interrelated with
the others, because all parts are needed for the eye to function.
then each creature had its two eyes work in harmony with
the brain to interpret those images. Fortunately, each of these
creatures simultaneously evolved whatever matching parts
each would need: sockets, skin, eyelids, eyelashes, tear ducts,
muscles to blink, etc.
You’ve probably been led to believe that the first simple
creatures had rudimentary eyes, and that as creatures slowly
evolved their eyes evolved along with them. however, that’s
not what scientists have found. Not only is there no evidence
28 robert Jastrow, “evolution: Selection for perfection,” Science
Digest, December 1981, p. 86.

Page 31
of this occurring, but some of the most complex eyes have
been discovered in the “simplest” creatures.
riccardo Levi-Setti, professor emeritus of Physics at the
University of Chicago, writes of the trilobite’s eye:
this optical doublet is a device so typically
associated with human invention that its discovery in
trilobites comes as something of a shock. the realization
that trilobites developed and used such devices half a
billion years ago makes the shock even greater. And a
final discovery—that the refracting interface between
the two lens elements in a trilobite’s eye was designed
in accordance with optical constructions worked out
by Descartes and huygens in the mid-seventeenth
century—borders on sheer science fiction...the design
of the trilobite’s eye lens could well qualify for a patent
how could the amazing, seeing eye have come about
purely by blind chance? Based on the evidence, wouldn’t a
reasonable person conclude that the eye is astonishingly
complex and could not have evolved gradually, and that each
creature’s eyes are uniquely designed?
even Charles Darwin admitted the incredible complexity
of the eye in The Origin of Species:
to suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable
contrivances for adjusting the focus to different
distances, for admitting different amounts of light,
and for the correction of spherical and chromatic
29 riccardo Levi-Setti, Trilobites (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1993), pp. 57–58.

Page 32
Origin of Species
aberration, could have formed by natural selection,
seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.30
even more incredible, though, is that Darwin went on
to say that he believed the eye could nonetheless have been
formed by natural selection. he was right on one point. If a
Designer is left out of the equation, such a thought is absurd
in the highest degree.
30 Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species (London: J. M. Dent & Sons
Ltd., 1971), p.
Darwin’s theory in the Punch almanac for 1882,
published at the end of 1881.

Page 33
Vestigial Organs—Leftovers Again?
Most likely you’ve heard that “vestigial organs” are proof
that we’ve evolved from more primitive forms. Because these
organs supposedly have no purpose, evolutionists assume
they have outlived their usefulness and are “leftovers” from
our less advanced ancestors.
But even if an organ were no longer needed, wouldn’t it only
prove devolution? this fits well with the Law of entropy—
that all things deteriorate over time. what evolution requires,
however, is not the loss but the addition of information, where
an organism increases in complexity. So “vestigial organs” still
wouldn’t help the evolutionist’s case.
Besides, it’s not even scientifically possible to prove that
something has no use, because its use can always be discovered
as more information becomes available. And that’s exactly
what has happened. It was claimed at the Scopes trial that
there are “no less than 180 vestigial structures in the human
body, sufficient to make of a man a veritable walking museum
of antiquities.”31 today the list has shrunk to virtually zero.
Scientists have discovered that each of these organs does
indeed have a purpose: for example, the appendix is part of the
human immune system, and the “tailbone” supports muscles
that are necessary for daily bodily functions.
In their zeal to provide “evidence” of evolution, scientists
have proclaimed organs as useless simply because they were
ignorant of their functions at the time. they were there all
along, but evolutionists just didn’t know it.
Isn’t it possible that the same could be true with God?
Just because you’re ignorant of his presence doesn’t mean he
doesn’t exist.
31 horatio hackett Newman, quoted in The World’s Most Famous Court
Trial: The Tennessee Evolution Case (Dayton, tN: Bryan College, 1925,
reprinted 1990), p. 268.

Page 34
Origin of Species
The Key Is in the Context
Charles Darwin has been called a racist. Critics maintain
that he referred to black people as “lower animals,” and the
black man as “a miserable animal,”32 comparing him to “some
ape as low as a baboon,” likening the “negro” to a “gorilla.”33
Are these accusations true? the key is to look at them
“At some future period, not very distant as
measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will
almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout
the world the savage races. At the same time the
anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen
has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. the
break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene
between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope,
than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon,
instead of as at present between the negro or Australian
and the gorilla.”34
Critics also say that he looked down on women as being
inferior. Again, we need to look at his own words in context:
“the chief distinction in the intellectual powers
of the two sexes is shown by man’s attaining to a
higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can
woman–whether requiring deep thought, reason,
or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and
hands…men are capable of a decided pre-eminence
32 In a letter of 23 May 1833 to his cousin, william Darwin Fox, he wrote:
“In tierra del [sic] I first saw bona fide savages; & they are as savage as
the most curious person would desire.—A wild man is indeed a miserable
animal, but one well worth seeing.” Darwin Correspondence Project-Letter
33 Darwin, C. r. 1871. Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex
London: John Murray. Volume 1. 1st edition.
34 Ibid.

Page 35
over women in many subjects, the average of mental
power in man must be above that of woman.”35
Another Thought
If you find it hard to believe that there was an Intelligent
Designer, give this some thought. Man, with all his genius,
can’t make a grain of sand from nothing. he can’t make a rock,
a leaf, a flower, a living singing bird, a croaking frog, or even
a grain of dead sand, from nothing. we can recreate, but we
can’t create anything material from nothing, living or dead.
Not a thing.
Did you realize that if we could simply make one blade
of grass without using existing materials, we could solve the
world’s hunger problem? If we could make a blade of grass,
we could then create a lot more grass, feed the green material
through a machine that does what the common cow does, and
have pure white full cream milk, then smooth cream, delicious
yoghurt, tasty cheese, and smooth butter. But we can’t make
even one blade of grass from nothing, let alone giving it the
ability to reproduce after its own kind, as regular grass does.
We have no idea where to begin when it comes to creating. If
that’s true, how intellectually dishonest is it to say that this
entire incredible creation in which we live, came into existence
with no Intelligent Designer?
Still, if you are set on believing that some sort of unknown
creative force (made up of chaos and probability) brought
all this incredible order into being, you will stay with that
belief. You will also be offended by the simplicity of Genesis—
that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,
and everything therein. You will also more than likely have a
problem with where Cain obtained his wife. But I may have
an answer that you could be willing to believe? how about he
randomly mutated into a woman, split, and married her?
35 Ibid.

Page 36
Origin of Species
His Famous Student
Charles Darwin said:
“we civilized men, on the other hand, do our
utmost to check the process of elimination; we build
asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we
institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their
utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last
moment. there is reason to believe that vaccination has
preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution
would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. thus
the weak members of civilized societies propagate
their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding
of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly
injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon
a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the
degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the
case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to
allow his worst animals to breed.”
then Darwin compassionately said:
“the aid which we feel impelled to give to the
helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct
of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of
the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the
manner previously indicated, more tender and more
widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy,
even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration
in the noblest part of our nature.” Charles Darwin,
The Descent of Man (1871-1896), p. 133-134.
“Such a dispensation of Nature is quite logical.
every crossing between two breeds which are not quite

Page 37
equal results in a product which holds an intermediate
place between the levels of the two parents. this means
that the offspring will indeed be superior to the parent
which stands in the biologically lower order of being,
but not so high as the higher parent. For this reason
it must eventually succumb in any struggle against
the higher species. Such mating contradicts the will of
Nature towards the selective improvements of life in
general. the favorable preliminary to this improvement
is not to mate individuals of higher and lower orders
of being but rather to allow the complete triumph
of the higher order. the stronger must dominate
and not mate with the weaker, which would signify
the sacrifice of its own higher nature. only the born
weakling can look upon this principle as cruel, and if
he does so it is merely because he is of a feebler nature
and narrower mind; for if such a law did not direct
the process of evolution then the higher development
of organic life would not be conceivable at all.
“If the case were different the progressive process
would cease, and even retrogression might set in. Since
the inferior always outnumber the superior, the former
would always increase more rapidly if they possessed
the same capacities for survival and for the procreation
of their kind; and the final consequence would be that
the best in quality would be forced to recede into the
background. therefore a corrective measure in favour
of the better quality must intervene. Nature supplies
this by establishing rigorous conditions of life to
which the weaker will have to submit and will thereby
be numerically restricted; but even that portion which
survives cannot indiscriminately multiply, for here a
new and rigorous selection takes place, according to

Page 38
Origin of Species
strength and health.” Mein Kampf, Adolf hitler (1889-
“Nobody else but puling pacifists can consider this
fact as a sign of human degradation. Such people fail to
recognize that this evolution had to take place in order
that man might reach that degree of civilization which
these apostles now exploit in an attempt to make the
world pay attention to their rigmarole.” Mein Kampf,
Adolf hitler37
“In our case this term has no meaning. Because
everyone who believes in the higher evolution of
living organisms must admit that every manifestation
of the vital urge and struggle to live must have had a
definite beginning in time and that one subject alone
must have manifested it for the first time. It was then
repeated again and again; and the practice of it spread
over a widening area, until finally it passed into the
subconscious of every member of the species, where
it manifested itself as ‘instinct.’” Mein Kampf, Adolf
“For it is a necessity of human evolution that the
individual should be imbued with the spirit of sacrifice
in favour of the common weal, and that he should not
be influenced by the morbid notions of those knaves
who pretend to know better than Nature and who
have the impudence to criticize her decrees.” Mein
Kampf, Adolf hitler39
36 (Italics added).
37 Ibid
38 Ibid
39 Ibid

Page 39
“organization is a thing that derives its existence
from organic life, organic evolution. when the same set
of ideas have found lodgment in the minds of a certain
number of people they tend of themselves to form a
certain degree of order among those people and out of
this inner formation something that is very valuable
arises. of course here, as everywhere else, one must
take account of those human weaknesses which make
men hesitate, especially at the beginning, to submit to
the control of a superior mind.” Mein Kampf, Adolf
“But this principle can become a living reality only
by passing through the stages that are necessary for its
own evolution. these stages lead from the smallest
cell of the State organism upwards. As its bearers and
representatives, the leadership principle must have a
body of men who have passed through a process of
selection lasting over several years, who have been
tempered by the hard realities of life and thus rendered
capable of carrying the principle into practical effect.”
Mein Kampf, Adolf hitler41
The Hit List
well-known American paleontologist and evolutionary
biologist, Stephen Jay Gould, published an article which
provided support for the fact that hitler was an evolutionist.42
In it he introduces Benjamin Kidd, “an english commentator
highly respected by both academic and lay circles.” Kidd said
that in Germany “Darwin’s doctrine became a justification of
war” and is quoted by Gould as follows: “Darwin’s theories
40 Ibid
41 Ibid
42 Stephen Jay Gould, “william Jennings Bryan’s Last Campaign,” Natural
History, November 1987, pp. 22-24.
Page 40
Origin of Species
came to be openly set out in political and military text books
as the full justification for war and highly organized schemes
of national policy in which the doctrine of force became the
doctrine of right.”43 Sir Arthur Keith (1866-1955) was an
atheist and evolutionist author. he said of hitler: “the German
Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist;
he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany
conform to the theory of evolution.”44
hitler believed that the German people were the superior
race that deserved to rule the world. here is his “hit List”
which reveals how he distinguished between the different races
(notice his evolutionary progression from human to ape):
Nordic—close to Pure Aryan.
Germanic—predominantly Aryan.
Mediterranean—slightly Aryan.
Slavic—close to half-Aryan, half-Ape.
oriental—slight Ape preponderance.
Black African—predominantly Ape.
Jewish (fiendish skull)—close to pure Ape.45
Darwin and Atheism
You will rarely find an atheist who doesn’t embrace
Darwinism with both arms. this is because the theory deals
with God and his moral accountability. If evolution is solely
responsible for creation, then there is no Creator and no moral
responsibility. there are no absolutes of right and wrong, and
therefore anything goes as long as it’s within the bounds of
civil law. with one change of worldview, any sexual exploits
become mere natural instincts to further our animal species.
however, Charles Darwin was not an atheist. In Origin of
43 Ibid
44 Keith, A., Evolution and Ethics, Putnam, NY, USA, p. 230, 1947.
45 The Hitler Movement, James M rhodes (hoover Institution) p.

Page 41
Species he refers to creation as the “works of God,” and calls
him the “Creator” an amazing seven times.
So the atheist has a problem. If he doesn’t believe (as
Darwin did) that there is a Creator, he is saying that nothing
created everything, and that’s a scientific impossibility. he
will deny that he believes that through gritted teeth, because it
is an intellectual embarrassment. But if he says of his toyota
that he has no belief that there was a maker, then he thinks
that nothing made it (it just happened), which (again) is a
scientific impossibility. So to remain credible, he falls back on
something made everything, but he just doesn’t know what
that “something” was. So he’s not an atheist—he believes in an
initial cause.
richard Dawkins, arguably the most famous of atheists,
can’t claim the title “atheist,” because he understands that
something must have created everything. he said, “Biology
is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of
having been designed for a purpose.”46
Francis Crick, a Nobel laureate and co-discoverer of the
structure of DNA, noted, “Biologists must constantly keep in
mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”47
Everything has the appearance of being intelligently designed,
from the design of the atom to the harmonious design of the
universe. So it’s understandable that he says, “why there
almost certainly is no God.”48 his God-given reason won’t let
him rule out a Creator.
the fourth chapter of The God Delusion is what Dawkins
believes to be his most persuasive argument that no gods
exist. he says: “the argument from improbability, properly
46 richard Dawkins. The Blind Watchmaker (New York: w.w. Norton &
Company), p. 1.
47 Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific
Discovery, pg. 138 (1990.
48 Italics added.

Page 42
Origin of Species
deployed, comes close to proving that God does not exist.”49
Again, there is that nagging doubt. Although he is embarrassed
by the following words about how the universe could have
come into being, he revealed the niggling necessity for some
sort of Cause:
“It could come about in the following way: it
could be that, at some earlier time somewhere in the
universe a civilization evolved probably by some
kind of Darwinian means to a very very high level
of technology and designed a form of life that they
seeded onto perhaps this planet … and that designer
could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in
the universe.”50
Do you believe that nothing created everything? If you
do, then your “nothing” isn’t nothing. It is something because
it had the amazing ability to create everything. So do you then
believe that something created everything, although you are
not sure what that something was?51 Keeping in mind that the
most intelligent of human beings can’t create a grain of sand
from nothing, do you think that that “something” that made
everything was intelligent? It obviously is; and if you do believe
the “force” that made the flowers, the birds, the trees, the human
eye, and the sun, the moon and the stars was intelligent, you
then believe that there was an intelligent designer. You have
just become an unscientific knuckle-dragger in the eyes of our
learning institutions that embrace Darwinism. But you are not
alone if you believe in God. Many of our greatest scientists
believed in the existence of a Creator: Galileo, Newton,
Nicholas Copernicus, Francis Bacon, Michael Faraday, Louis
49 Italics added.
50 “expelled,” italics added.
51 these thoughts are expounded further in Nothing Created Everything,
ray Comfort (wND).

Page 43
Pasteur and Kepler, just to name a few. einstein (a theist who
didn’t believe in a personal God) rightly said, “Science without
religion is lame; religion without science is blind.” he also
said, “In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with
my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet
people who say there is no God. But what really makes me
angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.”
the incredible harmony in creation proves beyond a doubt
to any thinking mind that there is a Creator. Now you just
have to figure out if this Creator requires moral responsibility
from you.
Atheist Penn and the Time Bomb
Let me tell you why I believe that there is an Intelligent
Designer, why the designer is the God of the Bible, and why
I believe that he holds each one of us morally accountable.
Before I do, I want to quote someone I greatly respect for what
he said. Pen Jillette (from Penn and teller) is such a committed
atheist, each time he gets a dollar bill he says that he puts a line
through “In God we trust.” he said, “only an obsessive nut
would not allow the words ‘In God we trust’ in his pocket,
and I cross the word ‘God’ off every bill I touch, and I don’t
carry change. that’s me.”52
But listen to what he says about
“If you believe that there’s a heaven and hell, and
people could be going to hell, or not getting eternal
life, or whatever, and you think that, well it’s not
really worth telling them this because it would make it
socially awkward … how much do you have to hate
somebody to believe that everlasting life is possible
and not tell them that? I mean if I believed beyond
a shadow of a doubt that a truck was coming at you,

Page 44
Origin of Species
and you didn’t believe it, and that truck was bearing
down on you—there is a certain point where I tackle
you—and this is more important than that.”53
I heartily agree with him, so please stay with me. I deeply
care about you and where you will spend eternity.
Back in June of 2009, I saw Disney’s Up. I went because
a close friend said that it was so good and so funny, he saw it
twice (he rarely goes to the movies). the skillful animators
were able to show the joy of true love in marriage. In a matter
of minutes, a cute kid and his girlfriend grew to adulthood,
got married, and loved each other with a deep passion as they
grew old together. then she died.
Suddenly, every joy-filled memory became unbearably
painful for the elderly man, and they captured that deep
pain in caricature. I cried my eyes out. I wanted to call my
friend and say, “I thought you said this was a comedy!” Up
took me down. I cried that night at home also, because I was
graphically reminded me of something I carry daily. every
loving husband and wife will be torn apart by death. It’s just a
matter of time. each of us is strapped to a ticking time bomb.
But that’s not the tragedy that drove me to my knees. It’s that
God offers eternal life to every dying person, and most refuse
his “unspeakable gift.” that’s the real human tragedy.
Please think about your sins, then think about the Savior
and what he did for guilty sinners such as us. Don’t ask God
for “proof.” You don’t need it. You already have the necessary
proof through your conscience and because of creation. Ask
instead for salvation, while you still have time. every beat of
your heart is another tick.
Solving Life’s Most Important Question
the Choice. Imagine I offered you a choice of four gifts:

Page 45
• the original Mona Lisa
• the keys to a brand new Lamborghini
• A million dollars in cash
• A parachute
You can pick only one. which would you choose? Before
you decide, here’s some information that will help you to
make the wisest choice: You have to jump 10,000 feet out of
an airplane.
Does that help you to connect the dots? It should, because
you need the parachute. It’s the only one of the four gifts that
will help with your dilemma. the others may have some value,
but they are useless when it comes to facing the law of gravity
in a 10,000-foot fall. the knowledge that you will have to jump
should produce a healthy fear in you—and that kind of fear is
good because it can save your life. remember that.
Now think of the four major religions:
• hinduism
• Buddhism
• Islam
• Christianity
which one should you choose? Before you decide, here’s
some information that will help you determine which one
is the wisest choice: All of humanity stands on the edge of
eternity. we are all going to die. we will all have to pass
through the door of death. It could happen to us in twenty
years, or in six months … or today. For most of humanity,
death is a huge and terrifying plummet into the unknown. So
what should we do?
Do you remember how it was your knowledge of the jump
that produced that healthy fear, and that fear helped you to
make the right choice? You know what the law of gravity can
do to you. In the same way, we are going to look at another
law, and hopefully your knowledge of what it can do to you

Page 46
Origin of Species
will help you make the right choice, about life’s greatest issue.
So, stay with me—and remember to let fear work for you.
The Leap
After we die we have to face what is called “the law of sin and
death.”54 we know that Law as “the ten Commandments.”
So let’s look at that Law and see how you will do when you
face it on Judgment Day. have you loved God above all else?
Is he first in your life? he should be. he’s given you your life
and everything that is dear to you. Do you love him with all
of your heart, soul, mind, and strength? that’s the requirement
of the First Commandment. or have you broken the Second
Commandment by making a god in your mind that you’re
comfortable with—where you say, “My god is a loving and
merciful god who would never send anyone to hell”? that
god does not exist; he’s a figment of the imagination. to create
a god in your mind (your own image of God) is something the
Bible calls “idolatry.” Idolaters will not enter heaven.
have you ever used God’s name in vain, as a cuss word
to express disgust? that’s called “blasphemy,” and it’s very
serious in God’s sight. this is breaking the third Command-
ment, and the Bible says God will not hold him guiltless who
takes his name in vain.
have you always honored your parents implicitly, and
kept the Sabbath holy? If not, you have broken the Fourth and
Fifth Commandments. have you ever hated someone? the
Bible says, “whosoever hates his brother is a murderer.”2
the Seventh is “You shall not commit adultery,” but Jesus
said, “whosoever looks on a woman to lust after her has
committed adultery with her already in his heart”3 (the Sev-
enth Commandment includes sex before marriage). have you
ever looked with lust or had sex outside of marriage? If you
have, you’ve violated that Commandment.
54 Please see the end of this chapter for detailed “Notes.”

Page 47
how many lies do you think that you have told in your
whole life? have you ever stolen anything, regardless of its
value? If you have, then you’re a lying thief. the Bible tells
us, “Lying lips are abomination to the Lord,”4 because he
is a God of truth and holiness. have you coveted (jealously
desired) other people’s things? this is a violation of the tenth
Little Jessica
So that is God’s moral Law that we each will face. we will
be without excuse when we stand before God because he gave
us our conscience to know right from wrong. each time we
lie, steal, commit adultery, murder, and so on, we know that
it’s wrong. So here is the crucial question. on Judgment Day,
when God judges you, will you be found innocent or guilty of
breaking this Law? Think before you answer. will you go to
heaven or hell? the Bible warns that all murderers, idolaters,
liars, thieves, fornicators, and adulterers will end up in hell.5
So where does that leave you?
Perhaps the thought of going to hell doesn’t scare you,
because you don’t believe in it. that’s like standing in the open
door of a plane 10,000 feet off the ground and saying, “I don’t
believe there will be any consequences if I jump without a
to say that there will be no consequences for breaking
God’s Law is to say that God is unjust, that he is evil. this is
on February 24, 2005, a nine-year-old girl was reported
missing from her home in homosassa, Florida. three weeks
later, police discovered that she had been kidnapped, brutally
raped, and then buried alive. Little Jessica Lunsford was found
tied up, in a kneeling position, clutching a stuffed toy.

Page 48
Origin of Species
How Do You React?
how do you feel toward the man who murdered that
helpless little girl in such an unspeakably cruel way? Are you
angered? I hope so. I hope you are outraged. If you were
completely indifferent to her fate, it would reveal something
horrible about your character.
Do you think that God is indifferent to such acts of evil?
You can bet your precious soul he is not. he is outraged by
the fury of Almighty God against evil is evidence of
his goodness. If he wasn’t angered, he wouldn’t be good.
we cannot separate God’s goodness from his anger. Again,
if God is good by nature, he must be unspeakably angry at
But his goodness is so great that his anger isn’t confined to
the evils of rape and murder. Nothing is hidden from his pure
and holy eyes. he is outraged by torture, terrorism, abortion,
theft, lying, adultery, fornication, pedophilia, homosexuality,
and blasphemy. he also sees our thought-life, and he will judge
us for the hidden sins of the heart: for lust, hatred, rebellion,
greed, unclean imaginations, ingratitude, selfishness, jealousy,
pride, envy, deceit, etc. Jesus warned, “But I say to you, that
every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account
thereof in the day of judgment”6 (emphasis added).
the Bible says that God’s wrath “abides” on each of us,7
and that every time we sin, we’re “storing up wrath”8 that will
be revealed on Judgment Day. we are even told that we are
“by nature the children of wrath”9 (emphasis added). Sinning
against God comes naturally to us—and we naturally earn his
anger by our sins.
Instant Death
Many people believe that because God is good, he will
forgive everyone, and let all sinners into heaven. But they

Page 49
misunderstand his goodness. when Moses once asked to see
God’s glory, God told him that he couldn’t see him and live.
Moses would instantly die if he looked upon God. Consider
[God] said, I will make all my goodness pass before
you … And it shall come to pass, while my glory passes
by, that I will put you in a cleft of the rock, and will
cover you with my hand while I pass by.10
Notice that all of God’s glory was displayed in his
“goodness.” the goodness of God would have killed Moses
instantly because of his personal sinfulness. the fire of God’s
goodness would have consumed him, like a cup of water
dropped onto the surface of the sun. the only way any of us
can stand in the presence of God is to be pure in heart. Jesus
said, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.”11
But as we’ve seen by looking at the Law, not a single one of us
is “pure in heart.”
these are extremely fearful thoughts, because the God
we are speaking about is nothing like the commonly accepted
image. he is not a benevolent Father-figure, who is happily
smiling upon sinful humanity.
In the midst of these frightening thoughts, remember to
let fear work for you. the fear of God is the healthiest fear
you can have. the Bible calls it “the beginning of wisdom.”12
Again, your knowledge of God’s Law should help you to
see that you have a life-threatening dilemma: a huge problem of
God’s wrath (his justifiable anger) against your personal sins.
the just penalty for sin—breaking even one Law—is death
and eternity in hell. But you haven’t broken just one Law.
Like the rest of us, you’ve no doubt broken all these laws,
countless times each. what kind of anger do you think a judge
is justified in having toward a criminal guilty of breaking the
law thousands of times?

Page 50
Origin of Species
Let’s See
Let’s now look at those four major religions to see if they
can help you with your predicament.
Hinduism: the religion of hinduism says that if you’ve
been bad, you may come back as a rat or some other animal.13
If you’ve been good, you might come back as a prince. But
that’s like someone saying, “when you jump out of the plane,
you’ll get sucked back in as another passenger. If you’ve been
bad, you go down to the economy Class; if you’ve been good,
you go up to First Class.” It’s an interesting concept, but it
doesn’t deal with your real problem of having sinned against
God and the reality of hell.
Buddhism: Amazingly, the religion of Buddhism denies
that God even exists. It teaches that life and death are sort
of an illusion.14 that’s like standing at the door of the plane
and saying, “I’m not really here, and there’s no such thing as
the law of gravity, and no ground that I’m going to hit.” that
may temporarily help you deal with your fears, but it doesn’t
square with reality. And it doesn’t deal with your real problem
of having sinned against God and the reality of hell.
Islam: Interestingly, Islam acknowledges the reality of sin
and hell, and the justice of God, but the hope it offers is that
sinners can escape God’s justice if they do religious works. God
will see these, and because of them, hopefully he will show
mercy—but they won’t know for sure.15 each person’s works
will be weighed on the Day of Judgment and it will then be
decided who is saved and who is not—based on whether they
followed Islam, were sincere in repentance, and performed
enough righteous deeds to outweigh their bad ones.
So Islam believes you can earn God’s mercy by your own
efforts. that’s like jumping out of the plane and believing that
flapping your arms is going to counter the law of gravity and
save you from a 10,000-foot drop.
Page 51
And there’s something else to consider. the Law of God
shows us that the best of us is nothing but a wicked criminal,
standing guilty and condemned before the throne of a perfect
and holy Judge. when that is understood, then our “righteous
deeds” are actually seen as an attempt to bribe the Judge of the
Universe. the Bible says that because of our guilt, anything
we offer God for our justification (our acquittal from his
courtroom) is an abomination to him,16 and only adds to our
Islam, like the other religions, doesn’t solve your problem
of having sinned against God and the reality of hell.
Christianity: So why is Christianity different? Aren’t all
religions the same? Let’s see. In Christianity, God himself
provided a “parachute” for us, and his word says regarding
the Savior, “Put on the Lord Jesus Christ.”17 Just as a
parachute solved your dilemma with the law of gravity and
its consequences, so the Savior perfectly solves your dilemma
with the Law of God and its consequences! It is the missing
puzzle-piece that you need.
how did God solve our dilemma? he satisfied his wrath
by becoming a human being and taking our punishment
upon himself. the Scriptures tell us that God was in Christ,
reconciling the world to himself. Christianity provides the
only parachute to save us from the consequences of the Law
we have transgressed.
Back to the Plane
to illustrate this more clearly, let’s go back to that plane
for a moment. You are standing on the edge of a 10,000-foot
drop. You have to jump. Your heart is thumping in your chest.
why? Because of fear. You know that the law of gravity will
kill you when you jump.
Someone offers you the original Mona Lisa. You push it
Page 52
Origin of Species
Another person passes you the keys to a brand new
Lamborghini. You let them drop to the floor.
Someone else tries to put a million dollars into your hands.
You push the person’s hand away, and stand there in horror at
your impending fate.
Suddenly, you hear a voice say, “here’s a parachute!”
Which one of those four people is going to hold the most
credibility in your eyes? It’s the one who held up the parachute!
Again, it is your fear of the jump that turns you toward the
good news of the parachute.
In the same way, knowledge of what God’s Law will
do to you produces a fear that makes the news of a Savior
unspeakably good news! It solves your predicament of God’s
wrath. God loves you so much that he became a sinless human
being in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. the Savior died an
excruciating death on the cross, taking your punishment (the
death penalty) upon himself. the demands of eternal justice
were satisfied the moment he cried, “It is finished!”
the lightning of God’s wrath was stopped and the thunder
of his indignation was silenced at Calvary’s bloodied cross:
“Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made
a curse for us.”18 we broke the Law, but he became a man
to pay our penalty in his life’s blood. Let me put this is a
way that in understandable to most of us. God is the perfect
Judge. You and I have broken God’s Law, and in his sight we
are desperately guilty criminals. But two thousand years ago,
Jesus paid our fine in full. that means that God can legally
dismiss our case. he can commute our death sentence. God
can let us live forever!
then Jesus rose from the dead, defeating death. Again,
that means that God can now forgive every sin you have ever
committed and let you live. If you repent and place your trust
in Jesus alone, you can say with the apostle Paul:
Page 53
“For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has
made me free from the law of sin and death.”19
So you no longer need to be tormented by the fear of
death, and you don’t need to look any further for ways to
deal with the dilemma of sin and God’s wrath.20 the Savior is
God’s gift to you. The gospel is unspeakably good news for the
entire, sinful human race!
God himself can “justify” you. he can cleanse you, and
give you the “righteousness” of Christ. he can make you pure
in heart by washing away your sins. he can shelter you from
his fierce wrath, in the rock of Ages that he has cleft for
only Jesus can save you from death and hell, something
that you could never earn or deserve.22
Do It Today
to receive the gift of eternal life, you must repent of your
sins (turn from them), and put on the Lord Jesus Christ as you
would put on a parachute—trusting in him alone for your
salvation. that means you forsake your own good works as a
means of trying to please God (trying to bribe him), and trust
only in what Jesus has done for you. Simply throw yourself
on the mercy of the Judge. the Bible says that he’s rich in
mercy to all who call upon him,23 so call upon him right now.
he will hear you if you approach him with a humble and
sorrowful heart.
Do it right now because you don’t know when you will
take that leap through the door of death. Confess your sins
to God, put your trust in Jesus to save you, and you will pass
from death to life. You have God’s promise on it.24
Pray something like this:
Page 54
Origin of Species
“Dear God, today I turn away from all of my sins
[name them] and I put my trust in Jesus Christ alone
as my Lord and Savior. Please forgive me, change my
heart, and grant me Your gift of everlasting life. In
Jesus’ name I pray. Amen.”
Now have faith in God. he is absolutely trustworthy.
Never doubt his promises. he is not a man that he should lie.
the sincerity of your prayer will be evidenced by your
obedience to God’s will, so read his word (the Bible) daily
and obey what you read.25 then go to
and click on “Save Yourself Some Pain.” there you will find
principles that will help you grow in your faith. You might
like to get The Evidence Bible, which answers 100 of the most
common questions about the Christian faith. Its informative
commentary will help you to grow as a Christian.26
Please don’t toss this book aside. If it’s been helpful to you,
pass it on to someone you care about—there’s nothing more
important than where they will spend eternity.
thank you for reading this.
ray Comfort27