Thursday, 22 October 2009

Introduction and Purpose of this Blog

Why Another Blog?

I may as well be blunt.

This Blog is intended to put the most powerful ammunition imaginable into the hands of those many people who see evolution as a theory, which is utterly useless at explaining the actual observable facts of Nature.

So that there will be no misunderstandings, I state that I am a believer in Christianity, and believe in Old Earth Creation.

All are invited to contribute intelligently to the debates which will inevitably rage on this Blog.

There are only a few rules, and as the owner of the Blog, I reserve the right to edit unsavoury, abusive and derogatory personals out. Two warnings will be given, and the contributor will then be expelled from the Blog.

If a contributor quotes, the source of the quotation must be given, and the quote must be accurate and unaltered.

Creation Supporters

I believe that supporters of Creation have been pussy-footing round the issue for too long. I believe the facts that I will post on this Blog cannot be controverted. They are the work of highly reputable observers, and can be verified at will. One way to do this is to look up the references where given. They are in reputable textbooks, and elsewhere. Wherever possible, I have quoted from evolutionists, so that I cannot be accused of bias.

The supporters of Creation have contented themselves (in the main) with collecting quotes from reputable scientists who have expressed grave reservations about the theory.

This exposes them immediately to the charge of 'quote-mining' and 'dishonesty' when in fact the opposite is often true. Those making such charges invariably fail to produce evidence that this is really the case.

Such charges will be edited out, unless the original source material is posted with a reasonable amount of surrounding material to demonstrate the truth of the charge. This will be done as fairly as possible, and objections to the decisions will be fairly dealt with.

We will be dealing first with the question of how instinct originated, because Creation supporters have failed to make the maximum use of this fatal weapon in handling the subject of evolution having occurred.

The Origin of Instinct

Instinct is by far the most difficult subject for evolutionists to account for.

Darwin himself knew this very well, and said:

C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species (London: Cassell and Co., Ltd., 1909), p. 189.

"This is by far the most serious special difficulty which my theory has encountered. . . . The problem at first appeared to me insuperable, and actually fatal to my theory."

"No complex instinct can possibly be produced through natural selection except by the slow and gradual accumulation of numerous, slight, yet profitable variations. . . .We ought at least to be able to show that gradations of some kind are possible, and this we certainly can do."

This was a decidedly optimistic statement on his part, because no 'slight yet possible variations' can bring a swallow 7,500 miles to Capistrano from Goya in Argentina on the selfsame date every year -leap years possibly excepted.

The Real Problem with Instinct

The real problem for any evolutionist, is the simple fact that life itself would not be possible without already existing instincts.

Take eating for example. The whole of the animal kingdom eats. The whole of the animal kingdom would perish without eating in one form or another.

But where did the eating instinct come from? The question is so obvious, that it is completely ignored in any consideration of evolution's incapacities.

Here is my first article on instinct. Enjoy.


In my humble opinion, instinct is the most remarkable feature of the natural world: second only to the existence of life itself.

It is the force powering behaviour in animals.

We may argue and dispute about whether something evolved or not, but the one thing that is beyond dispute is the fact that instinct exists, and that there is no evolutionary accounting for its existence.

Looking at the lowliest forms of life the viruses and phages, we see the viruses entering cells, and taking them over, turning them into virus factories. We know the details of how they do this - how they shed their protein coats, invade, and take over the genetic machinery of the cell and compel it to produce more virus material. And so on.

The biochemistry of much of this is well known, but there is one thing that will forever elude description. The WHY of their action. The REASON for what they do.

WHY do they enter the cell? WHY do they take over the genetic machinery?

There is no obvious compulsion for them to do so, yet they are driven to do this, somehow, and by something that cannot be identified. It can be called, even at this level, some form of INSTINCT.

An amoeba approaches a diatom. It's chemotaxis recognises it as food, and it moves toward it, engulfs it, then digests it. But WHY? Why didn't the chemotaxis make it turn in the opposite direction and run away? The amoeba recognises that it is food, it can be 'eaten', it will do it (the amoeba) good. but how does it 'know' this?

INSTINCT again. But what is that? And where does it come from?

If it didn't know all that, it would perish. But somehow it does know. The instinct keeps it alive.

Where did that instinct come from? It cannot have evolved by any step by step process, because every step had to eat! Every step possessed the instinct - and if it didn't, it could not exist. Therefore, that instinct was present in the first Amoeba.

The most startling examples of instinctive behaviour come from the more complex animals, and I will present a few examples of the ones that have startled me the most. In every case, no evolutionary explanation can be sensibly offered. The sheer improbability of what actually happens, the fact that at every step of the way any mistake would have resulted in disaster for the species, argue powerfully that these examples originated in one blow, and not by any gradual evolutionary process. At least none I've ever heard about, but it is up to readers to correct me.


An additional few comments on Darwin's attitude to Instinct and it's origin:




Evolution's Soft Underbelly
by Asyncritus


The Argument Darwin Dreaded…
The Argument No-One Has Developed Before…
The Argument to Which There Is


45,000 viewers of my articles can’t all be wrong. Check Google for this subject and see!

100 pages of amazing facts and carefully reasoned arguments. Equip yourself! Give your children the knowledge to defend belief in Creation in class!

Get your copy here. Only £4.97 in PDF format for quick download.


  1. Where did that instinct come from? It cannot have evolved by any step by step process, because every step had to eat! Every step possessed the instinct - and if it didn't, it could not exist.

    False. Every step did not have to eat a diatom.

  2. No, but every step had to eat SOMETHING.

    How did they figure THAT out?