The Human Choice - 13


Professors Hoyle and Wickramasinghe are not alone in finding that evolution by chance fails utterly the test of science.

Dr. H.B. Holroyd, Ph.D., is a mechanical engineer and physicist, and retired head of the Department of Physics, Augustana College, Illinois, USA.

Author of the book "Quest for Valid Economics", 1982, Holroyd is another to expose the mathematical facts. Any competent mathematician can test the facts as displayed in this book, or study evolution and test it for himself. Even were all Holroyd's assumptions wrong mathematics would prove his point.

In proposing that the most gigantic of human errors in future be called Darwinian, Holroyd suggests that in a scale of human errors the Darwinian error is the Mt. Everest of errors - meaning: as wrong as possible in a matter of great importance.

The Darwinian error was caused by human sloth and the failure to use necessary mathematics. As is shown by Holroyd, the design of life by chance is impossible; this is rationally quite beyond dispute. Organisms could not have been produced in a googol of operations of random change and selection. [A googol is 10 to the 100th power and represents a number greater than the number of atoms in the known universe.] Now a few Holroyd quotes:-

Darwinism is physical and mathematical nonsense, and it is logical nonsense as well, for a sound thinker does not assume anything which must be deduced from his theory. Darwinism is, indeed, far more a blunder than a theory, and physical scientists should have shown this clearly and effectively decades ago.


It is not surprising that Darwin, with his weak scientific education, should fall into error; but it is surprising that the great physicists and chemists of his time and following should not have taken time enough to point out the errors effectively.


Physical scientists, who know higher mathematics and are capable of analytical thinking, should never have allowed the thoroughly mistaken mechanical theory of evolution to reach such a degree of apparent certainty in the thoughts of nearly everyone.

. . .

It is ironical that Darwinians, who have made great efforts to destroy superstitions, should themselves be responsible for one of the worst superstitions of all time. End quote.

The conflict of rationality in the evolution position is highlighted by its being promoted and defended by humanism. The religion that raves against myth, emotional dependence and dogmatism is more blind than all theistic religions.

Even the religious dependence of the humanists however does not explain how such an error could be introduced into scientific thought and maintained there in spite of its obvious lack of substance. It is only when we understand the relevance of chance evolution theory to human manipulation that we realize why, and how, this confidence trick would be performed by a powerful international institution. Internationalist money, using the tax-free foundations of the U.S.A., were able to pour $millions into the education system and it is logical that the beneficial purpose of this 'generosity' was to 'encourage' the acceptance of chance creation theory as the sole 'scientific' teaching and to influence research into mind-manipulation techniques in the guise of "public relations".


Chance Creation is no more than a mishmash of escapism and confusion. Original Darwinism was found faulty by top scientists and even dogmatic evolutionists replaced it with something called the 'Synthetic Theory'. Of this change Norman Macbeth (author of Darwin Retried) in a 1983 interview makes these comments; quote:

It is rather strange to say this, but the Synthetic Theory has never been formulated. It was a vague consensus that was never formulated in any detail. This means that they were able to achieve remarkable agreement because nobody knew what it was all about... He goes on:

But a much deeper and more penetrating analysis of the problem was put together by Professor Ronald H. Brady ... in the quarterly called "Systematic Zoology" for December 1979 ... I think it destroys the idea of natural selection, and this is certainly the opinion of many people at the American Museum of Natural History. The whole basis for the Synthetic Theory is shot to pieces right there in his article.

Evolutionists seem confused! Although believing life only physical they find it difficult to see life as something that is restricted by the same laws as rocks and minerals. But physical life was created from the earth and all physical things are made of atoms; the form things take does not make them less subject to natural law. Neither slow gradual chance creation nor chance creation by sudden great leaps, has any scientific support in natural law. choice13.htm

.../Next Page

.../Back to Contents Page