Darwin and the Origin of the Humanoid Form
Have We Placed the Cart Before the Horse?

How humanity's solitary confinement to the Earth is incorrectly extrapolated from Darwin's defunct thesis.

Joan d'Arc

The Universe has an obliging nature and is reflexive. It can provide proof for any cosmological scheme, scientific or mystical, foisted upon it.
Mann & Sutton > Giants of Gaia

Evolution is a powerful creation myth that shapes our view of who we are, and influences us in ways far beyond its official function as a biological theory.
Mary Midgely > Evolution as a Religion

From the perspective of Darwinian theory, mankind may be seen as the winner of a preposterous survival lottery which, we are told, given the incredible odds should not have occurred even once. Thus, the logical deduction from Darwinian theory is that if the humanoid form evolved from the great ape lineage on planet Earth, the mathematical odds are incredibly against the possibility of that same chain of random and incremental steps, contingent upon an interplay with a similar biological environment, occurring elsewhere in the Universe. Therefore, the assumptions of Darwinian evolution presuppose the humanoid form to be an entirely Earth-based phenomenon. Remarkably, the fundamental assumption of the accidental evolution of mankind from the great ape lineage is always overlooked as the problematical factor in the analysis.

An example of this common presumption is stated succinctly in an interview which appeared in Paranoia magazine's Winter 1997 issue. In D. Guide's interview with Henry Stevens of the German Research Project, Stevens' discussion of terrestrial-based flying saucer technology includes the comment that: "If a creature has two arms, two legs, walks bipedally and has stereoscopic vision, it is a human or a human derivative in my book. Parallel evolution would not produce such a close analog on another world."

Although arguments on the side of terrestrial-based UFO technology are certainly valid, it is not within the scope of this work to address the nature or extent of Earth governments' covert preoccupation with flying saucers, mind control or paranormal studies. One of the aims of this book is to debunk Darwinian evolution as a testable scientific hypothesis from which to argue mankind's singularity or uniqueness in the Universe.

The concept of "scientism" is the total commitment to a materialist worldview. As Charles Tart writes ("Six Studies of Out of Body Experience," Journal of Near Death Studies, 1997): "since scientism never recognizes itself as a belief system, but always thinks of itself as true science, the confusion is pernicious." Tart believes a scientist should be committed to observe things carefully and honestly, then devise theories and explanations about what those observations mean, without ad hoc rationalizations. Tart suggests that those who ritually practice "scientism" have an emotional attachment to a materialist worldview, a belief which in itself should be subjected to continual testing and modification. As Tart writes:

"If a theory has no empirical, testable consequences, it may be a philosophy or religion or personal belief, but it's not a scientific theory. Science has a built-in rule to help us overcome our normal tendency to become emotionally committed to our beliefs. This is where scientism corrupts the genuine scientific process."

According to the above definition, Darwinian evolution is "scientism." It is not a testable scientific hypothesis. It is an emotional commitment to a highly-touted philosophy of Western materialism, which has the major backing of Earth's reality engineers for reasons which seem apparent (financial and emotional investment), but which ultimately remain elusive. The following analysis will show that Darwinian evolution constitutes a tautology: a self-contained system of circular proofs, which are always true in a self-contained system of circular proofs. If it can be shown that Darwinian evolution is not a valid scientific theory, it follows that any argument following from it must be considered merely an extrapolation rather than a logical deduction. Darwinian evolution cannot be used as a framework from which to argue against the cosmic co-existence of the humanoid form, or human-like intelligence, since it likely places the cart before the horse.

The most common argument against the existence of 'intelligent' life in the Universe is based on the consensus-reality of Darwinian evolution. To state it more specifically, the fundamental premise underlying the argument against the existence of intelligent life in the Cosmos, and specifically the humanoid form, is the assumed impossibility of the separate evolution of upright, bipedal, large brained, tool-making hominids on planets which are worlds apart.

Yet, a confounded dilemma trips up the popular use of the evolution argument against the co-existence of the humanoid form in the Cosmos at large. This is an extrapolation from an unproven theory based on an Earth-centric bias. Astronomer Tom van Flandern has noted the erroneous assertion that the probability of ETI visiting our solar system is 'extremely small.' He notes that since this presumption is not a known scientific fact, the probability of ETI visitation is actually 'unknown.' After all, wouldn't the appearance of an ET race in our skies automatically make short work of Darwinian evolution?

The philosopher William James asserted that empiricism demands that we "look at a range of experience seriously and open-mindedly, and consider what is the best way to describe it, rather than defining it in advance in ways designed to outlaw alternative descriptions or forms of it which we find inconvenient." As logical empiricists with our minds and hearts open wide, and with no biases either way, let us now attempt a clear examination into Charles Darwin's theory of the natural selection and evolution of Earth species, and its extrapolation as a cosmic constant.

A Chain of Accidents
As an undergraduate anthropology major at a southwestern desert university my first physical anthropology course was quite an experience. Although I accumulated an immense amount of knowledge that semester, it was the first meeting of the class that I will never forget. In the midst of jokes about "noses running in my family" and so forth, there was an unsettling undercurrent in the introductory dialogue. The instructor, a Ph.D., was not so jovial about one thing. With an angry and reddened face, she proclaimed that Darwinian evolution was a fact and not a theory, and warned us in no uncertain terms that she would entertain no questions with regard to the facticity of evolution. What struck me as odd at the time was her tone of exasperation at even the anticipation of an underling wasting her time arguing this fact.

Well, noses run in my family too. I knew, right off the proverbial bat wing, that something smelled fishy, but it took me several years to realize that she was only one of the countless college professors, biologists, science writers, scientific researchers, philosophers, and publishers with a vested psychological, emotional and financial interest in Darwinian evolution. Evolutionary theorists bank on the hope that this theory is too complicated for most of us to fathom, and that we will not ask questions out of fear of appearing ignorant of the facts. More often than not, however, the questions most people have about evolution are very appropriate and intelligent. The truth is, some logic and a little horse sense is really all you need to understand what Darwin was trying to say. It's the mess that his followers, so-called neo-Darwinists, have made of it that often takes real patience to decipher.

It is clear that the theory of evolution essentially views the human form as merely an accident in a chain of accidents. For instance, Stephen Jay Gould argues that the evolution of the human form is not a "repeatable occurrence." In the Journal of British Interplanetary Society (1992), E.J. Coffey argued that "the evolutionary pattern shows rapid diversification followed by decimation with perhaps as few as five percent surviving" and further that "the survivors resemble the winners of a lottery rather than creatures better designed than the unlucky majority who do not survive."

British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle has mathematically dismissed the chance of evolution being an actual occurrence, arguing that "even if the whole Universe consisted of organic soup, ... the chance of producing merely the basic enzymes of life by random processes without intelligent direction would be about 1 over a 1 with 40,000 zeros after it; a probability too small to imagine." Hoyle concludes that "Darwinian evolution is most unlikely to get even one polypeptide sequence right, let alone the thousands on which living cells depend for survival." Given that there are trillions of different kinds of cells in the body, all in delicate balance with each other, each of these varied cellular structures would also have to develop by chance. In a Times-Advocate interview in December 1982, Hoyle declared that this mathematical impossibility is well known to scientists, yet nobody seems willing to "blow the whistle" on the absurdity of Darwinian theory. Hoyle claims that "most scientists still cling to Darwinism because of its grip on the educational system." They do not want to be "branded as heretics."

Taking the Super Out of Natural
The first assumption Charles Darwin made in his research into genetic variation between parent populations and their descendants was that species are not immutable but, rather, "descent with modification" is the norm within species. He proposed that this process of change can account for all, or nearly all, the diversity of life. He thought that it would, some day, be proven that all living things descended from a common ancestor, and perhaps even a single microscopic ancestor. Darwin proposed as a mechanism for this process a concept he called "natural selection." He later regretted use of the word "selection" since it seemed to give the concept a teleological air which only served as fuel for his rivals.

The National Academy of Sciences has told the Supreme Court that the most basic characteristic of science is "reliance upon naturalistic explanations" as opposed to "supernatural means inaccessible to human understanding." That's funny. Human beings have cultivated a comfortable relationship with things "supernatural" over the course of their days on Earth, while it might be said that the relatively newfound theory of Darwinian evolution has made itself very inaccessible to human understanding indeed. In fact, the theory of natural selection offers very little in terms of a detailed explanation for mankind's existential situation as an animal with self-awareness. From a materialist perspective the "evolution" of consciousness still remains a baffling mystery, as does the enigmatic and sudden appearance of language, race, and culture.

Since its minute, incremental steps are impossible to conceptualize in detail, the evolution drama is, by necessity, a panorama. It is, and can only be, an outline of a shadowy metamorphosis from animal in-the-world to Overlord of all planetary life forms. The evolution 'story' dramatizes the 'natural' transfiguration of mankind through a linear procession of metamorphoses which eventually separate him from the animals of his ancestry. Evolution is Western man's totem. Various worldwide creation myths illustrate a similar motif; but, as a scientific theory there is very little concern over the missing details. This is where its faith-based attributes are most evident.

In order to illustrate the faith-based dimension of this theory, it is important that the concerns of the National Academy of Sciences are addressed rationally on both sides of the argument. Therefore, the so-called 'supernatural' should include any invisible force that purportedly drives evolution in the direction of greater complexity, consciousness or ultimate end; or, for that matter, any direction at all. Therefore, the same theories that are attempting to force a square peg (Darwin) into a round hole (the fossil record) should be scrutinized for their 'supernatural' underpinnings as well.

In keeping with the proclamations of Earth's Academies and Courts and other Regulatory bodies, the paradigm of natural selection is the only explanatory route which remains after official slicing and dicing of deductive reasoning cuts out the elusive 'super' in natural. But the Empire's empiricism on this count is peculiarly lax. There is no plausible theory which can support an empirical test of the elusive 'natural' in 'selection.' Most scientists, Phillip Johnson asserts in Darwin on Trial, are simply looking for any kind of "confirmation of the only theory one is willing to tolerate." For those of you who haven't noticed, this is not science.

Larmarckian evolution, the precursor to Darwinian theory, posited that species change because they have a desire for a certain feature, and that the organism purposefully changes and passes those changes on to its offspring. Genetic research has disproved Lamarck and has shown that the genes cannot be affected by "the will of the individual." Yet, it will be shown that hints of Lamarckian evolution are interlaced throughout popular evolutionary explanatory 'tales.' Darwinian evolution claims there is no inheritance of acquired characteristics, and posits instead a mechanistic and more or less accidental process of natural selection. As we will see, true Darwinian evolution is rarely exemplified in popular writings, and we must learn to decipher Lamarckian from Darwinian assumptions.

The Hatfields and McCoys of Evolutionary Theory
In his well known books and articles on evolution, popular science writer Stephen Jay Gould has attempted to steer Darwinian theory away from natural selection as the lone process involved in evolution. A 10/3/97 Boston Globe article entitled, "Survival of the theorists," outlined the crux of the argument within the evolution and evolutionary biology academic factions. The article quotes Gould as saying that "too many biologists, psychologists, and philosophers are buying the notion that natural selection is the be-all and end-all of evolution." He warns that this situation is "bad for science" and, further, is "fueling the growth of evolutionary psychology, a field full of 'narrow, and often barren speculation' about how and why humans behave as they do."

"In a sort of modern-day Darwinian adaptation," proclaims Globe journalist John Yemma, "sociobiologists evolved into evolutionary psychologists and animal behaviorists in order to survive the intellectual onslaught." Gould asserts that this way of seeing evolution "puts natural selection on a pedestal not even Charles Darwin would have wanted it on." Addressing one of these evolutionary psychologists, Daniel Dennett, Gould described Dennett's faction as "Darwinian fundamentalists" with a "propensity for cultism and ultra-Darwinian fealty." He further assessed Dennett's book, Darwin's Dangerous Idea, as an "influential but misguided ultra-Darwinian manifesto."

In response, Dennett argued that Gould has created "artificial distinctions." He claimed that, because Gould is such a prolific and capable popular science writer, "the public may be getting misled into thinking there is fire beneath all the smoke he is blowing." Dennett asserted that the public needs to know that Gould's views are not widely shared by evolutionary biologists. Could he be taking heat for labeling the "extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record" as "the trade secret of paleontology"?

In a review of Dennett's book, British biologist John Maynard Smith stated that most evolutionary biologists see Gould as "a man whose ideas are so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with." The reason that this faction had not attacked Gould earlier than this, Smith added, was because they figured he was "on their side against the creationists." The author of the Globe article, Yemma, asserts that "depending on whose argument is being made here, there may be crucial scholarly distinctions at stake. It is hard to tell." If it's so hard to tell, the Globe should have put someone else on the story. Puffing himself up like a blowfish, he adds that "the public could be excused for seeing this as one of those perplexing academic arguments that in an earlier age would have involved angels dancing on the head of a pin."

Why should the public be excused from understanding the basis of this simple argument? Why couldn't this author have explained the argument, even in abbreviated form? Is it because he doesn't understand it himself or because the media want to maintain a barren distance between the public and scientific theory? In effect, what we see on brazen display here is the media attitude that the public is not expected to understand evolutionary theory and is enjoined, instead, to reel around on the head of a pin until confusion sets in and they have to sit down.

Finally, Yemma writes, "just in case creationists are listening in, all parties take pains to point out that this fight has nothing to do with God, religion, the Bible or, as Gould put it, attempts to smuggle purpose back into biology." It is, the contenders say, "an argument well within the world of secular science." Apparently this writer thinks that "creationists" can't read the newspaper, and those who can, he bargains, will be unable to see through his smug coverage of this important topic.

How could this argument possibly not have anything to do with God or religion? There is no getting around the fact that the evolution tiff is a war between atheist and religious contingents. Atheism is the zeal behind all of the rhetoric. I can personally attest to the fact that atheists actually get high on Darwinian dogma. It is nothing short of Acada-Media mind control. The mind-numbing fear of all the principals involved in this 'survival of the theories' is based on the fact that the evolutionary record is, as we shall see, incompatible with Darwinian natural selection and compatible with purposeful design. Clearly, it is just this "smuggling of purpose" into evolutionary theory that is the Devil to the Hatfields and McCoys of Evolutionary Theory for, as we shall see, it is the only truce for which they are willing to put down their shot guns.

With regard to this ongoing hillbilly feud in evolutionary science, Stephen Jay Gould wrote in The New York Review that "we will not win this most important of all battles if we descend to the same tactics of backbiting and anathematization that characterize our true opponents."

The "true opponents" of this atheistic bunch are obviously religious creationists, but let's widen the fray as we draw that line in the sand to include all BIPEDs ("Beings for Intelligent Purpose in Evolutionary Design"), those who have the feeling that 'we didn't get here from there' and are experiencing a little Darwinian Dissent. To arm ourselves for this gentleman's duel, let's zoom in on the head of that pin.

The Shape of a Seductive Idea
In his book Darwin's Dangerous Idea, philosopher Daniel Dennett tries to downplay typical feuds such as the one portrayed in the Globe article. He contends that the "relatively narrow conflicts" which have arisen among theorists have been blown out of proportion and seriously distorted. With regard to Gould's statement in the Globe to the effect that evolution adherents need not lower themselves to the level of feuding to which the creationists have crawled, Dennett's attitude toward non-believers is telling. He states: "anyone today who doubts that the variety of life on this planet was produced by a process of evolution is simply ignorant - inexcusably ignorant, in a world where three out of four people have learned to read and write."

So, if you know how to read and write, you should know that the prevailing worldview is Darwinian evolution and you would be stupid, rather, inexcusably ignorant, to argue the fine points. Needless to say, Dennett is sure that no controversy could affect Darwinism, which is about as "secure as any idea in science." If science is all about security, it is no wonder the Brookings Institute came to the conclusion it did with regard to the theoretical effect of the discovery of extraterrestrials on the scientific world and on scientists themselves. They concluded it would scare the pants off them.

It would appear that the aim of the Brookings study was not to protect Earth people or religious institutions, but to protect the scientific establishment, i.e. Darwinian evolution. After all, what other discovery could completely shatter the Darwinian mythology of our purely accidental climb out of the ponds of our local habitat Earth?

Dennett states that "Darwin's fundamental idea of natural selection has been articulated, expanded, clarified, quantified, and deepened in many ways, becoming stronger every time it overcame a challenge." In spite of stating emphatically at the beginning of his book that he could provide numerous examples of how the Modern Synthesis has overcome the shortcomings of Darwin's theory, Dennett accomplishes no such feat. Instead, on the last page of Darwin's Dangerous Idea, he admits: "I have learned from my own embarrassing experience how easy it is to concoct remarkably persuasive Darwinian explanations that evaporate on closer inspection." Dennett explains that his book has "sacrificed details" in order to provide a better appreciation of the "overall shape of Darwin's idea," proclaiming the truly dangerous aspect as its "seductiveness."

This seductiveness is indeed very dangerous. It is what compels people to fight tooth and nail on the side of an unscientific theory. Dennett insists that natural selection is best explained at the level of a "blind, mechanical and algorithmic process," dependent on chance alone. He explains that the "mindless" steps of Darwin's natural selection are the outcome of "a cascade of algorithmic processes feeding on chance." Thus, explaining natural selection mathematically is Dennett's idea of "rising above the microscopic view to other levels, [and] taking on idealizations." Anyone who has "learned to read and write" will know that there is simply no getting around analysis of Darwin's theory at the micro level, unless one is afraid what might be found there. Alluding to "algorithms" is simply an abstraction used to explain another abstraction. Dennett's 'cascade of abstractions' resolves none of the quandaries of Darwinian natural selection.

Dennett states that "the only way to answer questions about such huge and experimentally inaccessible patterns is to leap boldly into the void with the risky tactic of deliberate oversimplification," asserting that "oversimplified models often actually explain just what needs explaining." He also asserts that "when what provokes our curiosity are the large patterns in phenomena, we need an explanation at the right level." He adds, "if science is to explain the patterns discernible in all this complexity, it must rise above the microscopic view to other levels, taking on idealizations when necessary so we can see the woods for the trees." He deduces "could anyone imagine how any process other than natural selection could have produced all these effects?"

The experimentally inaccessible patterns which can only be explained by oversimplified models are part and parcel of the speciation problem. Darwinists have not been able to zoom in on any proofs of the evolution of any one species into another, so instead they construct seductive dramas. Dennett's proof is to maintain that Darwinist theory is so on the mark that it constitutes "a complete reversal of the burden of proof." So, now we need to prove that evolution didn't happen? This preposterous reasoning confirms Phillip Johnson's assertion that most scientists are looking for confirmation of the only theory they are willing to tolerate. "Could anyone imagine" any other explanation for Dennett's peculiar line of logic? To outline the shape of a seductive idea does not describe the practice of science.

The philosophical hoops which dramatize the evolution story may fool most of the people all of the time, but such dramas are actually contrary to currently accepted science concerning natural selection. Evolutionary themes utilize metaphors which describe a vast journey stretching from a distant past to an imaginary future, infused with emotions ranging from euphoria to despair. Such dramas might be laden with emotional reverence for future human beings and their technological prowess, or may fabricate a more fatalistic scenario which carries humanity toward extinction.

Why do such dramas attend evolution? Taken literally and without personal meaning, the theory of evolution is hardly within reach of human imagination. While we can express abstractions and terminology which are supposed to describe such a vast cosmological scheme, the 'facts' involved in such a complex theory have very little in common with the present.

Dennett sees Darwin's "dangerous idea" - natural selection - as a universal acid, eating through "just about every traditional concept leaving in its wake a revolutionized worldview." Perhaps this was true in its heyday, but a survey of the valid arguments against Darwin indicates that it's Dennett's worldview that's in trouble.

Darwinian Hindsight
Geneticist Steve Jones has made the remark that "if there is one thing which Origin of Species is not about, it is the origin of species." Nonetheless, in spite of the fact that Darwin's manifesto has trouble even defining the concept of species, his followers believe "the fact of speciation itself is incontestable." Of course, winding backward from the fact that species exist, any mechanism whatsoever can be postulated. The practice of Darwinian Hindsight is far from scientific. "Whatever the mechanisms are that operate," writes Dennett, "they manifestly begin with the emergence of variety within a species, and end, after modifications have accumulated, with the birth of a new, descendant species." Beneath this doublespeak lies the simple reiteration that via an unknown mechanism, variety within species eventually leads to speciation. This statement merely repeats Darwin's thesis over a hundred years later. This is progress?

The fact is, Darwin never quite defined his terms. He was unable to securely pin down this process from "well-marked variety" to "subspecies" and on to "well-defined species." As Darwin wrote in Origin of Species, "it will be seen that I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given for the sake of convenience to a set of individuals closely resembling each other, and that it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms." Darwin's attitude throughout Origin of Species is that "varieties" are simply "incipient species." Forever teetering on the edge of potentiality, species are always in a hapless phase of becoming. This suspension of actuality is the Darwinist way of non-explanation.

How have we based an entire cosmological scheme on such ill-defined terms? Darwin never purported to explain the origin of the first species, or the origin of biological forms, or of the Universe itself. He merely began in the middle and tried to work his way back utilizing a circular motion inside of a box. These are the foot prints which all Darwinists seem to follow, for this is the only methodology possible.

The enclosure surrounding the natural selection tautology does not seem to bother most Darwinists as they respond to criticism with rhetorical statements aimed at a person's educational level. In this case, the education itself is nothing more than the indoctrination of a pervasive materialist mindset within the confines of a "specialist" caste system. But, tautologies in scientific paradigms are not new to Thomas Kuhn, author of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Kuhn assures us that such circular arguments typical of scientific paradigms cannot be made logically compelling "for those who refuse to step into the circle." It would appear that this oddity of science is an enigma explainable only by the well-known motto: 'For those who believe, no explanation is necessary, For those who do not believe, no explanation is possible.'

If Darwin himself never quite defined his terms, how can we be sure we are talking about the same thing? We can't. The only fully agreed upon definition of "species" in Origin of Species is Darwin's discussion of "reproduction isolation," the inability of groups to interbreed. Problematically, interbreeding would re-unite groups which are ostensibly in the act of splitting apart genetically, thus frustrating the process of speciation, if such an event occurs at all. As Dennett notes, "if the irreversible divorce that marks speciation is to happen, it must be preceded by a sort of trial separation ... ." Dennett admits that "the criterion of reproductive isolation is vague at the edges."

The Fitness Test
The idea of natural selection is fundamentally different from artificial selection or breeding. The fundamental assumption of Darwin's idea of natural selection is that it is a process which maintains the genetic fitness of a population by ensuring that the most fit individuals survive to produce the most offspring. Pay particular attention to the terms fit and offspring. A biological species is a group which is capable of interbreeding to produce viable offspring; that is, offspring which can reproduce. The breeding of a new or distinct species which is incapable of reproducing does not constitute a viable species.

Creatures who do not survive to produce offspring do not supply the gene pool with their genes which, we may presume, were somehow deleterious rather than genetically advantageous or fit. But we are simply making presumptions after the fact. Darwin's concept of natural selection simply defines the fittest as the individuals which survive; the fittest organisms are, plain and simple, the ones which produce the most offspring.

Evolutionists argue that Darwin never claimed natural selection to be the exclusive mechanism of evolution. Selection merely preserves or destroys something that already exists. Mutation must provide the innovative changes in design which natural selection then tests out in the field. Luckily for Darwinists, mutations come in all sizes. Mutations which are large enough to cause visible and immediate changes are deleterious to the organism. Darwin once wrote to his contemporary Charles Lyell that "I would give nothing for the theory of natural selection if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent."

Mutations, as Johnson explains, are "randomly occurring genetic changes which are nearly always harmful when they produce effects large enough to be visible," but which may "occasionally slightly improve the organisms ability to survive and reproduce." Yet, Darwin asserted that this force of natural attrition is also responsible for crafting, over billions of years, the variety of life forms on planet Earth. Darwin proposed that, given enough (1) time and (2) sufficient mutations and variations of the right sort, complex organs as well as adaptive behavior patterns could be produced in incremental steps without outside guidance, intelligence, ultimate goal or purpose.

Since Darwin did not have any examples of natural selection with which to illustrate his assertion, he used examples of artificial selection or breeding under the presumption that the same process was at work. But Darwin's analogy to artificial selection, Johnson points out in Darwin on Trial, is problematical in many aspects. He argues that "plant and animal breeders employ intelligence and specialized knowledge to select breeding stock and to protect their charges from natural dangers. The point of Darwin's theory, however, was to establish that purposeless natural processes can substitute for intelligent design."

Mutation is defined as a set of mechanisms which provide the genetic variation for natural selection to go to work, including those which we won't go into detail here: point mutations, chromosomal doubling, gene duplication, and recombination. What is important here is that, according to Darwinian theory, variations are supposed to be random; no guiding force causes advantageous mutations at the right time toward any particular end result or more complex form.

Breeders, on the other hand, produce variations in genes "for purposes absent in nature." If breeders were interested in 'survival of the fittest' only, such extremes in variation would not exist such as are evident in the dog world, for instance. Therefore, in the real world, natural selection appears to be "a conservative force that prevents the appearance of extremes in variation that human breeders like to encourage." In point of fact, domestic animal breeders have produced no new species; the new offspring are always capable of interbreeding with the parent gene pool. The results of artificial selection are actually powerful testimony against Darwinian evolution. The fact is, writes zoologist Pierre Grasse as quoted in Darwin on Trial, "selection gives tangible form to and gathers together all the varieties a genome is capable of producing, but does not constitute an innovative evolutionary process."

Natural selection presupposes that the fittest organisms are the ones that produce the most offspring. We can presume a characteristic to be an advantage because a species which has it (wings, eyes, large brain, claws, fur, bipedalism, language, etc.) seems to be thriving, but it is impossible to identify the particular characteristic or advantage which has produced the coveted outcome of survival. In Darwin's theory, advantage means nothing more than success in reproducing, or increasing the population for survival of the species as a whole.

We can surmise, then, that the individuals which survived to produce the most offspring are doing something right, but that is all we can do. We do not know, specifically or empirically, what they are doing right, but we presume that they must have had the qualities required for producing the most offspring. Therefore, such assumptions always rely on a bizarre retrospective stance (i.e. it must have been the fur that made the grade, or it must have been the large brain, etc.). Problematically, there is no way to test these hypotheses.

In addition, hidden within the natural selection hypothesis is a meaningless tautology which essentially states that those organisms which 'leave the most offspring, leave the most offspring.' Darwin's fitness test is an all-inclusive theory that sits in a box by itself, in its own world, and explains nothing outside of its box. All of its assumptions are, therefore, true since they cannot be tested empirically. Furthermore, it is always a truth that in any population some individuals will leave more offspring than others, whether the population is not changing or is headed for extinction. It is also important to note, species would actually change more if the "least favored individuals most often succeeded in reproducing their kind." Natural selection, therefore, while seeming to be a theory which supports genome variety, may in actuality result in narrowing the possibilities of variation. As a matter of fact, the prevailing character of the fossil record just happens to be stasis: forms remain the same over long periods of time being abruptly replaced by completely different forms.

In his book A New Science of Life, Rupert Sheldrake has written that "the evolutionary changes which have actually been observed over the last century or so for the most part concern the development of new varieties or races within established species." There is, in fact, no evidence which confirms the hypothesis that the concept of natural selection is an evolutionary process capable of producing innovative designs in organs and organisms. In fact, states zoologist Pierre Grasse, such "proofs" of evolution-in-action are simply "observation of demographic facts, local fluctuations of genotypes and geographical distributions." Such fluctuations, he asserts, do not assert an innovative evolutionary process.

As John Davidson writes in The Web of Life: "Evolutionary theory presents one of the most explicit examples of a priori reasoning, and even blind faith, ever seen in a supposedly scientific hypothesis. Books on evolution are full of the prior assumption that evolutionary theory is correct. The facts are then presented to fit the theory. And although many other interpretations of these facts are also possible, it is a rare biologist who dares to be a dissenter or to even suggest that other interpretations and explanations are also possible."

The Whole and Its Parts
Darwin was, in effect, a gradualist, believing that every major transformation in form was the end result of a cumulative process of incremental change and adaptation. As Philip Johnson points out, Darwin asserted that natural selection was a process of "preservation and accumulation of infinitesimally small inherited modifications, each profitable to the preserved being."

Darwin's theory emphatically avoided any leaps or jumps in evolution, called "saltations," which resulted in a new species in one generation. Such a leap being equal to a miracle, or an act of creation, Darwin asserted that he would have to throw out his baby with the bath water were it ever proven that evolution required saltations, or systemic macromutations as they are called today. Systemic macromutations are considered theoretically impossible today, since complex assemblies of parts cannot change simultaneously as a result of random mutation, that is, in a preserved being. Such a large and visible occurrence of mutation would be murderous to the organism.

In the last fifty years, biochemists have begun to decipher the enormous complexity within cellular structures, which incorporate sometimes hundreds of precisely tailored processes. With the increase in the number of required parts of a system, the impossibility of a gradual scenario skyrockets. Complex entities don't evolve piece by piece, asserts Michael Behe, they have to be designed from the start. In his book, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Behe outlines a number of biochemical systems, such as cilium, flagellum and blood clotting, that cannot be explained by Darwinist gradualist explanations.

For instance, Behe writes, if the shape of a protein is warped, it simply fails to do its job. Specifically, the shape of a folded protein and the precise positioning of the different kinds of amino acid groups allow the protein to work. If the job of one protein is to bind to another specific protein, Behe explains, their two shapes must fit each other precisely. If there is a positively charged amino acid on one protein, it will fit only with a negatively charged amino acid. If it is the job of a protein to catalyze a chemical reaction, the shape of the enzyme must match the shape of the chemical target. In addition, Behe explains, enzymes have amino acids precisely positioned to cause chemical reactions.

In short, the work of every cell in the body requires teams of proteins, made up of amino acids, and each member of the team carries out just one part of the task. Not one of these chemical reactions is allowed to go awry in a functioning system. Behe concludes that irreducibly complex systems cannot evolve in Darwinian fashion. The whole system has to be put together at once. He states: "You can't start with a signal sequence and have a protein go a little way towards the lysosome, add a signal receptor protein, go a little further, and so forth. It's all or nothing." In his analysis of complex parts of various biological systems, Behe concludes that "it is extremely implausible that components used for other purposes fortuitously adapted to new roles in a complex system."

This is also true according to Information Theory. Diagrams constructed by Hubert Yockey indicate that DNA is an analog of a computer instruction set, which triggers the message to build proteins of specific varieties that result in a living organism. "There is no doubt that the information complexity in biological entities is very high and that the probability of random mutations leading to more highly structured life forms has the appearance of being impossible." (Hamilton, "Astrogenesis")

Human and animal bodies contain an array of interrelated systems containing organs, tissues and chemical components in intricate order. How would it be possible to build into this system random micro-variations during each tiny step which are at the same time profitable to the preserved being? Surely some of the these incremental changes would be detrimental at some place along the way to the cumulative result, which is at the same time supposed to have no goal toward greater complexity. Furthermore, such infinitesimal changes would not necessarily be of any immediate advantage unless other parts needed for it to function also appeared with it. What we need to imagine here, Phillip Johnson points out, is "a chance mutation that provides a complex capacity all at once, at a level of utility sufficient to give the creature an advantage in producing offspring."

Problematically, since macromutations are always maladaptive, Darwinists assert that complex and similar organs must have evolved independently, over and over again in many different organisms, by the accumulation of tiny micromutations over a long span of time. One example is the evolution of the eye. Did the eye evolve separately at first, and if so was it useful for some other purpose other than vision? Did the neural capacity for vision evolve in incremental steps along with the eye? What good is 5% of an eye, and what good is any percent of it without the neural capacity to process the information it records? Evolutionary biologists use the fossil record to indicate a plausible series of intermediate eye designs, but the problem is the designs belong to different animals and involve vastly different types of structures (some having just a pinhole eye with no lens or some being set in a cup, for instance) rather than a similar structure which added to its complexity over time. There is no evidence that it is structurally the same eye design at all.

Furthermore, it has been noted that no fossils of animals now existant have been shown to have something that would indicate an earlier or less complex eye structure. For instance, the nautilus sea creature, given hundreds of millions of years, has not evolved a lens for its eye despite having a retina "practically crying out for this particular simple change." Dawkins is quoted as saying that "virtually all the mutations studied in genetics laboratories - which are pretty macro because otherwise geneticists wouldn't notice them - are deleterious to the animals possessing them." In order to pass all of these tests simultaneously, followers of Darwin have "evolved an array of subsidiary concepts capable of furnishing a plausible explanation for just about any conceivable eventuality," states Johnson.

Punctuated Equilibrium
It has been noted by paleontologist Niles Eldredge that certain restrictions make it difficult to pursue a successful "career" as a Darwinist. Ironically, those restrictions arise from the fossil record. He writes that the pressure for positive results is enormous. The various schema which these stressed-out researchers must juggle is Darwin's insistence on gradualism on one hand and, on the other, the findings in the fossil record which point to saltation, as well as catastrophism. Johnson quotes Eldredge in Darwin on Trial: "either you stick to conventional theory despite the rather poor fit of the fossils, or you focus on the empirics and say that saltation looks like a reasonable model of the evolutionary process - in which case you must embrace a set of rather dubious biological propositions." (Johnson, 60)

Thus, it is clear that paleontologists who are tethered to neo-Darwinism are not free to draw apt conclusions to which their "dubious" evidence points. In order to operate within the neo-Darwinist boundaries and at the same time achieve success with their projects (and, therefore, future funding and paychecks) another subsidiary theory called "punctuated equilibrium" was hatched. This theory posits that organisms remain the same over long periods of time and that evolutionary changes take place rather abruptly. Punctuated equilibrium is actually an attempt to strike a balance between what Darwin hoped would be discovered in the fossil record and what has actually been found since 1859. How different is punctuated equilibrium from saltation or creation? The embarrassing fact is that, despite an enormous amount of interim fossil hunting, according to Stephen Jay Gould: "the history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism." Those two features are stasis and sudden appearance.

Gould wrote that most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on Earth and that they appear in the fossil record looking morphologically the same as when they depart. He also wrote that species do not arise in a local area by steady and gradual transformation but, rather, species appear all at once and fully formed. Yet, in spite of the fossil record essentially displaying saltation, Gould and other neo-Darwinists remain devout apologists for the theory of natural selection. Johnson succinctly states the problem in Darwin on Trial: "natural selection is a guiding force so effective it could accomplish prodigies of biological craftsmanship that people in previous times had thought to require the guiding hand of a creator."

The Systems View
Rather than viewing life as a Malthusian, dog-eat-dog fight for survival, systems thinkers view it as a cooperative enterprise. Systems theory asserts "continual cooperation and mutual dependence among all life forms as central aspects of evolution." Systems thinkers contend that life took over the Earth through "networking" rather than by fighting tooth and claw for independent niches.

Microbiologist Lynn Margulis asserts that neo-Darwinism is based on outrageously outdated reductionist concepts. The common picture of the genome as a linear array of independent genes corresponding to a biological trait is being called into question. A single gene may actually affect a wide range of traits, and separate genes may combine to produce a single trait. Systems theory sees the genome as a biological network. Stating that complex structures could not have evolved through successive mutations of individual genes, Margulis concentrates on the 'coordinating and integrating activities of the entire genome.'

Margulis (once married to Carl Sagan) has also argued that practicing neo-Darwinists, most of whom come out of the zoological tradition and deal with a relatively recent part of evolutionary history, lack relevant knowledge in microbiology, cell biology, biochemistry and microbial ecology. Importantly, she states that "current research in microbiology indicates strongly that the major avenues for evolution's creativity were developed long before animals appeared on the scene."

In Web of Life, Fritjof Capra quotes Margulis: "when scientists tell us that life adapts to an essentially passive environment of chemistry, physics, and rocks, they perpetuate a severely distorted view. Life actually makes and forms and changes the environment to which it adapts. Then that 'environment' feeds back on the life that is changing and acting and growing in it." James Lovelock, the author of the Gaia hypothesis, writes: "So closely coupled is the evolution of living organisms with the evolution of their environment that together they constitute a single evolutionary process."

Intelligent Design Theory
Life is more than chance combinations of atoms and cells, write the authors of Giants of Gaia. To organize the parts which "collectively enable a bird to fly, or the human brain to form, the writers insist, there had to be an order which brought together the parts not by chance, nor by simple adaptation to external stimulus, but through intelligence." This intelligence inherently constitutes the Universe.

As William Dembski states, "Chance and necessity have proven insufficient to account for all scientific phenomena. Without invoking the discarded teleologies, entelechies, and vitalisms of the past, one can still see that a third mode of explanation is required, namely, intelligent design. Chance, necessity and design - these three modes of explanation - are needed to explain the full range of scientific phenomena."

As William Hamilton writes in his essay "Astrogenesis": "The real paradigm shift is to consider that the Universe is a life-producing nursery and that the genesis and evolution of life is not earth-centered but rather is distributed among the stars of the galaxies. This idea can be developed into a viable theory as studies in panspermia and astrobiology continue. The real vision this offers is a way to reconcile the possibilities of ancient and recent visitors to earth who appear to be humanoid with an overarching theory that explains the existence of cosmic cousins."

Vitalism and the Gaia Hypothesis
It was Margulis, along with Lovelock, who formulated the Gaia hypothesis in the 1970s. They proposed that life creates the conditions for its own existence, thus challenging the reigning theory that the forces of geology set the conditions for life and plants and animals, sort of accidentally along for the ride, evolved by chance under the right conditions. The Darwinian concept of adaptation to the environment has been seriously questioned by Margulis, Lovelock and others working from a systems point of view. Evolution cannot be explained by the adaptation of organisms to local environments, they argued, because the environment is also being shaped by an overarching and cyclical network of living systems. The evolution of life according to the Gaia hypothesis is a cyclical, "self-regulating" feedback relationship.

Proponents of 17th century vitalism posited that the body is governed by the action of a soul or vital force. This teaching asserts that evolution is not purely mechanical but is the result of a purposive force called the 'life force' which pervades the Universe. For instance, the vitalist T.E. Hulme wrote that "the process of evolution can only be described as the gradual insertion of more and more freedom into matter... In the amoeba, you might say that the impulse has manufactured a small leak through which free activity could be inserted into the world, and the process of evolution has been the gradual enlargement of this leak." (Beyond the Outsider, 121) Neo-Darwinists argue against such an ulterior impulse, vital force or purpose.

The vitalist school of thought argues that physics and chemistry are insufficient to explain life. The whole is more than the sum of its parts: this is what vitalism has in common with systems theory. Both vitalists and organismic biologists try to describe the way in which the whole is more than the sum of its parts. While organismic biologists view the inherent relationships which organize the whole as being the presumed added ingredient; vitalists look for an outside force, field, or nonphysical process. A modern example is Rupert Sheldrake's theory of morphogenetic fields, described in detail in his book A New Science of Life.

In systems thinking, properties of an organism or living system are properties of the whole which none of the parts alone exhibit. According to systems theory, the properties of the whole arise from the relationships among and interactions between the parts, for such properties do not exist when the parts are isolated. The nature of the whole functioning system is qualitatively different from the mere sum of its parts. This is directly contrary to the reductionist approach, in which parts are analyzed by further and further dissection, analysis and reduction.

Contemporary organismic biologists describe a "system" as a highly organized network of feedback loops arranged in varying levels of complexity. They see no need for a separate, nonphysical concept operating outside of the patterned relationships of physical structures, because they are of the mind that these patterns are "self-organizing." Thus, where vitalists see an outside force or entity as designer or director, modern systems thinkers see merely a pattern of self-regulation arising in nature. How far does the concept of "self-organizing" go to actually explain the quality of the whole being more than the sum of its parts? To say that something is "built-in" does not prove there was no builder. We still have Arthur Koestler's "ghost in the machine." What constitutes the "self"?

To deduce that an internal design is "self" regulating does not fit into the Darwinian paradigm. Here we go loop-de-loo. How is the whole more than the sum of its parts? It is just this idea of "self-regulation" which gave the Gaia theory the boot by the scientific community when it was initially proposed. They queried how life could create and regulate the conditions for its own existence without bringing into play a purposeful overriding force.

The idea of natural processes being in any way guided was unscientific because it was teleological. Teleology, from the Greek, is a doctrine which holds that the existence of everything in nature can be explained in terms of purpose. Teleology indicates creative purposeful design and is anathema to Darwinian evolutionary theory. Yet, keeping carefully within certain necessary aspects of evolutionary theory, Margulis and other systems thinkers continue to assert that there is no purpose or overarching goal in evolution, stating that the driving force of evolution is not random, but rather emerges out of "life's inherent tendency to create novelty, in the spontaneous emergence of increasing complexity and order."

'Tis a good thing that this creative force is inherent and spontaneous, otherwise it wouldn't square with the naturalist paradigm addressed by the Supreme Court. Clearly, it's one thing for the new wave of systems thinkers to partially debunk Darwin, but they had better stop short of saying the driver is anywhere but inside the vehicle! Keeping carefully within certain necessary aspects of Darwinian theory, Margulis and other systems thinkers explicitly assert that there is no purpose or over-arching goal in evolution.

If evolution is the gradual change of one kind of organism into another kind, then the fossil record, point blank, indicates that evolution has not occurred. It is not difficult to see that evolution has achieved the status of a religion in western society. As Mary Midgely notes in Evolution as a Religion, evolution is a powerful creation myth that shapes our view of who we are, and influences us in ways far beyond its official function as a biological theory. Midgely asserts that "the theory of evolution is not just an inert piece of theoretical science," but is also "a powerful folk tale about human origins." She warns against applying the confidence due to well-established scientific findings to a "vast area which has only an imaginative affinity with them," and where only the "trappings of a detached and highly venerated science are present."

Sociobiological Motifs
It is most important to learn to recognize sociobiological motifs hidden within evolutionary philosophies. For instance, Sir Julian Huxley has written: "As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the Universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future. This cosmic self-awareness is being realized in one tiny fragment of the Universe - in a few of us human beings... The first thing that the human species has to do to prepare itself for the cosmic office to which it finds itself appointed is to explore human nature, to find out what are the possibilities open to it (including of course its limitations)." In Beyond the Outsider, Colin Wilson adds: "Man has a choice; he can devote himself to evolutionary purposes, or confine himself to his everyday animal purposes."

Evolutionary philosophy is replete with sociobiological allusions to such things as "evolutionary purposes" and "cosmic offices." Yet, Darwin was specific in his denunciation of any such overarching tendency. It would appear that the human species has simply appointed itself to this office.

In addition, Huxley writes that the attainment of greater complexity in the forms of life denies the law of entropy, in that, while "the Universe of physics is running down; the Universe of evolution is winding up." Huxley asserts: "€on this planet the second law of thermodynamics is now not working, and of course [this] opens up the possibility that there may be agencies operating in the Universe supplying energy which would enable the whole cosmos to behave in an anti-entropic manner."

To this we should argue that there is no such "greater complexity" in forms of life. All forms are equally complex in their own right. Additionally, modern mankind may be technologically evolving, but physically, as we will soon discuss, Jack Cuozzo's work with Neanderthal skulls suggests mankind may actually be devolving. In addition, who says the Universe has become aware of itself only after "a thousand million years of evolution"? How do you know it wasn't aware of itself all along? Is it possible that we see various systems as "evolved" simply because we're stuck in a linear concept of time? Additionally, is it not rather strange to view the "evolution" of cosmic consciousness as "being realized in one tiny fragment of the Universe - in a few of us human beings€"? Which few might those be? This peculiar sociobiological point of view is isolationism and anthropocentrism at its finest. But it doesn't stop there.

With the publication of various popular science books attempting to simplify the new physics paradigms for us "little people," this indulgence in evolution as a creation drama is most obvious. A viewing of the science section of any large book store will display countless titles which seemingly portray the idea that science is making room for the existence of God. It is doing no such thing. It is calling itself God.

In his book The Mind of God: The Scientific Basis for a Rational World, Paul Davies makes an attempt to redefine God-hood as a process of rational thought which is pervasive in the Universe, having a mathematically recognizable pattern ultimately reflective of human-hood. There is no indication anywhere in the pages of this book that the author is talking about God as the omniscient, omnipotent, and determinant cause or creator of the "rational" Universe inside and outside the human mind. It is, rather, a book about human rational superstructures in the act of recognizing that the way it thinks might reflect the way the Universe was built.

This modern conversion of God goes one step beyond merely creating God in man's image, to creating God in the image of Scientific Prowess - the Buddha of Rationality. Davies writes: "Human beings have all sorts of beliefs. The way in which they arrive at them varies from reasoned argument to blind faith. Some beliefs are based on personal experience, others on education, and others on indoctrination. Many beliefs are no doubt innate: we are born with them as a result of evolutionary factors."

Buried in this obtuse Lamarckian epistemology lies the suggestion that a certain belief system, an acquired characteristic by any standard, can be considered an "evolutionary factor." Wouldn't it be handy if we discovered that Davies was setting the stage to present the thesis that scientific rationalism is the correct belief system of all well-evolved individuals? He is! Davies writes:

"Four hundred years ago science came into conflict with religion because it seemed to threaten Mankind's cozy place in the Universe ... The revolution begun by Copernicus and finished by Darwin had the effect of marginalizing, even trivializing, human beings." (italics added)

Davies wonders why "science works," and asserts that it works so well that it points to something profoundly significant about the organization of the Cosmos. The concept of human reasoning, he explains, is itself a curious one. He writes: "The processes of human thought are not God-given. They have their origin in the structure of the human brain, and the tasks it has evolved to perform. The operation of the brain, in turn, depends on the laws of physics and the nature of the physical world we inhabit ..."

This peculiar evolutionary psychology (i.e. sociobiological) model sets its definition of God as the mechanistic processes in nature, which seemingly mirror the belief system of scientific rationalism. As Charles Fort asserts, "science is a Turtle that says that its own shell encloses all things." The author's definition of the conscious awareness of the relatedness or connectedness of inner/outer worlds is the now pseudo-scientific term: "God."

The processes which mirror scientific rationalism are now called God; not the giver, mind you, but the gift itself. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, Science is God.

The Escalator Myth
A consistent pattern in popular evolutionary theory is that evolution progresses 'upward' toward more complex forms. This is actually contrary to Darwinian theory. For instance, Peter Bowler, author of The Non-Darwinian Revolution: Reinterpreting a Historical Myth, finds no fault with Darwin's theory; he only finds fault with "the mistaken notion of its revolutionary effect on nineteenth-century thought." Examining the work of such figures as Owen, Spencer, Kelvin, Huxley, Haeckel, and Freud, Bowler finds "a near-universal tendency to accept evolutionism while rejecting Darwin's central premise: natural selection." Therefore, it isn't Darwin at all who has affected modern philosophy, since most philosophers have misapplied the essence of Darwin's theory.

The idea of the upward movement of life forms from lifeless matter through plants, animals and man was suggested by Lamarck and initially given the term 'evolution' by Herbert Spencer. Darwin argued against the idea that there existed any innate tendency toward progressive development. Darwinian theory, instead, was shaped rather like a bush than a ladder, and accounted for all types of development, including unchangingness and regression, as responses to environment.

In actuality, Darwin posited no guarantee of the continuation of particular changes, and saw no particular change, such as increased intelligence, which stood at the apex of this metamorphosis. Thus, Mary Midgely deduces in Evolution as a Religion, Herbert Spencer's ladder theory has prevailed over Darwin's bush theory in the public mind and in popular and scientific writing, as well as in the minds of scientists who have had a difficult time fitting Darwinian theory to the actual fossil record.

Such prophetic evolutionary tales exalt certain ideals by projecting them on the screen of a distant future - "a fantasy realm devoted to the staging of visionary dramas." Such dramas, Midgely contends, are based on the moral convictions of the author of such stories, and of the age in which they are born, rather than on truly scientific theories. Midgely suggests that an "over-ambitious reliance on the escalator model and the inflated creeds which express it" are the source of many superstitions which follow the theory of evolution.

Evolution's Panchestron
The philosopher William James defined the religious as an attitude which is "directed to the world as a whole, and about which there is something solemn, serious and tender." A religious attitude is an attitude of acceptance founded upon belief in an unseen order, and which surrenders to a 'larger power' in the sense that 'all things work together for good.' In his book, Ishtar Rising, Robert Anton Wilson describes a "panchreston" as a system that explains everything. He argues, "any human formula which explains all human formulas is technically in the class of all classes which include themselves and leads to logical contradictions." How different from such a religious attitude is the "panchestron" of evolutionary theory's Universe and man's place within it?

As Midgely asserts, the myths and dramas attending the theme of evolution, while using scientific language, are "quite contrary to currently accepted scientific doctrines about it." They provide their adherents with a "live faith" which adds meaning to their lives. In this sense they are religious. They are highly charged with a tone that ranges "from the euphoric to the despairing." In these dramas, triumph might be tinged with an air of reverence for the future human beings, or they might contain elements of "brash technological conceit." In the more fatalistic scenarios, a malignancy such as a "selfish gene" or the inability to care for the world will bring humanity to the brink of extinction.

Why do such dramas go hand in hand with evolution? During my years as a believer in the "fact" of evolution, the two foremost responses I tended to give to people who contested their great ape lineage were (1) that they did not have an adequate understanding of the theory (i.e. they were dumb), and (2) that humans were generally incapable of imagining the incredible span of time which would be involved in such incremental processes of change (i.e. it must be happening even though we can't see it or prove it).

Therefore, it is understandable why Midgely would suggest that, taken literally and without personal meaning, the theory of evolution is "scarcely graspable at all by the human imagination." Nonetheless, the creators of such evolutionary dramas owe to their readers a more honest expos¹ of our current understanding of evolutionary processes so that they understand fully what they are accepting as scientific fact. They would quickly realize that the Emperor wears no clothes.

In conclusion, we need not bow to the defunct theory of the evolution of the human form as an Earth-based anomaly. Let go! Unhinge. Be a true BIPED: Beings for PURPOSE in Evolutionary DESIGN. Feel free to explore what that really means! Humans did not crawl out of the ponds of our earth habitat. We are an ancient race connected to the Universe. The human form is a cosmic happening. "People" are universal. Question who might want us to think otherwise! Star Trek is real! God is Real. Gaia is alive - the Cosmic Web is a creation hierarchy. Take it wherever you want. Get in fist fights at parties! Practice your absolute freedom from acadamedia mind control!

This article is excerpted from Space Travelers and the Genesis of the Human Form available from The Book Tree at www.thebooktree.com

Suggested Readings in Intelligent Design: http://home.earthlink.net/~xplorerx2/ASTROGENESIS.htm

Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe, Michael Behe, et al.

A Case Against Accident and Self-Organization, Dean L. Overman, Wolfhart Pannenberg

Signs of Intelligence : Understanding Intelligent Design, William A. Dembski (Editor), James M. Kushiner (Editor)

A Different Approach to Cosmology: From a Static Universe Through the Big Bang Towards Reality, Fred Hoyle, et al.

Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?, Jonathan Wells

The Wedge of Truth : Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism, Phillip E. Johnson

Intelligent Design : The Bridge Between Science & Theology, William A. Dembski, Michael J. Behe

Darwin's Black Box : The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Michael J. Behe