evc01 Darwinism


The Theories of Charles Darwin
By David Cox
[ec01] v1 ©2005 www.coxtracts.com
This tract can be freely copied for non-profit purposes.

Evolution did not begin with Darwin but with the Greeks. The biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1809) proposed the foundations that Darwin later made popular. Lamarck believed in the existence of a force in each being that pushed it to be more complex, and that the parents could pass the abilities and qualities that they learned on to their children so that their children would be benefited. When the 20th century science discovered DNA and began to study it, Larmarck’s theories were concluded to be impossible from a genetic viewpoint. The giraffe’s long neck used to eat from the tops of trees could not genetically be passed to its descendents according to science. Any benefit or detriment from a bodily character is not transferred to the being’s descendents.

Evolution says that it took 3.8 billion years, and that organisms began simple, then later changed and formed complex multiple cells, always moving from the simple to the complex. It teaches that there are two principles that control this process in order to achieve the simple to the complex goal: (1) Natural selection, and (2) mutations. But neither natural selection nor mutations produce any beneficial thing to a species that results in a permanent character trait that stays with the creature’s descendents for generations.

Darwin observed the grand variety of one species and concluded that the farmers had achieved certain traits through the cross breading of cattle with a particular character trait or group of traits. From that he proposed that this could be done to infinity (that it was possible to slowly change one species until you form a new species). Today in genetic sciences they teach that this is totally impossible, because while variation among a single species is very common, the changing into a totally different species is impossible, because of the laws of genetics which teach that beneficial traits learned or gained are not reproduced in the following generations. Darwin observed variation among a single species, but what he did not see was evolution.

The Fossil Record

Many presume that the fossil record that we have proves evolution as most scientists and museums present it, but it exactly the opposite. What is very obvious from the fossil record is that all evidence that have survived to our day is distinct within a specific species, and they are without any confusion or between species evidences (the famous “missing links”). If evolution is true, then there should be a gradual variation between each fossil from say a pig to a horse, but each is very distinct being clearly identified with species as a group, nothing between two groups. For evolution to be true, there should be many times more gradual cross species evidences than clear species, but the evidence is ALL clearly defined species with NO cross “links”. A dog is always a dog, a cat always a cat. There is not species that shows a common ancestor cat-dog, nor thousands or millions of fossils that would be hard to classify into one or the other. Besides this, all the fossils records suddenly appear, and there is not billions of years where only simpler creatures exist without the complex creatures. It is as if every creature suddenly appears in the geological evidence, sometimes finding complex creatures even in the deepest status. Even human remains (the identical type of humans as we are today) are found in status with dinosaurs. According to evolutionists this is impossible because according to them the dinosaurs should have all died off millions of years before any human appeared. The photo here shows a human footprint where he stepped into a fresh dinosaur footprint. All the discoveries of “the missing link” are either apes or modern men. The Neanderthal man was supposedly a missing link, but when they found more skeletons in the same rock, they were exactly like modern skeletons. On further examination the Neanderthal man had arthritis or rackets; he had a mental capacity 16% greater than modern men.

The Origin of Man

The press, schools, and evolutionistic scientists all present evolution as a Fact that has the fossil record supporting it. But the truth is that there is no actual fossil evidence supporting evolution, and this besides the fact evolutions search frantically for anything to show in defense of their theories. Evolutionists propose 4 steps between apes and modern man: Autralopithecus, homo habilis, homo erectus, y homo sapiens. These differ in their cerebral capacity and their form of walking erect or like a modern ape. Each one is separated in time by “millions of years” supposedly. But the same evolutionists have encountered several of these living together in the same fossil record. They proposed that the slopping forehead and the heavy eyebrows are marks of primitive man, and that these are the “missing link” between man and ape. But today there are pigmies and natives in Australia which have these same characteristics, so what evidence is that?

Life coming from the Inanimate

Evolution proposes that from the beginning of all things, the first live cells came from basic materials without life. But this is a theory (vitalism) which clearly contradicts science, and which science cannot prove. It was a concept of the ancients because they did not understand the processes of life, like bacteria, and this is clearly rejected by honest scientists. Neither has it ever been proven, nor it should be a backbone of science if evolution is true.

Everything runs down

The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that in any system left to itself, everything runs down into a state of disorder, corruption, and deterioration. Everything, living or not, wears out to point of breaking and becoming useless. A car left to itself in the desert for 10 years will not be better nor even the same, but will be worse if at all useable. You will always have to introduce intelligence (God or man) which has to counteract these forces to make the simple breakdown of things under this law to become complex again. Albert Einstein said that this law reigns supreme over science. Evolution rejects God, but proposes this unscientific process of the simple naturally moving to the complex without intelligence nor Creator. This is impossible.

Survival of the Fittest

This thinking is simple wrong. It is just not trae that the strongest always survives. At times the strongest die, and the weaker survive. We are able to easily demonstrate that some parents with parental defects have weak children which survive and abound even with their genetic defects. Equally an excellent athlete with an outstanding body and mind may never have offspring and not survive to the next generation. In other words, we simply observe today that this is not a true law in what evidence we observe around us. The weak and defective are abundant in the human population.

Why do evolutionists promote this? The answer is very simple, because they want to justify their own acts of violence against the weak as being morally valid. Adolph Hitler heavily promoted the concept of evolution in Germany as a justification for his barbarous acts against racial groups. Hitler tried to be the person, who “cleaned out” the weaker races of weak and defective humans, but he could not, and the world did not accept his evil actions either.

When we examine this belief in the light of the Bible, we observe that this quickly crashes with what God presents us. God commands us to protect the weak (widows and orphans Deu 14:29), to have piety and mercy on others less fortunate than ourselves, even on animals (Prov 12:10). This belief in evolution has motivated or better said, has been used to try to justify evil men doing horrible acts of terror. The source is in the concepts of Darwinism.

Using as their justification Darwinism, these kinds of men have defended slavery, colonialism, racism, genocide, abuse and cruelty to animals, and even euthanasia. For example, Carl Marx wanted to dedicate his book, “Das Capital” to Darwin, but Darwin refused!

The God of Darwinism

Darwinism rejects the God of the Bible, and suggests the impersonal god of evolution. Without need of any honor to this god, the evolutionist can take counsel in a god that will not judge his sins, much less will this god punish him. This is the point of Darwinism, to present an alternative to the True God, an alternative which is softer.

2Peter 3:1 describes the evolutionist “Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: These scoffers (teachers of false doctrine) will make fun of the Lord saying He has not returned. One keep point to identify them is that they are willing ignorant the creation of the world by God. They deny this element of the existence of a personal Creator which they will have to give account to one day. As Psa 14:1 says the fool in his heart says “no God” or “there is no God”. This is the response of a foolish heart. Psa 10:4 The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts. The evolutionist refuses to recognize God in His rightful place, as Creator of the world, and because of role as Creator of the world, God has the right to command us. Isa 29:16 Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter’s clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?


evc01-cox-darwinism-v1.pdf (44 downloads )

More Tracts from Evolution versus Creation Category

Ec01 Cox Darwinism V1
Ec01 Cox Darwinism V1
122.0 KiB
Ec01 Cox-darwinism
Ec01 Cox-darwinism
Version: 1
122.0 KiB

Give a Cup of Water in my Name
Matthew 10:42 And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.

Christians who give even a small cup of water will not lose their reward for doing this. God will not overlook their effort to help others in the work of the Lord. To help others is rewarded by God, especially when you are helping the weak, the small young ones (think new believers), the helpless like widows in the Bible, those who cannot provide for themselves. So, my websites are for these kinds of people. I am providing material that is good sound doctrinal material, fundamentalist, conservative, biblical material.

But what I am doing is in the name of the Lord. I am not trying to get rich, but I am just trying to pay my bills from this ministry. My wife and I have personally supported our internet sites with my sermons, tracts, books, etc. and other good solid works for some 20 years now, paying for everything from our living expenses. We have had donations from some few people, about 3 or 4 a year, mostly under $30. That doesn't even begin to address the hundreds of dollars we pay hosting companies to maintain this ministry. While our downloads from these sites reach 40 gigabytes per month, donations don't seem to be in people's minds.

So even a small $5 donation to help us out will allow you to participate with me in this ministry, and you will receive rewards in eternity also. May God bless you richly in heaven for your generosity in promoting God's work. If you cannot donate anything, ⁣ that is alright, just say a prayer for this ministry and email me saying that you prayed for us so that we can give thanks for you before the throne of grace. Thank you.

Donate any amount: paypal.com/paypalme/davidcoxmex.