O. R. Adams Jr. 2010
BACK TO ARTICLES
The two men that have done the most to destroy Judeo-Christian
morality, and with it our traditional American values, are Charles Darwin and
Alfred Kinsey, in that order. Charles Darwin's theories were against Christian
teachings, and supplied the "scientific" support for atheism. Alfred Kinsey's "research" and writings led the sexual
revolution that precipitated the acceptance of various kinds of sexual
misbehavior – from adultery to sodomy – in an "anything goes"
The resulting decline of conventional morality paved the way for the
hippie and drug culture of the 1960's, the Vietnam war protesters, and a change
in sexual mores that were extremely destructive to conventional family values. It
is even destroying many of our Christian churches.
I am sure that the kindly Charles Darwin did not intend the moral
destruction for which he was ultimately responsible. The false theories of
Darwinian evolution, accepted as fact by our major universities and schools
today, go even further than the theories of
It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.
This pure speculation and wishful thinking of
It can be demonstrated that Darwinian evolution is not only contrary to the evidence, but that is definitely a false theory.
The idea that somehow life began by accident where there was no life; and that somehow all life on earth – from roses to elephants – all evolved from this one source, is not only contrary to common sense, but it is completely contrary to the evidence. There is an abundance of scientific evidence that shows that life cannot be created from matter that has no life.
In a 2005 article, Abiogenic Origin of Life: A Theory in Crisis,
Arthur V. Chadwick, Ph.D., makes a comprehensive review of the origin of life
research. Chadwick is a professor of Biology and Geology at
Spontaneous origin of life on a prebiological earth is IMPOSSIBLE!
Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at
Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations.
The University of California, Santa Barbara, library has a collection of observations from a large number of reputable scientists, under the title, Origin of Life, that are consistent with the statements of Professors Chadwick and Behe, above, and Jonathan Wells, below.
.As explained in the article, Cone of Evolution, if the Darwinian theory were true, a graph of life on earth would look like a cone, beginning at nothing (the point of the cone), and increasing to the large end of the cone, representing life on earth today. But this is the opposite of what the fossil evidence shows.
Instead, we have what is called the Cambrian explosion from the paleontological and geological evidence. It is called "explosion" because of the sudden occurrence of life in that period of geological history.
Jonathan Wells, in Icons of Evolution, gives a good explanation of the Cambrian explosion and its significance. (pp, 29-45) He states:
Samuel Bowring and his colleagues summarized the available evidence from the rock strata and radioactive dating methods, and concluded that the Cambrian period began about 544 million years ago. The major increase in animal fossils that marks the Cambrian explosion began about 530 million years ago, and lasted a maximum of 5 to 10 million years. (although 10 million years is a long time in human terms, it is short in geological terms, amounting to less that 2 percent of the time elapsed since the beginning of the Cambrian.) The Cambrian explosion gave rise to most of the animal phyla alive today as well as some that are now extinct. ...
... (A) In
Darwin's theory, the number of animal phyla gradually increases over time. (B) The fossil record, however, shows that almost all of the animal phyla appear at about the same time in the Cambrian explosion, with the number declining slightly thereafter due to extinctions.
In considering the relatively short time in which all of this life appeared, keep in mind – the age of the earth is 4.567 billion years (4.567×109 years).
Another thing that evolutionists cannot explain is why humans are the only ones pondering these problems of evolutionary theory. Why aren't apes and monkeys and other animals doing the same thing? Why is it that only humans have evolved to where they write books, paint pictures, invent boats, automobiles, airplanes, and computers? Yet humans are comparatively newcomers to this world. When I was in high school, I heard the theory advanced that it was because people walked upright and had well developed thumbs. The evolutionists seem to have left those theories and tried to develop ideas and theories on humans having a rather sudden and large increase in their brain sizes. But why? And how? None of them really answer these questions at all. There is only one explanation that I have ever found that fits the facts, and it is not science at all. It is the following from Genesis, -28, King James Version of the Bible:
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
One thing, alone, shows how erroneous the theories of Darwinian evolution are. That is the intelligent design in nature. Things cannot be designed for a purpose and also come about by accident – the two are completely contrary.
All things in nature and all forms of life show irrefutable evidence of intelligent design. In the article on this website, Evidence of Intelligent Design in Nature, one of the many categories of examples given is the intelligent design in reproductive systems of plants and animals. For example:
There are many similarities between humans and other mammals and those which hatch eggs. But the female body of the animal species needs some additional elements.
There is a womb in which the fertilized egg develops, and there are body elements that supply nutrition to the growing baby. There are mammary glands that begin producing milk when the new life begins. The breasts are designed so that the young can be suckled giving the food needed by the young to survive and grow.
From any intelligent observation of the sex glands, alone, of male and female, no reasonable inference can be drawn other than that they were designed for the primary purpose of reproduction. It should be just as clear to a person using objective reasoning, as it is that our eyes were designed for us to see with. And when we look at all of the various things working together with sexual drives [located in the brain and the senses], the evidence that it is all a part of an intelligent design for reproduction and propagation of the species is overwhelming. No reasonable evidence can be presented to the contrary.
The same article explains the reproduction systems of some of the plants and trees. They are designed to work with other and separate things in nature, such as the spreading of seeds by birds and animals, and by the wind. When you look at all of these things working together, their intelligent design can only be denied by those with minds that are closed to the evidence. Many of the evolutionists fight the idea of intelligent design because they know that it is the death knell of Darwinian evolution. They know that intelligent design indicates one or more designers, and it eliminates their basic theory that all of these forms of life came about by accident.
Other evidence that proves intelligent design is mathematics and its bases. This is explained fully in the article on this website, The Bases of Mathematics are Intelligently Designed, None of the evolutionists would dare deny that mathematics is not intelligently designed, because the language of mathematics was designed by humans for particular purposes. Yet all of mathematics is only a way of determining the workings of nature. For example, with mathematics we can determine that two and two makes four. But the fact that two and two make four is a fact of nature that existed before there was man. If you take two pebbles and put them with two more pebbles, there are four. Man did not invent this – nor can he change it. The same is true of Pi, which is merely the relationship between the circumference and the diameter of a circle. This relationship existed before there was man, and cannot be changed by him. The same is true of the relationships of different parts of squares and triangles. And the same is true of the things determined by calculus, and all of mathematics.
Great Scientists and Intelligent Design
Most, if not all, of the greatest minds in history have recognized intelligent design in nature.
I have selected eight of those who I consider the greatest scientific minds of the last 500 years. Each of them clearly recognized the intelligent design in nature. Some were devout Christians, who necessarily recognized that design, because they believed that God created the heavens and the earth as a part of their religion. But that of course did not prevent them from recognizing the plain evidence of purposeful design in nature. In recognizing the design in nature, they also recognized that there would have been one or more designers; and many took it a step further. They attributed the design to God, which was consistent with their religion; although this last step was necessarily by faith, as there is no evidence to prove that assumption. Take mathematics, for example – some said that mathematics was the "language of God," and others said mathematics was the "language of nature." They were both talking about the same mathematics. I will cover the eight selected scientists in the chronological order of their birth.
1. Johannes Kepler. (1571-1630) Without question, Kepler was the greatest mathematician and scientist of his time, and perhaps of all time. He "discovered fundamental laws of nature that have stood the test of time and are still widely used today. He advanced mathematics in science to new heights, including the first use of logarithms for astronomy and the foundation for integral calculus. He made useful inventions. He was a major force in moving science away from its subservience to authority and onto an empirical foundation, and from superstition to mathematical law. He helped mankind understand how the universe works. When the great Isaac Newton expressed that his ability to see farther than others was due to 'standing on the shoulders of giants,' he most certainly had Kepler in mind." "Kepler is considered the Father of Celestial Mechanics." He was also a devout Christian. "To him, the God of the Scriptures was the great Mathematician. Kepler’s signature work, the Harmony of the World described his conception of the heavenly bodies making a kind of celestial 'music of the spheres' as the outworking of the mind of God, perfect in geometric harmony. It expressed his belief that the world of nature, the world of man and world of God all fit together into a harmonious system that could be explored by science." Kepler said:
The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order and harmony which has been imposed on it by God and which He revealed to us in the language of mathematics. (Wikipedia)
2. Sir Isaac Newton. (1642-1727) "That the greatest scientist of all time was a Christian and a creationist should give any Darwinian pause. Co-inventor of the calculus, discoverer of the law of universal gravitation and the three laws of motion, analyzer of white light split into colors by means of a prism, inventor of the reflecting telescope and author of the most important book of the scientific revolution (the Principia Mathematica), Sir Isaac Newton is unexcelled in the roll call of great scientists." He said:
This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. (Wikipedia)
3. Leonhard Euler. (1707-1783) I consider Euler to probably be the greatest scientific genius of all time. He greatly advanced calculus, and he derived several direct formulas for determining Pi (the relationship between the circumference and the diameter of a circle).
"According to math professor Howard Anton, he 'made major contributions to virtually every branch of mathematics as well as to the theory of optics, planetary motion, electricity, magnetism, and general mechanics.'" "Euler was so smart it’s almost scary. In his thick textbook Calculus, Howard Anton includes brief biographies of famous mathematicians; his entry on Euler sounds like an episode from Ripley’s 'Believe It or Not' –
Euler was probably the most prolific mathematician who ever lived. It has been said that, “Euler wrote mathematics as effortlessly as most men breathe.” .... Euler’s energy and capacity for work were virtually boundless. His collected works form about 60 to 80 quarto sized volumes and it is believed that much of his work has been lost. What is particularly astonishing is that Euler was blind for the last 17 years of his life, and this was one of his most productive periods! Euler’s flawless memory was phenomenal. Early in his life he memorized the entire Aeneid by Virgil and at age 70 could not only recite the entire work, but could also state the first and last sentence on each page of the book from which he memorized the work. His ability to solve problems in his head was beyond belief. He worked out in his head major problems of lunar motion that baffled Isaac Newton and once did a complicated calculation in his head to settle an argument between two students whose computations differed in the fiftieth decimal place."
In his later life,
Euler became blind. "Undeterred by misfortune, upheaval and disability,
Euler continued his work. With only his mind’s eye, he worked through detailed
algorithms and dictated them to his sons. Dan Graves said that his work
actually became clearer and more concise. An online biography at Ryerson
Polytechnic Institute states that 'He was apparently able to do extensive and
complex calculations in his head, remembering every step so that he could recite
them for his sons to record. ... he published more than 500 books and papers
during his lifetime, with another 400 appearing posthumously'. Another
online biography claims that his death in 1783 left a vast backlog of articles
The following are quotations from the online book on Euler, Leonhard
Euler – His Life and His Faith, by Dr. George W. Benthien, who has a Ph.D.
in mathematics from
Euler was a committed Christian and frequently expressed awe at the works of the Creator. Euler was particularly impressed by the design of the eye. Here is one statement that he made concerning the eye:
though we are very far short of perfect knowledge of the subject, the little we do know of it is more than sufficient to convince us of the power and wisdom of the Creator. We discover in the structure of the eye perfections that the most exalted genius could not have imagined.
Concerning the calculus of variations he wrote:
for the fabric of the universe is most perfect and the work of a most wise creator, nothing at all takes place in the universe in which some rule of the maximum or minimum does not appear. – Leonhard Euler, Methodist Inveniendi Unius Curvus, 1st Addition, Art. 1 (1744).
Faraday. (1791-1867) Though a
religious "nonconformist," Michael Faraday was a devout Christian.
"He became the world’s greatest experimental physicist. To this
day he is often admired as such, notwithstanding the ultra-tech toys modern
chemists and physicists have at their possession. The president of the
Institution for Electrical Engineers (IEE), for instance, at the unveiling of a
Michael Faraday statue in 1989, said, 'His discoveries have had an incalculable
effect on subsequent scientific and technical development. He was a true
pioneer of scientific discovery.' ... His contemporaries would have concurred
with the praise Lord
"Encyclopedia Britannica summarizes some of his important discoveries:
Faraday, who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century, began his career as a chemist. He wrote a manual of practical chemistry that reveals the mastery of the technical aspects of his art, discovered a number of new organic compounds, among them benzene, and was the first to liquefy a “permanent” gas (i.e., one that was believed to be incapable of liquefaction). His major contribution, however, was in the field of electricity and magnetism. He was the first to produce an electric current from a magnetic field, invented the first electric motor and dynamo, demonstrated the relation between electricity and chemical bonding, discovered the effect of magnetism on light, and discovered and named diamagnetism, the peculiar behavior of certain substances in strong magnetic fields. He provided the experimental, and a good deal of the theoretical, foundation upon which James Clerk Maxwell erected classical electromagnetic field theory."
"Faraday could take a simple household object, a candle, and draw out of it all the diverse wonders of nature. That’s a prime illustration of Muir’s Law:
'Any time we try to isolate something by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the universe.'"
[Faraday, as indicated above, recognized "the unity of the forces of nature," which is an important element of intelligent design. And Faraday said:]
"To admit, indeed, that force may be destructible or can altogether disappear, would be to admit that matter could be uncreated...." 
Faraday's views on the forces of nature being indestructible coincide with a very important law of nature that shows its balance and design, which is the First Law of Thermodynamics: The first law of thermodynamics, an expression of the principle of conservation of energy, states that energy can be transformed (changed from one form to another), but cannot be created or destroyed. (The same applies to matter.) Faraday's beliefs of the unity of nature, and that man could neither create nor destroy the forces of nature necessarily recognized the intelligent design of nature, as did all of these great scientists.
5. Louis Pasteur. (1822-1895) Louis Pasteur was a devout Christian. Some consider him the greatest biologist of all time whose work saved more human lives than that of any other scientist. He was also a chemist. He developed the germ theory of disease, and he developed the "pasteurization" of milk and other foods and products. He developed treatment and inoculation for rabies.
"Though best known for discoveries in medicine, Pasteur was a chemist. One of his early discoveries still baffles evolutionists today. While studying crystals under polarized light, he found that certain molecules come in left- and right-handed forms that are mirror-images of each other, a phenomenon now known as chirality. Even more remarkable, he found that living things use entirely one hand. Most natural substances are composed of fifty-fifty 'racemic' mixtures of both hands, the 'stereoisomers' of a given chiral molecule, but for some reason living things were 100% pure of one hand. Pasteur recognized this as a defining characteristic of life, and it remains a mystery to this day.
"We now know that proteins, which are made up of 100% pure left-handed amino acids, could not function if they were racemic (mixtures of both hands), but how did life get started with just one hand, when both are equally probable? This appears to be a clear evidence of intelligent design, because the probability of getting just one hand in a chain of amino acids is vanishingly small, like flipping a coin and getting heads a hundred times in a row. Pasteur certainly considered this an evidence of a Creator, but today evolutionists are continuing to struggle with this observational fact, looking for some natural process that would yield even a hopeful majority to one hand or the other. To this day, none has succeeded. They know that close enough is not good enough; only a 100% pure chain would work. The problem is compounded by the discovery that RNA and DNA contain sugar molecules that are 100% right-handed."
The idea that life came about by accident in some kind of "primeval soup" is completely contrary to Pasteur's work and findings. Pasteur demonstrated that microorganisms do not develop from nonorganic matter.
"Today, believers in spontaneous generation are back with a vengeance. They are called astrobiologists and chemical evolutionists. Their slant is that spontaneous generation does not happen quickly, but can over millions of years, not from nutrient broth, but from primordial soup– organic molecules known to be formed naturally, like some amino acids. They believe that, given enough time and the right circumstances, life arose from simple molecules and evolved into every living thing, seahorses, giraffes, dinosaurs, roses, and humans. Do they have any evidence for this? Absolutely not. Pasteur’s Law of Biogenesis, that only life begets life, stands as firm as it did in 1862. Pasteur’s judgment on those who violate that law should be sternly proclaimed from the lecterns of today’s Astrobiology conferences as he proclaimed it in person: 'Those who maintain this view are the victims of illusions, of ill-conducted experiments, blighted with errors that they have either been unable to perceive or unable to avoid.'" [Emphasis added.]
The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator.
6. James Clark Maxwell. (1831-1879) Certainly Maxwell stands tall among the greatest scientists in history. He was also a devout Christian, and clearly recognized the intelligent design inherent in nature.
"Do you use a cell phone? A pager? A remote control for your TV? A radio? Television? You owe these inventions in large part to Maxwell. Radar, satellite, spacecraft and aircraft communications – any and every means of transferring information through thin air or the vacuum of space, comes out of his work. The inventors of all these devices all built on Maxwell’s exceptional discoveries in electromagnetism, discoveries that required the best in experimental method with the best in mathematics and theory. Maxwell discovered many things, as we shall see, but his crowning achievement was the summation of all electromagnetic phenomena in four differential equations, appropriately named Maxwell’s Equations in his honor. These equations, that express natural laws, not only brought together all the work of Faraday, Ohm, Volta, Ampere, and everyone else who had studied the curious properties of electricity and magnetism, but made an absolutely astounding and important prediction: that light itself was an electromagnetic wave, and through manipulation of electromagnetic waves, it might be possible to transmit information through empty space. Thus, our modern world. The importance of these equations can hardly be overstated. Dr. Richard Feynman, Nobel laureate and influential 20th-century modern physicist, paid his respects this way: 'From a long view of the history of mankind–seen from, say, ten thousand years from now– there can be little doubt that the most significant event of the 19th century will be judged as Maxwell’s discovery of the laws of electrodynamics.' Electricity and magnetism, mere curiosities when explored by Faraday and explained by Maxwell, turned out to generate more economic wealth than the entire British stock exchange. Our modern world is inconceivable without the experimental and theoretical foundation laid by these two great Christians and scientists who harnessed mysterious laws of nature for human benefit." [Emphasis added.]
Maxwell understood that his equations expressed "natural law" – the laws of nature. These mathematical equations are the tools with which we are able to harness and use those laws of nature. It is indeed odd that there are people who call themselves scientists, that recognize that mathematics and the equations by which we work with the laws and forces of nature are intelligently designed, because this mathematical language of nature was developed by humans; yet they seem unable to recognize that the laws of nature themselves, which are the bases of all mathematics, are intelligently designed. Without the laws of nature, the whole idea of mathematics would be completely meaningless. I explain this in detail in the article on this website, The Bases of Mathematics are Intelligently Designed. In that article, I also refer to a number of other scientists and mathematicians who clearly understood this. Albert Einstein explained it rather succinctly in his statement: "Our experience up to date justifies us in feeling sure that in nature is actualized the idea of mathematical simplicity."
Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity.
"In his new book 'Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design' (HarperOne), my Discovery Institute colleague Stephen Meyer writes about his days as a Ph.D. student at Cambridge University, contemplating the entrance to the great Cavendish Laboratory where Watson and Crick elucidated the structure of DNA’s double helix. In 1871, Christian physicist James Clark Maxwell had instructed that the great door be ennobled by an inscription in Latin from the book of Psalms: 'Great are the works of the Lord, sought out by all who take pleasure therein.'"
The last two scientists I have selected were certainly not Christian, and their ideas of God were primarily based on nature and its intelligent design.
7. Thomas Alvin
Edison. (1847-1931) "Edison is considered one of the most prolific
inventors in history, holding 1,093 U.S. patents in his name, as well as many
patents in the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. He is credited with numerous
inventions that contributed to mass communication and, in particular,
telecommunications. His advanced work in these fields was an outgrowth of his
early career as a telegraph operator.
You have misunderstood the whole article, because you jumped to the conclusion that it denies the existence of God. There is no such denial, what you call God I call Nature, the Supreme intelligence that rules matter.
I do not believe in the God of the theologians; but that there is a Supreme Intelligence I do not doubt.
8. Albert Einstein. ((1879-1955) Einstein "was a German-born Swiss-American theoretical physicist, philosopher and author who is widely regarded as one of the most influential and best known scientists and intellectuals of all time. He is often regarded as the father of modern physics. He received the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics 'for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect.'
"His many contributions to physics include the special and general theories of relativity, the founding of relativistic cosmology, the first post-Newtonian expansion, explaining the perihelion advance of Mercury, prediction of the deflection of light by gravity and gravitational lensing, the first fluctuation dissipation theorem which explained the Brownian movement of molecules, the photon theory and wave-particle duality, the quantum theory of atomic motion in solids, the zero-point energy concept, the semiclassical version of the Schrödinger equation, and the quantum theory of a monatomic gas which predicted Bose–Einstein condensation."
As to mathematics and nature, Einstein stated in a
lecture, "Geometry and Experience," before the
One reason why mathematics enjoys special esteem, above all other sciences, is that its propositions are absolutely certain and indisputable, while those of all other sciences are to some extent debatable and in constant danger of being overthrown by newly discovered facts. ... But there is another reason for the high repute of mathematics, in that it is mathematics, which affords the exact natural sciences a certain measure of certainty, to which without mathematics they could not attain.
Einstein also said:
Our experience up to date justifies us in feeling sure that in nature is actualized the idea of mathematical simplicity. (Albert Einstein, Le Matin, March 29,1922, quoted in Abraham Pais, Einstein Lived Here, 1994)
In his essay, "The World as I See It," Einstein wrote "of the Reason that manifests itself in nature." (Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, New York, 1954, p. 11.)
That Einstein clearly considered these aspects of nature to be of intelligent design is shown by his following statement:
You will hardly find one among the profounder sort of scientific minds without a peculiar religious feeling of his own . . . . His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. (Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, New York, 1954, p. 40.)
You cannot get a clearer statement of intelligent design in nature than Einstein's above statement. The people today who fight to keep the teaching and research of intelligent design in nature out of our science and biology classes are mental midgets compared to the eight scientific geniuses referred to above, all of whom clearly recognized intelligent design in nature.
Thomas Jefferson, our third President, is considered one of the greatest thinkers of our founders, and had considerable scientific knowledge. In 1823, near the end of his life, he wrote a letter to John Adams, in which he clearly stated his belief in intelligent design in nature:
... I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the Universe, in it's parts general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of it's composition. The movements of the heavenly bodies, so exactly held in their course by the balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces, the structure of our earth itself, with it's distribution of lands, waters and atmosphere, animal and vegetable bodies, examined in all their minutest particles, insects mere atoms of life, yet as perfectly organised as man or mammoth, the mineral substances, their generation and uses, it is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe that there is, in all this, design, cause and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a fabricator of all things from matter and motion, their preserver and regulator while permitted to exist in their present forms, and their regenerator into new and other forms. We see, too, evident proofs of the necessity of a superintending power to maintain the Universe in it's course and order. ...
Nevertheless, our schools and universities teach the false theory to students that life came about by accident as factual and supported by evidence as a part of the theories of evolution. It has become the religion of the evolutionists. They also fight vigorously to prevent research on or teaching of intelligent design in nature in science classes. To face facts would portend the end of the great industry of Darwinian evolution, put many of its followers out of jobs; and it would be the end of their many grants, both public and private.
All of this has paved the way for atheism. There is no room for the idea that God created living creatures in Darwinism. One of the most prominent of all evolutionists and atheists, Richard Dawkins, contends that even the existence of God is a delusion. He also states:
made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. Darwin
I believe in the teachings of Christ, because with it we ultimately have complete justice for all, and the balance that is reflected by nature itself. Justice is not always done for everyone on this earth, and if Christ's teachings are not true this balance and complete justice for everyone cannot come about.
Without a belief in God, there is no immutable moral foundation. No mortal has the authority of God, and the idea of one person about what is moral or immoral is as good as that of another. We thus have a conglomeration of different ideas of different people about what is right and what is wrong, and none have any authoritative basis. The teachings in the Bible of Judeo-Christian morality are discarded. These liberal ideas gained strength, by being taught in our schools, and spread by the media. This paved the way for the sexual revolution, of which Alfred Kinsey is considered the founder, and for the drug and hippie culture of the 1960's, along with the war protesters of that era; which were all part and parcel of this combined decadence. Many of these decadent leftists became professors in our colleges and universities; and one, William Jefferson Clinton, became our President. Our present President, Barack Hussein Obama, claims to be a Christian, but I consider him only a hypocrite. His leftist actions on such things as abortion and homosexuality, and embracing the religion of Islam, belie his claim that he is a Christian. For the past fifty years all of this has led to an unprecedented and precipitous decline in moral values. The teachings of Alfred Kinsey could have gained no traction without this great decline in morality.
Alfred Kinsey joined the faculty of
The evidence is now
clear that the data for the basis of Kinsey's claims were false and misleading,
because much of it was obtained from homosexuals, pedophiles, and convicts. It
was not at all representative of the general population of this country, or any
other country. Also, Kinsey and his associates, themselves, engaged in all kinds
of perverted conduct, from sodomy to pedophilia. They were far from unbiased
reporters. Many of the people involved in the "research" were engaging
in criminal sexual abuse of children. It would also appear that Kinsey, all of
his associates, and a number of the staff of
A large number of
reputable writers and professionals have written books and articles showing the
shameful invalidity and perversion of the work of Kinsey and his cohorts. Dr.
Judith Reisman has probably done the most work on this. Her latest book on this
Sabotage, published in 2010, on "how one mad scientist unleashed a
plague of corruption and contagion on
I think we should first consider just what kind of a person Alfred Kinsey was. In Sexual Sabotage, Dr. Reisman states (references omitted ):
Something went awry in the life, body, and soul of young Alfred Kinsey. Kinsey became a boy with a closeted secret life as a violently masochistic masturbation addict. He became a man whose sexual addictions, self-hatred, and contempt for women shaped his sex "research" and his legacy. Indeed, sex addiction shaped everything Kinsey thought, said, wrote, did, and hid. [p. 36] ...
Studying at Bussey Institute, where
Darwinreigned as the unquestioned authority, the twenty-five year old Kinsey joined with other elitist eugenicists who sought to "improve" the human species with supermen like themselves. Long before the Nazis gave eugenics a bad name, Darwinism and "the new biology" led to grotesque abuses. In 1907 for example, Indianaenacted legislation that enforced sterilizations based on eugenic "science." The trend spread nationally, as thirty states signed on and more than 50,000 Americans – who did not meet elitist standards – were sterilized by order of the state.
A few years later, eugenics helped shape Hitler's Nazi agenda, and Kinsey was a party to this thinking. As he rejected the belief that all humans are created in God's image, Kinsey's dogmatic atheism supported his eugenicist ideology. In fact, Jones [Kinsey's biographer] says Kinsey called for mass sterilization of "perhaps a tenth of our population" to reduce "the birth rate of the lower classes." ... [pp. 39-40]
By age twenty-seven Kinsey's deviant values were set in concrete and his crusade to undermine
had begun. But he required a trustworthy persona, a front. [p. 40] ... America
Middle-class Americans, he certainly realized, would not march off a moral cliff for a pornography addicted, sadomasochistic, bi-homosexual pederast. ... He needed a "cover," a disguise known by homosexuals as a "beard": He needed a wife who was young, educated, but insecure and obedient. [p. 40]
[He married his wife, Clara, in 1921.] [p. 41]
Kinsey's long history of painfully savage masturbation vetoed normal sex. Even if Kinsey had liked women, after traumatizing his sex organs for nearly twenty years, he would be chronically impotent, especially during his honeymoon. Biographers Jones and Gathorne-Hardy admit that Kinsey could not experience orgasm except through, pain, shame, and stigma. Obviously no normal woman and certainly no normal marriage act could possibly satisfy Kinsey's sadomasochistic needs. [p. 41]
... We know that Kinsey rejected Clara and sexually pursued male students during his wasp-hunting field trips from 1926 to 1929. [p. 42]...
[Homer Rainwater was an associate of Kinsey.] ... Then Kinsey asked Rainwater about his sex life, and offered Clara for sex, hoping the students would learn too late that what Kinsey wanted was sex with them, not their wives. [p. 42] ...
Students who balked at Kinsey's advances risked their grades and careers. If they reported the professor's sexual harassment, the school [
Indiana University] clearly did nothing. [p. 43]
Kinsey had sex with his harem of assistants and with men in bars, bathhouses, and hotels in
, Chicago, New York, Delaware Ohio and elsewhere – before, during, and after World War II. According to The American Experience, by 1939 "Kinsey travels to Chicago on several occasions to interview homosexuals. On these trips, Kinsey has sexual encounters with other men." Indeed nearly every weekend, the addict drove the 500-mile round-trip to Chicago to "interview" homosexual men and boys. [p. 54]
In 1956, at age sixty-two, Kinsey died, apparently of complications associated with "orchitis" which can be fatal. Jones discusses Kinsey's doctor as "pinpointing the testicles as the sight of the infection. Ochitis .. marked by pain, swelling ...usually due to gonorrhea, syphilis. filarial disease, or tuberculosis ... Traumatic orchitis [is] ochitis following trauma ..." He'd had hundreds of violent partners, hence, many sexually diseased partners, as well as sufficient trauma at minimum to his testicles and urethra. This death strongly suggests that Kinsey contracted venereal disease during his frantic frolics. This and the terrible trauma he inflicted for decades on his sexual organs no doubt led directly to his untimely death. [p. 68]
Though [Bruce Kinsey, Kinsey's son] refused to answer questions about his father for years, he attended the 2005 premiere of Kinsey at
Indiana University. There he told university president Kenneth Gros Louis that the scenes of sexual "swinging" and the filming of homosexual, heterosexual, and orgy-porgy sex in the Kinsey attic were all absolutely true. He begrudgingly, and apparently bitterly, admitted that this was part of his home life as a youth. [p. 68]
Dr. Paul Cameron, psychologist, in Kinsey – A Homosexual!, Family Research Report, Family Research Institute, Sept. - Oct. 1997, referring to an article (Jones, J.H., “Dr. Yes,” New Yorker, August 25-Sept. 1, 1997, 98-113) by Dr. James H. Jones [Kinsey's biographer], who served on the scientific board of advisers of the Kinsey Institute for Sex Research, states:
According to Jones, Kinsey "was both a homosexual and, from childhood on, a masochist who, as he grew older, pursued an interest in extreme sexuality with increasing compulsiveness. His secret life was shared with a small circle of intimates, a few of whom became his sexual partners, sometimes in the name of 'research.'" [p. 101] ...
After interviewing an individual, "Y," Kinsey struck up a relationship which included sex with Kinsey, Kinsey's wife, and numerous others. "Y" related that he believed that Kinsey and his wife loved each other, but never or seldom had sex with each other. ...
"By the late nineteen-forties, ... [Kinsey's] risk-taking was becoming compulsive. If the press had got a hint of what was happening, his work and career would have been ruined. Kinsey compounded that risk by documenting, in his attic, many sexual acts on film. Not all of his colleagues and their spouses agreed to his request to be filmed. One staff wife later complained of the 'sickening pressure' she was under to have sex on film, saying that she felt that her husband's career at the institute depended on her acquiescence .... Clara was filmed masturbating and having sex with a staff member .... . Homosexual men figured prominently in the filming sessions, and Kinsey's preference was for sadomasochists." ...
"According to William Dellenback, the institute's photographer, Kinsey was becoming overtly exhibitionist – to the point of having himself filmed, always from the chest down, while engaged in masochistic masturbation. The world's foremost expert on sexual behavior would insert an object such as a pipe cleaner or swizzle stick into his urethra, tie a rope around his scrotum, and then tug hard on the rope" [p. 113] ...
"Toward the end of his life, Kinsey's boundaries shifted again – to the point where he was apparently prepared to withhold moral disapproval of adult-child sexual contact. ... Wescott (a homosexual) remembered Kinsey's once telling him that of all the people he'd interviewed who had been molested as children, only a few felt that they had been personally harmed by the experience ...
"One evening in August, 1954, Kinsey, dejected and bitter, stood in his offices in the basement of Wylie Hall looking up at some exposed pipes just below the ceiling. On this evening, he told a close friend, he threw a rope over the pipe, tied a knot around his scrotum and wrapped the other end around his hand. Then, he climbed onto a chair and jumped off." Shortly after this episode, Kinsey .... traveled to
Peru to photograph a collection of erotic pottery. There Kinsey took to his bed, suffering from an infection in his pelvic region ... A physician friend ... labeled Kinsey's illness orchitis, pinpointing the testicles as the site of the infection." ...
"Talk about a nit-wit whose whacked-out ideas dominate
and academia!" ... [Emphasis added.] Hollywood
[p. 113] ...
Not only did Alfred Kinsey have no integrity and no morality, but it would appear that he clearly had some kind of insanity. There is no other explanation for a person that did the perverted things he did, and in addition brutally abused himself.
Something is wrong with a person who would have any faith in the authenticity of research on sexuality of a pathological pervert like Kinsey, but in spite of all that has been exposed about him, and the fraud and invalidity that has been exposed about his research and writings, his ideas are still promoted in our schools and by the liberal media. The left has gained such control of academia and our media that many branches of what is being presented to us as science is from a world of make-believe.
Data from Kinsey and his institute were behind The False Ten-Percent Propaganda used so effectively by the activist homosexuals in their campaign to legitimize sodomy. The following is from the book on this website, As We Sodomize America, pp. 459-462:
From the outset of the homosexual movement, its members have consistently and falsely tried to convince the public that 10 percent of the population are homosexual. Even after the falsity of this claim was clearly shown, the same statements and propaganda continued. Such false statements are of course typical of the homosexualists. The basis of the original homosexual claims seems to have been the original Kinsey data, a large part of which was shown to have been based on research with prisoners and other suspect classes, which itself shows that the data are not from general population sources, and therefore could not be reflective of the general population. It is also well established that prisoners have a much higher rate of homosexual activity than the general population.
In their book Kinsey, Sex and Fraud (Lochinvar-Huntington House Pub., 1990), Reisman and Eichel point out that Kinsey's data base was clearly skewed by his choice to include a high percentage of prison inmates and known sex offenders. Both practice homosexual behavior much more frequently than individuals in the general population. ...
W. Smith's much more recent study, Adult Sexual Behavior in 1989: Numbers of
Partners, Frequency and Risk, conducted among a full probability sample of
How Many Gays Are There?
For years the gay-rights movement has sought safety in numbers. Its leaders have long claimed that homosexuals constitute 10 percent of the American population. They cited Alfred Kinsey, who interviewed thousands of men and women for landmark studies on human sexuality in the 1940s and 1950s. Activists seized on the double digits to strengthen their political message—that millions of citizens are excluded from the mainstream by anti-gay discrimination. Policymakers and the press (including Newsweek) adopted the estimate—despite protests from skeptical conservatives—citing it time and again.
But new evidence suggests that ideology, not sound science, has perpetuated a 1-in-10 myth. In the nearly half century since Kinsey, no survey has come close to duplicating his findings. ... Some gay activists now concede that they exploited the Kinsey estimates for its tactical value, not its accuracy. ...
Between 1989 and 1992, the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the
Child-pornography researcher Judith Reisman argues in her 1990 book,
"Kinsey, Sex and Fraud," that homosexuals constitute perhaps as little
as 1 percent of the population. ... Newsweek,
The following is from a comprehensive article in The
Wall Street Journal,
Homosexuals and the 10% Fallacy
... The 10% estimate also has been extensively used by activists lobbying for gay-affirmation programs and extensions of family benefits to homosexual employees of major corporations, as well as seen as evidence of gays' voting clout.
But there long has been much evidence that the 10% estimate is far too high. Surveys with large samples from the U.S., Canada, Great Britain, France, Norway, Denmark and other nations give a picture of homosexuality experience rates of 6% or less, with exclusive homosexuality prevalence of 1% or less.
The most comprehensive example is the continuing survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau since 1988 for the
National Centerfor Health Statistics of the Centers for Disease Control. The survey, which polls about 10,000 subjects quarterly on "AIDS Knowledge and Attitudes," asks confidentially if any of several statements is true, including this one: "you are a man who has had sex with another man at some time since 1977, even one time." No more than 2% to 3% of the more than 50,000 men surveyed have answered "yes to at least one statement." Since some yes answers were given to the four other questions (blood transfusions, intravenous drug use, etc.), the data strongly suggest that the prevalence of even incidental homosexual behavior is less than 2% for men. Most studies report that women have about half of the male prevalence rate, so a general population estimate of homosexuality would fall below 1.5%. A national poll showed 2.4% of voters in the 1992 election described themselves as homosexual.
Abundance of Evidence
Numerous other surveys reveal similar percentages. Father-son researchers Paul and Kirk Cameron have compiled a new report, "The Prevalence of Homosexuality" (scheduled to be published in Psychological Reports), that summarizes more than 30 surveys with "large, plausibly unbiased samples." Here are a few of them:
France: A 1991-92 Government survey of 20,055 adults reports that 1.4% of men and 0.4% of women had had homosexual intercourse in the five years preceding the survey. The exclusive lifetime homosexual rates were 0.7% for men and 0.6% for women; lifetime homosexuality experience was 4.1% for men and 2% for women.
Britain: A 1990-91 nationwide survey of 18,876 adults aged 16 to 59 reports that 1.4% of men had had homosexual contact in the five years preceding the survey. Only 6.1% of men had any lifetime homosexual experience.
¨ U.S.: A nationwide 1989 household sample of 1,537 adults conducted by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago finds that of sexually active adults over 18, 1.2% of males and 1.2% of females reported homosexual activity in the year preceding the survey; 4.9% to 5.6% of both sexes reported since age 18 having had partners of both genders, and 0.6% to 0.7% exclusively homosexual partners.
¨ U.S.: A stratified cluster sample from the Minnesota Adolescent Health Survey (1986-87) of 36,741 public school students in seventh through 12th grade found that 0.6% of the boys and 0.2% of the girls identified themselves as "most or 100% homosexual"; 0.7% of the boys and 0.8% of the girls identified themselves as "bisexual"; and 10.1% of males and 11.3% of females were unsure.
Canada: A nationwide cluster random sample of 5,514 first year college students under age 25 finds 98% heterosexual, 1% bisexual, 1% homosexual.
Norway: A 1987 random national mail sample of 6,155 adults age 18-60 finds that 0.9% of males and 0.9% of females had homosexual experiences within three years of the survey, and 3.5% of males and 3% of females had ever had any homosexual experience.
Denmark: A 1989 stratified random sample of 3,178 adults 18-59 finds homosexual intercourse reported by 2.7% of sexually experienced males. Less that 1% of men were exclusively homosexual.
Many other studies also vary greatly from the Kinsey research, which in retrospect has little validity. ...
Other Kinsey Myths
Now that the mythology surrounding Kinsey's homosexuality statistics is being laid to rest, perhaps it's time to examine some other Kinsey conclusions. A good place to start would be his findings on childhood sexuality.
Kinsey's research contains the only body of experimental data purporting to demonstrate that children from a very young age are sexual and have sexual needs. This wisdom is part of the "scientific" foundation of modern sex education, allowing Lester Kirkendall, a sex education pioneer and Kinsey colleague, to predict in a profession journal in 1985, that once our sense of guilt diminishes, cross-generational (adult-child) sex and other forms of sexual expression "will become legitimate."
But the Kinsey "findings" are based on criminal experiments conducted by pedophiles who sexually stimulated infants (as young as two months) and children against their will, without parental consent (obviously), for up to 24 hours at a time. Kinsey compiled these data in a series of tables illustrating normal childhood sexual response and orgasmic capability. A Lance reviewer has called for an explanation from Kinsey's surviving co-workers. (None has been offered.) The National Institutes of Health's fraud specialist Walter Stewart has called for an investigation. It's about time.
People and science have long understood that both the bodies and brains of children change during puberty, and that these changes result in the reproductive organs becoming capable of reproduction, and boys and girls developing sexual desires. Any research that shows that small children, long before puberty, and even small babies, are having "orgasms" should be considered extremely suspect. When the only research indicating such a thing comes from criminal perverts, engaged in raping small children, it should not only be disregarded, but it should be declared to be false pseudo science. That is exactly what we have from Kinsey and his pervert associates. It also appears that extreme pain and terror of the little victims was what these fiends were calling orgasms. Such "researchers" should all have been given long prison terms for their terrible crimes. What they were trying to do, and are still trying to do today is legitimize pedophilia.
From Sexual Sabotage:
In Paedophiles in Society, Professor [Sarah] Goode states that evidence from [Kinsey's] books proved that "his work was based on the rape of children." Kinsey says "the only 'abnormal' sex is no sex; that the 'human animal' needs orgasms; and that the earlier boys and girls have orgasms, the better for them." [p. 24]
The above further
demonstrates Alfred Kinsey's pathologically sick pedophilic mind. Even young
animals do not run around having sex and "orgasms" until, like humans,
they reach a certain stage of maturity. Most of the children abused by the
Kinsey "researchers" were not legally or mentally capable of
consenting to their rape by these pedophiles.
The above further demonstrates Alfred Kinsey's pathologically sick pedophilic mind. Even young animals do not run around having sex and "orgasms" until, like humans, they reach a certain stage of maturity. Most of the children abused by the Kinsey "researchers" were not legally or mentally capable of consenting to their rape by these pedophiles.
From Sexual Sabotage:
Despite his preference of little boys as unverified orgasm subjects, little girls did not escape Kinsey's "research." In sexual Behavior of the Human Female, for example, Kinsey provides unverified "data" on fifty-nine girls up to age three as well as 235 girls up to age five and so on, who supposedly masturbated with half of those to "orgasms." Though this implies that they did it themselves, Kinsey's scientifically trained observers" or "adult partners" could be responsible. [p. 32] [Let's use a little common sense! Ask yourself if this many children would being doing such things, in front of grown people, of their own volition. Criminal sex abuse of these children by the "researchers" is quite evident.]
From Sexual Sabotage (pp. 21-35):
[Relating to small boys – all under thirteen] The following is Kinsey's words, as witness or participant:
The "orgasm" often involved several minutes of recurrent spasm, rigidity, spasmodic twitching, knotted muscles, pointed toes, contracted abdominal muscles, stiff shoulders and neck, sudden heaving or jerking, violent convulsions of the whole body, grasping hands, mouth distortions, and sometimes synchronous genital throbs, or violent jerking; gasping heavy breathing, or holding of breath; eyes staring or tightly closed, and, "groaning, sobbing, or more violent cries, sometimes with an abundance of tears (especially younger children)" [emphasis added]. ...
Even older children would have lacked the language to express their pain, bewilderment, and trauma at being tortured to what King and Kinsley called "orgasms," sometimes around the clock! So King and Kinsley expressed it for them, redefining as orgasm the terror and physical pain of small prepubescent boys – Their hysterical trembling and convulsions, violent cries, sobbing collapse, fainting. Loss of color, violent attempts to avoid "climax," screaming and fighting to get away.
Only pathological sadomasochist perverts would call this kind of extreme pain and terror "orgasms."
Many of these children were not even capable of real orgasms. They had not even reached puberty, when their real sexual development begins. It seems clear to me that Kinsey's claims reflects his pathological state of mind. It is also interesting that in describing orgasms of the small boys, ejaculation and semen were not mentioned. Not having reached puberty, they would not have developed semen. On the age of puberty, Wikipedia states:
Although there is a wide range of normal ages, girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10, boys at age 12. Girls usually complete puberty by ages 15–17, while boys usually complete puberty by ages 16–18.
This "research" really was really just an industry for child abuse, and Kinsey was an advocate of child abuse.
Such terrible trauma could have caused the death of these babies and small children, and most certainly caused both mental and physical injury to most if not all of them. I also believe that if there were deaths of children or injuries to them in this heinous "research," it would not have been reported by Kinsey, or his cohorts. Anyone who would condone and participate in the rape and abuse of small children, and even babies, would certainly not report any resulting deaths or injuries – much less include the information in their sick "data."
Many children have been killed by pedophiles and their sick acts. One example was little Jesse Dirkhising who died from the rape and abuse of a homosexual pedophile, Joshua Brown, in 1999, and this boy was thirteen years old. Brown says when he had sex with Jesse, his homosexual "partner," David Carpenter "stood in the doorway naked and masturbated." Brown was tried for capital murder, convicted, and sentenced to life in prison, without parole. Carpenter pleaded guilty to murder and was sentenced to life in prison.
We do not know
whether great physical harm or even murder
was also involved in the rape and abuse of children in Kinsey's
"research," or even whether there may be records that show this. Indiana
One thing that has recently come to light is a woman in
her late seventies has come forward and told of Kinsey's part in her sexual
abuse when she was a child, beginning at seven years of age. She states that
Kinsey paid her father to rape her, keep records on it, and report the
information to Kinsey. This would not only make Kinsey a guilty party, but he
would be a principal in the criminal rape of this child. This is only one of the many pedophiles with which Kinsey was connected
in this criminal activity called research. I recommend that you read the
following three World Net Daily articles on the matter: Stunner!
Kinsey paid my father to rape me,
How a Kinsey victim lives with
molestation trauma, (Part 2 of above);
Child-rape victim's story prompts probe
for more (on possible legal action on the matter).
The first article about this lady states that: Kinsey "enticed"
her grandfather, who became a personal friend of
Kinsey while studying at
Many followers of Kinsey are the primary influence on "sex education" in our schools, and are sick pedophiles who not only advocate children having sex, but advocate incest – even parents having sex with their children, and siblings having sex with each other. The mental and other sexual abuse of children going on in many of our schools, today is a terrible disgrace and moral tragedy. This is more fully explained in the article on this website, Abusing Children and Calling it Sex Education and Research.
Kinsey and his
followers soon realized that the main things standing in the way of their goals
of promoting free sex of all kinds between people and children of all ages, were
the traditional influences of Judeo-Christian values. Since people tended to
more closely guard young children from sinful influences, they slyly devised the
most effective way possible to do away with that problem. The answer was sex
education for children in the schools. The homosexualists had early on gained
control of the National Education Association (NEA), the largest teachers' union
in the country. To indoctrinate the public and children, the organization with
the high sounding name, Sexuality
Information and Education Council of the
Using Kinsey's and
his associates' work as a "scientific basis," homosexualists and
pedophile perverts are trying to destroy all aspects of Judeo-Christian values,
by advocating such things as sodomy, "homosexual marriage,"
pedophilia, and incest. Many of these people, like Kinsey, are atheists. They
want to make
The influences of
Charles Darwin and Alfred Kinsey have been the primary factors in the
destruction of Judeo-Christian morals in
Cone of Evolution, on this
 See the articles on this website, under articles: Evidence of Intelligent Design in Nature, Intelligent Design Should be Taught in Biology Classes, and The Bases of Mathematics Are Intelligently Designed. http://www.americantraditions.org/articles.htm
Cone of Evolution, supra; The
Bases of Mathematics Are Intelligently Designed, supra; The
Make-Believe World of Darwinian Evolution, on this website under
Sabotage, by Judith Reisman, Ph.D., pp. 256-269.
Way to Save Our Constitution From Judges, on this website, pp.
../Import/A Way To Save Our Consitution From Judges.docx;
Sabotage, supra, pp. 277-284.
BACK TO ARTICLES