What Did Darwin Know?

When Charles Darwin developed the theory of evolution, scientists knew absolutely nothing about DNA (they did not even know DNA existed), they barely knew what a cell was and they certainly knew absolutely nothing about the complexity of what is going on inside of cells. Charles Darwin died in 1882 but DNA was not discovered until 1953!!

Because early scientists knew nothing about DNA and what is going on inside of cells, they thought that life was simple and that life was created by a series of accidents, which they called "evolution." But remember they knew nothing about DNA and they had no idea what controlled cell divisions.

In 1859, when Darwin published his first book, there was no reason not to believe the theory of evolution because DNA had not been discovered and thus the difference between microevolution (variety within a species, such as the difference between a Great Dane and a Chihuahua) and macroevolution (a different DNA structure, such as the difference between the DNA of a monkey and the DNA of a human) was unknown.

Everything that Darwin observed was an example of what we now call: microevolution, which is not true evolution ("true evolution" or macroevolution, means there is a new DNA structure for a new "species," but Darwin knew nothing about DNA structures).

For example, a Great Dane and a Chihuahua are "breeds" or "varieties" within the "species" dog (i.e. they have the same "dog" DNA structure).

Macroevolution requires, by definition, a new DNA structure.

Not once did Darwin observe macroevolution, which by definition would require a new DNA structure being created from an old DNA structure. Nor has anyone else on this planet ever observed an example of macroevolution, which is the only true "evolution."

Scientists now know that it is IMPOSSIBLE to create new DNA strand by modifying an old DNA strand. With the discovery of DNA, for example, the creation of a new species from an old species would require the CHANGE OF ONE DNA STRAND INTO ANOTHER NEW AND IMPROVED DNA STRAND!! But this is both physically impossible and mathematically impossible:
Article: Changing The Length Of A DNA Strand By Evolution/Accidents Is Impossible

But in Darwin's day, because DNA had not been discovered, no one knew the difference between microevolution and macroevolution (a new and improved DNA structure has been created from an existing DNA structure).

Based on what scientists knew in Darwin's day, Darwin's theories were very credible and many people believed him!!!

Another thing that Darwin knew nothing about was "natural selection." Darwin thought that natural selection was somehow related to creating new species. He used the phrase: "evolution by natural selection." Darwin did not know that natural selection was nothing but an elimination process and had nothing to do with creating anything such as new DNA.

But it was the discovery of DNA in 1953 that really disproved Darwin's theories. Darwin saw "variety within the same species" (e.g. microevolution) but he could not have known that microevolution cannot create a new species of animal from an old species of animal. Microevolution can allow strong species to eliminate weak species, but this does not create any new DNA. Microevolution is simply variety within the same "species" (i.e. variety within the same DNA structure).

Nevertheless, Darwin's theory of evolution could not be scientifically disproven until 1953, after the discovery of DNA!!! It is the scientists of today who are guilty of lying and deceiving students.

Also remember that the Book of Mormon was critical of the theory of evolution in 1830 which was 29 years before Darwin's first book and more than a century before the discovery of DNA in 1953!! The Book of Mormon was correct, but the Book of Mormon was not vindicated until 1953 with the discovery of DNA!!

Between 1830, when the Book of Mormon was first published, and 1953, the LDS or Mormon church, and all other churches, have taught that there is a God (i.e. the theory of evolution if false). Yet Darwin's scientific "evidence" supporting the theory of evolution could not be refuted until 1953.

The central issue of the evolution debate is the existence of God. Darwin was an atheist so he had no choice except to describe a method for new species to be created without a God. But Darwin knew nothing about DNA and he knew nothing about the complexity of cells, such as cell divisions (e.g. how a single fertilized egg can divide millions or billions of times until a baby animal is created).

Today, the three terms: species (which should mean the set of all animals which have the same DNA structure), microevolution (which means variety within the same DNA structure) and macroevolution (which should mean a new DNA structure has been created from an old DNA structure - which is both physically and mathematically impossible) are three of the main terms which evolutionists cleverly and intentionally obfuscate in order to get phony "evidence" for the theory of evolution!!

For example, evolutionists, such as Richard Dawkins, love to use examples from microevolution (which has nothing to do with true evolution, it is simply variety within the same species) to claim they have found examples of "macroevolution," meaning true evolution. Darwin did the same thing but he knew nothing about DNA.

As another example of deception, evolutionists frequently claim that "lots and lots of examples of microevolution can create macroevolution." This is absolute nonsense!!! Microevolution, by definition, does not change the size of DNA or even the structure of the nucleotides (e.g. where the genes are)!!

People are so confused by the deceptive terminology of the atheists/evolutionists (and this confusion is by design!!) that it takes seven chapters in one of the free eBooks on this website to properly define the key terms in biology which are relevant to the theory of evolution.

The truth is that the Universe and human DNA were designed and created by God, the very person who the atheists don't want people to believe in.

In fact, atheists like Richard Dawkins are really good story tellers, but they are really bad at statistics, especially in explaining why the laws of statistics, and especially the statistics related to calculating permutations, should not apply to DNA!!

Not only can they not explain how DNA could have been constructed in a warm pond, they cannot explain why the "first living cell" would have a viable permutation of nucleotides to support life and reside inside of a cell which can divide and thus replicate and how life was created from non-life. Etc.

But there is a reason for the self-anointed ignorance of atheists. The only way that atheists can get "evidence" for the theory of evolution, and thus converts to atheism, is to ignore the probability of viable permutations of nucleotides, and other issues, and instead focus on creating deceptive definitions and other tactics.

The bottom line is that Darwin was far, far less culpable than modern scientists today!!

So was Darwin an atheist?? No one really knows. People in his day probably assumed he was an atheist. Today, arguments can be made on both sides of this issue, but he certainly leaned towards atheism more than a belief in God. How much of this was for show we will never know.


To Get To The Home Page Of This Website

If you came to this page from another page on the Prophets Or Evolution website, such as the Home Page, just close this window.

If you came to this page from Google, here is how to get to the home page:
Home Page of the Prophets Or Evolution Website