floor. They proceed into the sand and spin a cocoon and the cycle continues. There are several
kinds of Yucca plants, each pollinated by its own kind of moth that is the right size to enter the
particular flower. The Yucca plant and the Pronuba moth are dependent on each other for
reproduction, thus survival.” 13 Another example of a symbiotic relationship is found between
large fish and usually smaller fish and shrimp. Many large fish feed on smaller fish and shrimp.
However, once these large fish find that their mouths have become littered with debris and
parasites, they swim to places were smaller fish and shrimp clean their mouths. When the
large fish opens its mouth and gill chambers, baring vicious-looking teeth, the little fish and
shrimp swim inside the large fish until they finish their job of eating all the debris and then swim
out unharmed and the big fish swims away. Both parties involved in this relationship benefit and
override the instincts developed by “Evolution” for self-preservation to eat the smaller fish and
shrimp, as well as, for the cleaning animals’ unnatural suicidal tendency to walk straight into the
mouth of this large fish. This relationship is not limited to fish. The bird Egyptian Plover is
designed to freely walk into the mouth of the Nile crocodile to clean out parasites and leaves
completely unharmed. Such relationships challenge the Evolution concept of each animal’s
instinct for self-preservation. However, such a relationship can occur if the organisms had
implanted information within their genetic program for them to act out and follow. A computer
will do whatever it is instructed according to the program it runs by. It will not display feelings or
change course out of will. It will only act as it was programmed to act. As stated by Charles
Darwin, “if it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed
for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have
been produced through natural selection.” Therefore, the evidence of the Pronuba moth and the
Yucca flower clearly present a relationship in which not just one particular part of a structure of
an organism is necessary for the survival of another specie, but they are both completely linked
in a reproductive cycle in which both species had to “evolve” at the same time absolutely
annihilating the concept of “gradual evolution” by “chance”; a paradox equivalent to the famous
question of “who came first, the chicken or the egg?” Another paradox is “who came first, male
or female?” If the male or the female evolved first, then why would nature complicate itself by
allowing for that organism to “start evolving” two genders that have to be 100% compatible with
each other, as well as, each gender be attracted to the opposite gender, and many other
considerations to be taken in order to assure reproduction. It would be ridiculous to even
consider the possibility of both genders (in every specie containing two genders) evolving at the
same time with such complexity and compatibility. “The explanatory doctrines of biological
evolution do not stand up to an in-depth criticism.”14 Another fine example of such paradox in
nature is the Bombardier beetle. The Bombardier beetle is a small insect that is armed with an
impressive defense system. Whenever threatened by an enemy attack, this organism ejects
irritating and odious gases, which are at 2120F, out from two tail pipes right into the face of its
predator. Hermann Schildknecht, a German chemist, studied the Bombardier beetle to find out
how he accomplishes this chemical achievement. He learned that the beetle makes his
explosive weapon by mixing together two very dangerous chemicals (hydroquinone and
hydrogen peroxide). In addition to these two chemicals, there is a third chemical known as the
“inhibitor”. The inhibitor prevents the chemicals from blowing up and enables the beetle to store
these chemicals in his body. Whenever the beetle is approached by a predator, such as a frog,
he squirts the stored chemicals into the two combustion tubes and, at the precisely right
moment, he ads another chemical (an anti-inhibitor). A violent explosion occurs right in the face
of the attacker. When analyzing the “evolutionary process” that allowed the Bombardier beetle
to develop such a chemical weapon, we are forced to speculate that first, there must have been
thousands of generations of beetles improperly mixing these hazardous chemicals in fatal
evolutionary experiments, blowing themselves to pieces. Eventually, we assume, they have
arrived at the magic formula, but what about the development of the inhibitor? There is no need
to evolve an inhibitor unless you already have the two chemicals you are trying to inhibit. On the
other hand, if you already have the two chemicals without the inhibitor, it is already too late, for
you have just blown yourself up. Obviously, such design and pre-meditative arrangement would
have to arise from intelligent foresight and planning. Nevertheless, assuming that the beetle
somehow managed to simultaneously develop the two chemicals along with the important
inhibitor. The solution would offer no benefit at all to the beetle, for it would just sit there as a
harmless mixture. To be of any value to the beetle, an anti-inhibitor must be added to the
solution. So, once again, for thousands of generations we are supposed to believe that these
poor beetles mixed and stored these chemicals for no particular reason or advantage, until
finally, the anti-inhibitor was perfected. With the anti-inhibitor developed he still can’t touch his
predators because he still needs to “evolve” the two combustion tubes and a precise
communications and timing network to control and adjust the critical direction and timing of the
explosion. So once again, for thousands of generations, the beetles blew themselves up to
pieces until they finally mastered this long range plan. Such a defense mechanism requires
vast amount of knowledge to design and construct. To argue that it all just evolved
instantaneously is absurd and to suggest that for thousands of generations, “natural selection”
aimed to achieve this specific and remarkable design is not within the Evolution Theory’s
capabilities. 15 In addition to the superb design of structural engineering, nature, is filled with
magnificent varieties of colors arranged in geometric shapes and sizes. Many organisms exhibit
such architectural designs clearly showing intelligent pattern. Butterflies, fish, flowers, birds,
and many other types of organisms have color decorations as a part of their genetic makeup.
An animal such as the Zebra, contains an intelligent design of black and white stripes makes it
a very easy target for hunting (see cover page for illustration). Furthermore, these stripes on the
Zebra are composed of billions of cells, each have the proper chemicals to produce that specific
color in the specific location. When demonstrating how an evolutionary mechanism could have
developed the Zebra’s patterned looks, the process can be paralleled to programming a
computer to randomly produce colored pixels on the screen and waiting to see if a pattern such
as black line, white line, black line, white line, etc. would occur. Furthermore, it is not enough to
hope for the black and white lines to appear (orderly), how can they possibly be genetically
integrated into the Zebra’s coded DNA? Would a computer for no reason, program itself to
display these lines on the screen if you smash it everytime it didn’t? Because of the Zebra’s
patterned look, it can be seen from vast distances and killed. Evolutionary thinking is so
focused on what is practical and what is required for self-preservation, that when presented with
such a widespread of beauty which in many cases serve no purpose except for decoration, they
must either capitulate or ignore the facts. Such is the case with the fish, Rhodicthys.
Rhodicthys is of a bright red color. Yet, it lives in total darkness, 1.5 miles below the surface of
the ocean. Likewise, the deep-sea Neoscopelus macrolepidotus is vividly colored with azure
blue, bright red, silver spots, and black circles! Even the eggs of some of the deep-sea
creatures are brilliantly colored. Furthermore, naturalists’ obsession for defending evolution no
matter what, has produced absurd and absolutely senseless statements regarding animals
such as the peacock.
“Do the creation scientists really suppose their Creator saw fit to create a bird that couldn’t
reproduce without six feet of bulky feathers that make it easy for leopards?”16 It seems to me
that a peacock is just the kind of animal an artistic Creator would favor, but an “uncaring
mechanical process” like natural selection would never permit to develop. “I reject evolution
because I deem it obsolete; because the knowledge, hard won since 1830, of anatomy,
histology, cytology, and embryology, cannot be made to accord with its basic idea. The
foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long
deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rooted in the hearts of man.”17
Ultimately, DNA is without a doubt the strongest weapon to hinder the Theory of Evolution. “Now
we know that the cell itself is far more complex than we had imagined. It includes thousands of
functioning enzymes, each one of them a complex machine itself. Furthermore, each enzyme
comes into being in response to a gene, a strand of DNA. The information content of this gene
(its complexity) must be as great as that of the enzyme it controls.” 18 DNA is the coded
language on which the foundation of life is based on. Unlike electronic devices built by human
beings employing the rules of electricity (on, off) , DNA is an extremely more complex and
mystifying method for transmitting ordered information for it is founded on four acids (4 parts)
which make up a language far more detailed than that of two parts. DNA molecules can only be
replicated with the assistance of specific enzymes, which in turn, can only be produced by the
controlling DNA molecule. Each is absolutely necessary for the other and both must be present
for replication to occur. Thus, we can conclude that the basic grounds on which “evolutionary
mechanisms” operate, are in themselves, a paradox on the molecular level. “The capacity of
DNA to store information vastly exceeds that of modern technology. The information needed to
specify the design all the species of organisms which ever lived (known) could be held in a
teaspoon and there would still be room left to hold all the information in every book ever written.”
19 Such extraordinary sophistication can only reflect super-intelligent design. In addition,
computer scientists have demonstrated conclusively that information does not and cannot arise
spontaneously.20 “The Information Theory has shown that mistakes cannot improve a code of
information; they can only reduce a code’s ability to transmit meaningful information.
Information results only from the expenditure of energy (to arrange letters and words) and under
the all-important direction of intelligence.” 21 DNA is information. The only logical and
reasonable conclusion that can be drawn is that DNA was formed by intelligence. The
paradoxes facing evolutionists are unconquerable simply because, what used to be their most
convenient answer “we had millions of years for this to happen”, is no longer valid for answering
questions such as, “who came first the chicken or the egg? Male or female? Pronuba moths or
the Yucca plant? DNA molecule or the enzymes responsible for its development? and so forth.
“To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of
chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the
facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely
complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically
and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest.” 22
Mathematics is the backbone of science. It constitutes a system which can be perceived by
humans rather than try to visualize concepts, unfeasible to the human mind. Evolutionists insist
that through gradual processes of natural selection, highly complex living organisms consisting
of numerous inter-relating components can develop and co-exist in an environment which has
evolved equally through time. When trying to mathematically conceptualize how such
developments could occur, the numbers are uncomprehandable because of their gigantic
proportions. For instance, examine a chance development of a very simple system composed of
200 integrated parts (simple compared with living systems). The probability of forming s