the reverse taking place. Reconstructions from the fragments of bone discovered seem to have been
manipulated to indicate a progressive sequence from ape to man. Artists have been inspired by the
inferred evidence to allow their imaginations to run riot, hence the drawings of hairy half-wits running
around with clubs threatening each other, and where the women in particular seem to be in constant
danger of being knocked unconscious for sexual gratification. It is interesting to see that some of the
hairy creations are inclined to an ape-like appearance, whilst others seem to incline to a more human
aspect, to indicate the, so far, unproven succession. Over the years the attempt to press home the
theory as fact is found to be contaminated by hoaxes and, worse still, alleged suppressed evidence
which would go some way to disproving the theory.

Creationists fair little better, although, unlike evolutionists, they do attempt to go back to the origin of
the world and the origin of man. Evolutionists start half-way up the ladder. Creationists are favoured
by the fact that life seemed to burst upon the scene at the beginning of the Cambrian Period some
five hundred million years ago. Pprior to this, in the Precambrian, very little, if any, even basic life is in
evidence. The fascinating thing about this Cambrian life explosion is the incredible diversity of life
forms which suddenly appear, seemingly from nowhere. Old fashioned creationists, by the way,
would not accept the geological time scale, to them the world is only a few hundred years old. For any
other support the creationist depends on ancient writings which are a confusion of myth, allegory, and
alleged historical facts. However, they read into this hotch potch of literature a genuine attempt by the
ancients to solve the mystery of origins.

The theory of evolution was developed by Thomas Huxley not Darwin himself. Huxley was an
anatomist who was trying to reach a position of power in the English scientific establishment. After
reading Darwin he saw his chance to leap onto the bandwagon. Unfortunately for posterity his effort
to use evolution to discredit the view of the church regarding creation was premature, and has left
evolutionists still struggling to find the evidence he himself failed to produce over one hundred years
ago.

We shall always be hampered in discovering the origin of the world/ universe whilst we are bogged
down with the 'matter' myth. Starting with a complete vacuum where did the first atom come from? To
reduce it further, where did the first atomic particle come from? A further reduction would compel us
to ask where light came from. I have always been of the opinion that philosophy can get nearer to the
truth than science, with its necessary attachment to the fundamental concept of matter as a solid
substance. Get rid of the matter myth and we might find a way through by a revival of idealism.
Berkeley could be nearer to the truth than science! Even physicists themselves have been surprised
to discover the tenuousness of matter and have noted the reduction from molecule to atom to atomic
particle to light. This has compelled them to refer to matter as rest mass energy. It seems as though
light is the basic constituent of the universe. Jesus said, "I am the light of the world." I wonder if he
was a better physicist than we give him credit for! Or, then again, did he know something we don' t?

I would recommend you read Origin of SpeciesAbridged and introduced by Richard E Leakey, Faber
and Faber, and The Rise of the Evolution Fraud,M Bowden, Sovereign Publications.

John Brandon