X-Men and the Theory of Evolution

C H U R C H   R E F O R M    S E R I E S

By Biblicism Institute

“To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.” – Charles Darwin (1872)

Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution was a misguided effort by a curious mind that has been kept relevant mostly by those who wish to believe that there is no God. That way they can go on living in sin and evade all accountability to their Maker. After all, if they are descended from animals, they can go on acting like them.

Evolution Theory
Evolution as Imagined by Daniel Lee

Without delving into the nitty-gritty of the “theory” itself – which necessitates more faith to accept than to believe that God created everything – we will first tackle one irrefutable fact prevalent in all living things.


Here’s how Webster Dictionary defines Entropy: a process of degradation or running down. Entropy has other meanings in thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, and other fields – meanings we are not using here.

Every living organism – including humans – is in a constant state of degradation or deterioration, not evolution. From the moment something comes to be, it already is dying, and will eventually die.


X-Men: Wolverine

The entire living organic system is in a constant fight for survival. Unfortunately, there is nothing in its intrinsic composition powerful enough that would enable it to suppress the inevitable and fateful pull toward its own dissolution or death.

Otherwise, it would divert all of its energy into overcoming said fate by “evolving” out of it, exactly like X-Men’s Wolverine manages to do. Why? Because the survival instinct is the most dominant one. Said evolving characteristic – if it were possible – would in turn be uniformly present in all of creation, and entropy would be nothing but a bad memory.

On the surface, X-Men may appear to favor the theory of evolution, but once pertinent questions are asked, that whole facade crumbles like a butterless cookie, leaving but a handful of apologetics that work in favor of creationism.

1) If according to evolution, mankind is the end result of animals evolving into a better species – hence the word evolution which Webster defines as “a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state” – how come many of the X-Men, like Wolverine, devolve into beasts? Let’s face it, that’s a step back. It’s no longer evolution, but degradation or devolution.

But let’s just say that the X-Men are really in the process of being fully humans, then-

2) The creators of the series are absolutely right in parading these mutants amidst their fully human counterparts. It shows they have a good grasp of what true applied evolution would entail, in terms of evolutionary mutants abiding amongst fully developed humans (minus the fiction). Good story-telling always benefits from a strong dose of common sense, even when the characters are out of this world.

Said common sense when applied to our present reality – where the evolution theory has become the norm – helps raise the most obvious of questions: how come there are no evolutionary dumb-as-rock monkey/man mutants (more or less like Daniel Lee’s photos above and unlike the X-Men of course) running around for real? After all, nature’s revolving cycle never fails. Any farmer will attest to the fact that a fruit tree never produces just one harvest. So where are the subsequent generations of evolutionary mutants?

The proponents of the Evolution Religion would quickly interject that I. it would take millions of years for  evolution to succeed from its point of origin (i.e., from the primordial soup), and that II. evolution is undirected.


Let’s humor them and run with the “theory” that it takes millions of years to actually have mutants running around today.

a) For the sake of argument, let’s get a starting point of say Year 1 Billion.

b) Given the cyclical law of nature, let’s say that the evolutionary leap – again for the sake of argument – starts at its point of origin once every year, instead of every hour or every day or every month, just to make it simple.

c) If every single year, following Year 1 Billion, a different additional leap had started at its point of origin, by the time we would have reached today some form of mutation should now be in progress, because life in its current state is supposedly the result of Year-1-Billion‘s first leap.

Biblicism Institute Leap Chart

As a consequence of the consecutive and additional year-after-year leaps, we definitely should have some real life dumb-as-rock mutants running about acting all monkey-like. Most of these mutants would have already gone through the millions and millions of years needed to almost complete the process or at least a great part of it. Others would either be in their evolutionary infancy or adolescence. So where are they?


According to evolution scientists, the reason there are no mutants around is because the evolutionary leap succeeded only once in bringing about a full cycle of mutation that led up to the appearance of modern humans.

X-Men - Beast

X-Men: Beast

And because evolution is supposedly undirected and random, no one knows when it will whimsically happen again. Amazingly enough, that one-time undirected accident somehow directed itself into the greatest feat in all of nature: man, the most astounding biological and self-aware machine ever constructed. It’s a heck of an undirected direction, wouldn’t you say?

Anyway, if evolution is undirected and random, how did scientists figure out that it only succeeded once? They didn’t. They got caught in a quandary because of the cyclical law of nature. To free themselves from said dilemma, they decided that the evolution process that led up to man has gone down once. How? By theorizing that evolution is “undirected”. That’s all! Basically, they just pulled a rabbit out of a hat. If not, they would have had to account for the lack of mutants in our midst.

But whether they want to ignore it or not, the problem still persists.

If the evolutionary leap were real, it would not have bloomed just once. It would be churning incessantly, year after year, multi-linearly, and would not have been a one-time whimsical, linear, and undirected accident that resulted in our current state of affairs.

Whatever catapulted the first transformation process or evolutionary leap would have been and would still be in continuous operational mode, because everything in nature repeats itself like clockwork. Everything can be observed to possess the same cyclical and rotational function, and everything follows that same archetypal and directional order. In other words, it’s the cyclical law of nature.

A few examples:

i. the sun faithfully rises in the East, and never fails to set in the West – day in and day out;

ii. everything comes to be, lives, and dies – and the cycle faithfully begins again and again;

iii. seasonal changes faithfully occur year after year;

iv. earth faithfully rotates around the sun – again and again;

v. water cycle: ocean -> evaporation+condensation -> precipitation -> infiltration -> distribution -> ocean – and the cycle faithfully begins again and again.

So where is the continuous revolving cycle of evolution? Apparently it’s the only thing in nature that evaded one, pretty smart for an undirected process. It directed itself straight out of a cumbersome law. Such amazing, undirected direction is getting to be a habit.

In reality, the only reason it has no cycle is because evolution “scientists” arbitrarily decided it would be so. Since the cyclical law of nature doesn’t help their theory, it has become irrelevant. After all, evolution is their brainchild, and they control the fictional script.

Now we await their take on how “nature” managed to randomly create over 8 million animal species (not to mention the innumerable number of plant species); but something tells us they’re too cunning to mess with that. They know they can’t scientifically present 8 million different paths of mutation, given that no one was around millions of years ago to witness the process when it supposedly started, and that no evidence of 8 million paths has been left behind. Besides, trying to fictionalize 8 million ways the primordial soup has mutated – like they did with the path that led up to man – would send them straight to M.A.D. (Mental Asylum for Dingbats).


God’s creation is not just a wonder to behold, it is a faithful revolving mechanism that we humans can bet the bank on. Its many fine-tuned complexities leave no room for accidental randomness, otherwise there would be chaos.

Imagine one morning we wake up and find out that the sun suddenly got tired of being too far away from the earth, and whimsically decided that it would confound us poor monkey-upgrades by speedily dashing closer to our planet just to make crispy critters out of us; or that the earth had randomly directed itself to rotate clockwise on its axis instead of counter-clockwise (as viewed from Polaris) just to create havoc. If nature worked randomly and undirected like that, we’d be in BIG trouble.

Nothing in God’s creation is fortuitous. Everything is by design. And everything has a direction. That’s what helps us sleep at ease.

Evolution on the other hand is nothing but a half-baked theory that can’t even make it gracefully within the limited confines of a comic book or a science fiction movie. We say it’s about time it meets its natural friend, entropy. Then there will be room for God-given logic, common sense, and reason.

“Then God looked over all he had made, and he saw that it was very good!” Genesis 1:31

Read Also: Puzzled Scientists

Emoji Monkey Note in the Margin

To all the E-theorists who are commenting, please try your best to intelligently and by design – pun intended – pinpoint the flaws in the article, by providing counterpoints or proofs of actual monkey/man mutants running around, without resorting to vile and unbecoming profanities.

Usually people who resort to such a tactic have no argument, and in this instance we understand you don’t have any. Your inane invectives are really nudging us to believe that some of you are just emerging out of the monkey stage of evolution, while others are still in primordial slime mode. 🙂 We do realize that such a statement would be an insult to normal folks like us creationists, but to you E-theorists we have come to understand that it is not. Go figure.

Anyway, what on earth would possess a human being to believe he’s an animal? That’s beyond any sane comprehension. No wonder many of you E-theorists don’t get the fact that 1) we’re using X-Men as an analogy, utilizing specific and limited aspects of the movie; for example, if someone were to say, “My brother is as big as a ship,” thus limiting the analogy to “big,” then you would reply, “How come you say that, your brother doesn’t have engines or chimneys,” and 2) we’re making use of X-Men fiction to debunk Evolution fiction; unfortunately, it’s too subtle a sarcasm for you. After all, you’re “animals.” Sad indeed. 😦

Continue reading

Puzzled Scientists

C H U R C H   R E F O R M    S E R I E S

By Biblicism Institute

Science is the method of figuring out a) the world as manufactured by God, and b) new technology as inspired by Him.

“In the hearts of all who are skillful I have put skill.” Exodus 31:6

Real scientists decipher the laws and the across-the-board methodical and integrated architectures inherent in God’s creation, without conjecture or bias.

However, when scientists can’t explain something they use three distinct methods:

1) They invent some cockamamy theory, like the Evolution theory or the Big Bang theory.

“Darwinism [Evolution theory] is a trivial idea that has been elevated to the status of the scientific theory that governs biology,” declared Dr. Michael Egnor, Professor of Neurosurgery and Pediatrics at State University of New York, Stony Brook.

“The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there,” explained Physicist Ahmed Farag Ali to Phys.org.

Black Hole

Artist’s conception: Discovered Black Hole

“Current (Big Bang) theory is for a limit to how fast a black hole can grow, but this (recently discovered) black hole is too large for that theory,” divulged Fuyan Bian, a scientist at the Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Australian National University (ANU).

Many theory-inventing pseudo-scientists want you to believe that their theories are facts, when in reality they’re just that, theories (i.e., unproved assumptions or conjectures). Otherwise said theories would be laws, like Newton’s LAW of Gravity and Newton’s LAWS of Motion.

2) They throw billions or millions of years at the problem. That way you fixate on the billions and millions of years until you get dizzy and brush aside the problem. They couldn’t care less whether or not untainted evidences and absolute proofs can be unearthed from such distant times. To them it’s all conjecture and part of their scripted fantasy.

Giant sink hole in Russia3) They act all puzzled. Imagine our shock when a giant sink hole appeared in Russia and the scientists were – guess what – puzzled. But we’re not. Because we know this:

“By wisdom the LORD laid the earth’s foundations, by understanding he set the heavens in place.” Proverbs 3:19

However, even when the public may think that scientists have finally figured certain things out doesn’t mean that they really have, especially when a corrupt Federal Government and its equally corrupt agencies (i.e., FDA, EPA, etc.) help them hide the truth.

Here are a few examples when scientists just lie about things that directly affect our well-being:

a) Fluoride. Fluoride is a poison that continues to be piped into close to 70% of homes in the US, and is being squeezed out of almost every toothpaste known to man, even after a Harvard study revealed that it lowers one’s IQ.

Big PharmaFluoride is not an essential nutrient needed for your health—dental or otherwise. There is not one single metabolic process in your body that requires fluoride. On the contrary, fluoride is a cumulative poison… Dozens of studies have shown that fluoride causes brain damage and lowers IQ. Fluoride emitted by aluminum plants has also been implicated in animal disease,” explained Dr. Joseph Mercola.

b) GMO. Are Genetically Modified Foods safe? The Institute for Responsible Technology wrote: “The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) doesn’t think so. The Academy reported that ‘several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food, including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, faulty insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. The AAEM asked physicians to advise patients to avoid GM foods.’ “

c) Global Warming. Apparently, according to the founder of the Weather Channel, it’s the greatest scam in history (excluding this one, of course). The Express reported that, “John Coleman, who co-founded the Weather Channel, shocked academics by insisting the theory of man-made climate change was no longer scientifically credible. Instead, what ‘little evidence’ there is for rising global temperatures points to a ‘natural phenomenon’ within a developing eco-system.”

And why is it a scam? Because these pseudo-scientists/con-artists are using it as an opportunity to defraud American Taxpayers of $22 Billion. Here you’ll find a list of scientists who oppose the mainstream scientific assessment of Global Warming.

d) Fossil Fuel. Vinod Dar in Abiotic Oil and Gas wrote: “In the West it is almost universally held that all oil and gas are derived from fossils. This is not the case elsewhere, particularly among Russian and Ukrainian scientists who have, over several generations, tenaciously propounded the notion that oil and gas are abiotic, can be found deep below the surface of the earth in most parts of the world and in very large amounts.”

So why are we being told that we are in danger of running out of oil? To drive the price up and bilk the consumer. Simple.

e) Synthetic Pesticides. Are they harmful? Samantha Jakubosky in The Dangers of Pesticides wrote:

Pesticide Warning“Not only are pesticides dangerous to the environment, but they are also hazardous to a person’s health. Pesticides are stored in your colon, where they slowly but surely poison the body. You may not realize this, but when you are eating a non-organic apple, you are also eating over 30 different pesticides that have been sprayed on the apple. Even if you wash a piece of fruit, such as an apple, there are still many pesticides lingering on it and they could have seeped into the fruit or vegetable.

“After countless studies, pesticides have been linked to cancer, Alzheimer’s Disease, ADHD, and even birth defects. Pesticides also have the potential to harm the nervous system, the reproductive system, and the endocrine system. Pesticides can even be very harmful to fetuses because the chemicals can pass from the mother during pregnancy or if a woman nurses her child.”

f) Food and Diet. We’ve been fed a bunch of junk science about good food that is supposedly “bad” for us, like meat, eggs, real butter, and fat.

“Not only does the best science now show that it’s a mistake to restrict fat in our diets,” said investigative journalist Nina Teicholz, author of The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat & Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet, “but our fear of saturated fats in animal foods – butter, eggs, meat – has never been based in solid science. A bias against these foods developed early on and became entrenched, though the evidence never amounted to a convincing case. And it’s since crumbled away.”

But what about the quite maligned nutrient called salt?

“In fact, salt is good for us. Sodium is necessary for preventing dehydration, for proper transmission of nerve impulses and for normal functioning of cells. If we ate no sodium at all, we would die. When they become sodium-deficient, many animals go out of their way to find the mineral. That’s why, for example, sweaty clothes of alpinists tend to attract mountain goats,” wrote Marta Zaraska in the Washington Post.

Food is the ultimate medicine, and as such one’s diet is the single most important thing in achieving optimal health, especially if under the weight of various auto-immune disorders, which now affect an estimated 50 million Americans.

Of all the diets out there, the Paleo Diet is the most sensible, as it uses true scientific processes. It is quite unfortunate that it is labeled “Paleo”. The reason it got stuck with such a sad name is because the people behind the diet believe that “our Paleolithic ancestors” did not eat many of the foods that we consume today.

However, such a mindset is not only false, given its conjectured hypothesis, but downright unscientific as well (science fiction is more like it). The Paleolithic era (an offshoot of the cockamamy Theory of Evolution) is an absolute fabrication that was whimsically concocted out of whole cloth in 1865 by John Lubbock, a politician and a banker who moonlighted as Indiana Jones an archeologist. Seriously John, where are the historical records from “millions of years” ago that confirm such blatant speculation?

In any case, the diet’s real name should be the Nutrient Diet because it focuses on consuming foods full of nutrients that the body needs and on rejecting those with anti-nutrients that wreak physiological havoc, particularly when they are not well prepared or they contain strange-sounding ingredients or additives.

In short, the diet’s focal point is to feed one’s body the nutrients it needs, not the toxins that harm.

“Everything is permissible for me, but not everything is beneficial. Everything is permissible for me, but I will not be mastered by anything. Food for the stomach and the stomach for food…” 1 Corinthians 6:12,13

Lastly, do not ever buy food labeled Kosher, as it is a scam that enriches rabbinical organizations and causes prices to skyrocket. Food companies must pay these rabbis to affix their Kosher Approved Stamps on their products. In return, the cost is passed onto the consumers. And what makes a food Kosher for non-Jews? Who knows? Especially since the rabbis from these rabbinical organizations do not pray to the true God in heaven, and nor do they adhere to His laws. It’s like having a voodoo baron green-light your food. Go figure.

“No one who denies the Son has the Father.” 1 John 5: 12

Continue reading