Additional Titles








The Leipzig

Sept. 11: Hold Government

An Economic Assault on
African-Americans and Others in The US


More Cuddy









By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
May 16, 2011

[Note: The announcement by President Obama that Osama bin Laden was killed by U.S. Navy Seals on May 1 has raised a number of questions. First is the question of why he was killed. One official said the Seals were on a “kill mission.” Why wasn’t there a plan to take him alive (the Seals initially shot at him as he looked out of his room)? Of all the terrorists, he is the one most important to try to take alive and interrogate because of his comprehensive knowledge of the individuals, planning, operations, and funding of al Qaeda. Why weren’t stun grenades used? If the Seals were concerned about explosives on his or his wife’s body, why did they even enter their bedroom, allow his wife to approach them violently, and then still deliver a non-lethal shot to her leg? Why after this did they deliver a kill shot to bin Laden even though he was unarmed and did not react as threateningly toward them as had his wife? Why not a disabling shot to his shoulder?

Of course, the main reason for ordering the Seals to go into the compound and NOT kill people who weren’t firing at them was we weren’t even sure bin Laden was there! After they shot him, one of the Seals actually measured his body to see if he was the right height! Why did they feel it was all right to kill unarmed people (e.g., a woman, one of Bin Laden’s sons, etc.) and ask questions later? Think of the international repercussions, the calls for President Obama, the Seals and others to be brought before a War Crimes tribunal, etc. if we had attacked a compound of Pakistanis who weren’t guilty of anything! What would President Obama say: “Oops, sorry about that”? The questions go on and on, but the press and media don’t seem interested in asking them.]

Besides former Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum Colin Patterson (in a letter which I have), another individual questioning Darwinian evolution because of the lack of transitional life forms was Harvard University professor Stephen Jay Gould. In “Is A New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?” (Paleobiology, January 1980), Gould stated: “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” In The Panda’s Thumb (1980) by Gould, he also stated: “….Can we invent a reasonable sequence of intermediate forms—that is, viable, functioning organisms—between ancestors and descendants in major structural transitions? I submit, although it may only reflect my lack of imagination, that the answer is no.”

The fossils show only perfected kinds (e.g., turtles but no semi-turtles). Evolutionists argue that fish supposedly evolved into amphibians, but there are no fossils with part-fins and part-feet. The so-called “walking catfish” actually slithers and flops along on its belly. Failing to find any evidence of evolving new creatures, evolutionists fall back upon the “horse theories,” averring that the modern horse came from Eohippus. This is not demonstrable, however, because after Eohippus, which had 18 ribs, Orohippus had 15 ribs, then Pliohippus had 19 ribs and the modern horse has 18 ribs.

With the clear failure of evolution to demonstrate that the accumulation of micro mutations over long periods of time had produced many new kinds of creatures, some evolutionists next proposed the theory of “Punctuated Equilibria” (the old “hopeful monster theory”), which proclaimed that occasionally there were dramatic mutations which caused striking changes in creatures. This, however, was not supported by experiments with fruit flies, which were given doses of radiation speeding up their mutation rate by 15,000 percent and still did not turn into any other kind of creature.

While the fossil record does not show mutations changing fruit flies to bees, for example, it does show new creatures appearing suddenly and highly specialized (e.g., trilobytes, coral, starfish, etc.) in Cambrian rocks. The fossils show fully formed (though varying in size) dinosaurs and flying Pterosaurs, but no half-dinosaurs or half-Pterosaurs.

Concerning the fossil record and man, there have been a number of so-called “missing links” discovered during the past century; however, they (e.g., Piltdown Man) eventually have been shown to be hoaxes, non-human or human, but not a combination of non-human and human. Evolutionists used to point to “gill slits” and “tails” in preborn humans as proof of their theory, but we now know the “gills” are really visceral arches with blood vessels, and the “tail” is the coccyx with ligaments and muscles attached to it that control the anus.

Why did evolutionists make a religion out of something (theory of evolution) requiring such “faith” to accept when the scientific evidence was weighted against it? One reason was, and for some still is, a consummate desire to have naturalism replace supernaturalism. The second reason may be described as an elitist tendency, because as liberal Judge Braswell Dean has noted, the writings of Darwin were somewhat racist, with the full title of his famous 1859 volume being On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Another example of Darwin’s racism can be found in his The Descent of Man (1871), wherein he declared there would be a break “between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, than the Caucausian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

Today, the theory of evolution taught in our schools is considered by many as anti-Judeo-Christian (i.e., if man came from apes, then he can be treated like an ape relatively speaking, experimenting on or sterilizing him involuntarily, infanticide, euthanasia, etc.).

A great deal of scientific evidence against evolution may be found in Evolution: A Theory In Crisis by religious agnostic, molecular biologist Dr. Michael Denton. For example, he refers to “the difficulties associated with attempting to explain how a family of homologous proteins could have evolved at constant rates.” There is also an excellent series of videotapes titled “Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution” by Dr. Jobe Martin, who has written: “The European Green woodpecker’s tongue goes down the throat, out the back of the neck ‘…around the back of the skull beneath the skin, and over the top between the eyes, terminating usually just below the eye socket.’ In some woodpeckers the tongue exits the skull between the eyes and enters the beak through one of the nostrils! How would this evolve?” And the 2008 film “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” with Ben Stein also contains some useful information.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

While there is conclusive scientific evidence for the adaptation of species to their surroundings, there is a great lack of evidence that every living entity is the product of a slow evolutionary process from a single source (Darwinian evolution) as is now taught in most public schools. I would strongly recommend that if schools are going to continue to teach the theory of evolution, we should demand that they also teach the scientific evidence against evolution as well.

� 2011 Dennis Cuddy - All Rights Reserved

Share This Article

Click Here For Mass E-mailing

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

Dennis Laurence Cuddy, historian and political analyst, received a Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (major in American History, minor in political science). Dr. Cuddy has taught at the university level, has been a political and economic risk analyst for an international consulting firm, and has been a Senior Associate with the U.S. Department of Education.

Cuddy has also testified before members of Congress on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice. Dr. Cuddy has authored or edited twenty books and booklets, and has written hundreds of articles appearing in newspapers around the nation, including The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and USA Today. He has been a guest on numerous radio talk shows in various parts of the country, such as ABC Radio in New York City, and he has also been a guest on the national television programs USA Today and CBS's Nightwatch.

E-Mail: Not Available









Why did evolutionists make a religion out of something (theory of evolution) requiring such “faith” to accept when the scientific evidence was weighted against it? One reason was, and for some still is, a consummate desire to have naturalism replace supernaturalism.