Evolution and Occult Thought

Very few people are aware of the events that led to the presentation of Charles Darwin’s theories on origins to Great Britain’s 19th Century scientific community. Darwin was aided in his research by his very close friend, Charles Lyell.  Lyell stood by the reluctant Darwin for more than twenty years of painstaking research in the development of his theories.  Additionally, Darwin was not a seeker of fame and notoriety.  As a matter of fact, he was very hesitant to bring his work into the public forum of the intellectual community.  (5)

However, the day arrived that Darwin was forced to publicly present his theories or else not only be upstaged by another, but witness the loss of all of his efforts.  In 1855, Darwin received a copy of a paper written by Alfred Russell Wallace that detailed the same theories that he himself painstakingly developed over the course of 20 years.  Darwin then immediately, at Lyell’s urging, began writing his infamous work, The Origin of Species. Both Darwin and Russell, however, were seeking the missing key component—the mechanism by which one species could effectively change into another. (The problem with the absence of such a mechanism is obvious, for there is absolutely no evidence [scientific or otherwise] that provides any proof that one species has or ever will evolve into another species.)

Three years after sending his paper on origins to Darwin, Wallace became very ill while living on the island of Ternate.  In the violent throes of a debilitating fever, a vision of the missing mechanism came to him in a “moment’s revelation.”  Wallace then sent that mechanism, The Survival of the Fittest, to Darwin.  The Ternate Paper contained “in complete form, what is today known as the Darwinian Theory of Evolution…”  (6)  In reality, the circumstantial evidence strongly suggests that Darwin plagiarised many of the key concepts of the infamous Origin if Species from Wallace’s work.  However, since Wallace was closer to New Guinea than to London when the presentation time arrived, the concepts presented to the Linnean Society in July of 1858 became known as the Darwin/Wallace Theory.

That, of course, is not the entire story.  Alfred Russell Wallace not only received the “vision” of The Survival of the Fittest to complete the evolutionary lie of Lucifer while delirious with fever, but Wallace harbored a much darker side.  During his early life, Wallace traveled to the Amazon and befriended Indians who shared with him their “black arts.”  Wallace then began to dabble in Spiritism, and he was openly ridiculed for his membership in the Society for Psychical Research. The extreme level that he became involved in the occult resulted in his virtual expulsion from Britain’s intellectual community, not to mention the removal of his name from the Darwinian theories

In the case of his Ternate Paper, the method of scientific discovery utilized by Wallace went beyond the unorthodox into the realm of the metaphysical.  As a matter of fact, revelations such as his are not uncommon in the realm of the “occult sciences” and, from a biblical perspective; this experience can be accurately placed into the category of demonic communication methodology.  (The Koran was communicated to the illiterate Mohammed in the midst of similar convulsions.)

The point here, however, is a specific demonic connection to the public presentation and proliferation of evolutionary theories into mainstream society.  Additionally, few realize that the men of the 19th Century who shaped the evolutionary and socialistic philosophies destined to permeate the future of mainstream society had little in common, and most were not formerly educated as scientists. Charles Darwin had a degree in theology, Charles Lyell was a lawyer, Thomas Huxley had a dubious degree in medicine, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and Herbert Spencer had no formal education, and Hegel and Marx had degrees in philosophy.  There was, however, one thing that each of these men shared—a hatred of God and biblical Christianity.

Based on all of the above, there should be no surprise in learning that occult philosophies and pagan religions operate from a baseline of evolutionary thought.  These evolutionary principles within the occult world are actually based on another lie that Lucifer told Eve in the Garden of Eden:  “Ye shalt be as gods…”  New Agers, witches, and adherents to other earth-based religions believe that man is divine and simply needs to discover or develop the god or goddess within.  In addition, New Age practitioners such as Jean Houston teach that man is still evolving to a new evolutionary level—from homo sapiens to homo noeticus; and the concept of homo noeticus, the god-man, is actively promoted by organizations such as the Institute of Noetic Sciences, led by former NASA astronaut, Ed Mitchell.

Therefore, the Theory of Evolution did not only originate within an occult framework, but is absolutely the key in understanding occult philosophies.  For if one fails to realize that occultists believe the universe evolved from a primary energy source which it deems as “god,” “the force,” or “the mother goddess”—no understanding of occult philosophy will ever be reached.  In addition, the occult world holds to the notion that this “energy” or “force” indwells everyone and everything.  This all-indwelling force is termed immanence.  Immanence is one of the foundational principles of the occult world, and this indwelling force is seen by occultists as the evolutionary impetus that has implemented the cosmic changes that will eventually lead to the  emergence of homo noeticus—the god-man.

Global Maps are not In Proportion At All

This Graphic Of Africa’s Actual Size Will Blow Your Mind

Africa is bigger than China, India, Europe, and the USA. COMBINED.

Africa is big. But did you realize exactly how big?

Africa is big. But did you realize exactly how big?

Turns out the standard Mercator projection of the world MASSIVELY underestimates Africa’s true size.

Continue reading “Global Maps are not In Proportion At All”

Climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval Times

Tree-rings prove climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is now – and world has been cooling for 2,000 years

  • Study of semi-fossilised trees gives accurate climate reading back to 138BC
  • World was warmer in Roman and Medieval times than it is now

Rings in fossilised pine trees have proven that the world was much warmer than previously thought – with measurements dating back to 138BC

Continue reading “Climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval Times”

Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God

In 1966 Time magazine ran a cover story asking: Is God Dead? Many have accepted the cultural narrative that he’s obsolete—that as science progresses, there is less need for a “God” to explain the universe. Yet it turns out that the rumors of God’s death were premature. More amazing is that the relatively recent case for his existence comes from a surprising place—science itself.

Here’s the story: The same year Time featured the now-famous headline, the astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were two important criteria for a planet to support life: The right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that star. Given the roughly octillion—1 followed by 24 zeros—planets in the universe, there should have been about septillion—1 followed by 21 zeros—planets capable of supporting life.
Continue reading “Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God”

Seven Years Of Starlight and Time

D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.*

Seven years ago this month I sent Master Books the manuscript of a small book on creationist cosmology called Starlight and Time.1

Without much publicity it has proved surprisingly popular, being well into its sixth printing and recently made into a video.2 Apparently many Christians have been concerned about the problem suggested by the book’s subtitle,

Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe. That is, if the cosmos is indeed as young as the Bible says it is, how could the light from very distant stars have had time to get here? Consequently, the book has had quite an impact, both favorable and vitriolic.

A 1987 monograph by Australian creationist Barry Setterfield 3 had stimulated me to examine this problem. He suggested that the speed of light, c, was much faster in the past. His particular “c-decay” model turned out to have problems with both data and physics theory, problems I outlined in appendix A of my book. But he deserves credit for focusing creationist attention on cosmology and for setting the example of offering a very creative solution to the problem.

The monograph revived my interest in Einstein’s general theory of relativity, which I had neglected since graduate school. Physicists like me often use Einstein’s special theory of relativity dealing with the effects of high speeds and have found it indispensable. Few of us have occasion to use general relativity, which deals with effects of gravity and acceleration not easily attainable in the laboratory. But it is an essential tool for astrophysics and cosmology.

Until the last decade many young-earth creationists had avoided relativity, and consequently astrophysics and cosmology. The main reason was a dislike of some of the philosophical implications and logical paradoxes associated with the theory. However, I found that the bad philosophy and paradoxes come not from the mathematics of relativity itself, but rather from a bad interpretation of the mathematics. A better interpretation is possible which resolves the philosophical and logical problems as my book briefly explains.4 I’ve been pleased to see that in recent years creationist scientists are no longer avoiding relativity, but rather studying it seriously and deriving better applications.

What the Big Bang Theorists Don’t Tell You

As I began to study cosmology, I carried into it the usual island universe misconception of the big bang theory which most people have, including most scientists and even many astronomers. Like most people, I pictured the big bang as beginning with tiny “cosmic egg,” or small ball of hot matter exploding outward into an empty three-dimensional space. After billions of years, the matter would cluster into galaxies, groups of hundreds of billions of stars like our own Milky Way galaxy. The resulting hundreds of billions of galaxies would themselves be clustered into an “island” of galaxies in a “sea” of otherwise empty space.

However, in 1991, Roy Holt, a fellow creationist physicist, made me realize that my picture of the big bang theory was wrong. Roy, having the same preconception as I did, pointed out an inconsistency. In the alleged big bang’s beginning, he said, the intense gravity from all that concentrated matter would cause it to be deep in a black hole, out of which the matter should not be able to emerge. Back-of-envelope calculations supported his point. If our understanding of the implications of the big bang were right, it could never happen!

I knew from my studies that the big bang theory did not claim to start out in a black hole, but at first I didn’t understand why not. Then I realized that the actual theory, as understood by experts, does not depict an “island” universe. That is, it has no large volume of empty space unoccupied by galaxies. By making an arbitrary and unjustified assumption, the experts would have space be roughly uniformly populated with galaxies.

In the big bang’s mathematical model of the beginning, space itself would expand outward with the ball of hot matter, and the matter would completely fill space at all times. There would never be a large empty part. In the most favoured version of the big bang, if you travelled very fast in any given direction, you would arrive back at your starting point without ever encountering a large region of empty space. That makes it impossible to define a boundary around the matter, so the matter could have no centre of mass. With no unique centre for gravity to point to, there would be no black hole at the beginning.

Knowing their theory is very difficult to visualize, big bang experts don’t try hard to correct the public’s “island universe” misconception. But occasionally they do make brief comments, such as,

This [picture of the big bang] is wrong . . . there is no centre and edge.5

But What If There Is a Center?

In contrast to the big bang story, the Scriptural record appears to imply that the universe is in fact, an island universe. Appendix B of Starlight and Time shows

Ii Biblical evidence that (a) the cosmos has a unique centre and a boundary for its matter, beyond which there is at least some empty space; and (b) on a cosmic scale of distances, the earth is near the centre.

A finite cosmos with a centre of gravity is quite different from then on-bounded universe the big bang depicts. In the big bang theory, if you could travel from our galaxy to a neighbouring one, you would go gravitationally “up” for the first half of the journey and then gravitationally “down” for the next half. Going further outward would continue the ups and downs, but they would average out to about zero. On a large scale, such a universe would have no part which would be significantly higher (gravitationally) than any other part.

However, in a creationist cosmos having a centre of gravity, if you were to travel outward from the centre you would, on the average, go steadily “upward” in a gravitational sense. On a large scale, the heavens would be at a higher gravitational “altitude” than the earth. As Isaiah 55:9 says: “For as the heavens are higher than the earth . . .”

A centre of gravity is important because an effect in general relativity called gravitational time dilation comes into play. Experiment and Einstein’s theory agree that time and all physical processes run more slowly in areas which are lower in a gravitational field than in areas which are higher.

The effect is very small normally, but it turns out that when the expanding universe was at a critical size (about fifty times smaller than it is now), gravitational time dilation would have been very important. My theory proposes that the cosmos was at that critical size during the fourth day of Creation Week. While one ordinary day was elapsing on earth, billions of years worth of physical processes were taking place in distant parts of the universe. This allows starlight from even the most distant star to arrive during or soon after the fourth day, the same day God created all the stars. During that day, most of the expansion of the cosmos would have taken place.

The bottom line is that relativity forces us to say by whose clocks we specify the age of the cosmos or the timing of events within that cosmos. My book points out that the Bible gives us time in terms of the “earth’s frame of reference, not some other frame.” Scripture says, and my theory agrees, that the universe is young as measured by clocks on earth.

“Starlight Wars”

Starlight and Time appeared in print in October 1994. Just a few months after that, a small group of opponents of the traditional historical view of Genesis—that it means what it says declared “holy war” on my book. Their leader was Hugh Norman Ross, whose organization “Reasons to Believe” markets a theology heavily based on big bang thinking. Dr. Ross had assumed that general relativity can lead to only one cosmology, the big bang theory and its billions of years. Nevertheless, my book offers an alternative—-a relativistic cosmology that fits into the Biblical timescale.

Starlight and Time did not mention Ross, but he correctly saw it as a threat to his organization. At his instigation, the Rossites launched attacks in lay publications7 and in a creationist newsletter in which I published answers.8 In 1996 they tried an extensive letter campaign to Christian leaders. In 1997 they switched to a creationist scientific journal.9

Thankfully, my answers have satisfied reviewers and silenced critics. The resulting four-years debate have now been archived on the Internet.10 The debate apparently ended last year after I emphasized that the Rossites had refused to comment on several key concepts and quotes from the secular astrophysics literature which support my cosmology. Their silence betrays the weakness of their arguments.

How to Regard Creationist Models

In contrast to the way some scientists promote their theories, I don’t expect people to take mine as gospel. For example, many people may prefer the mature creation of starlight, a venerable creationist theory I commented on in appendix A of my book. Even if you like my theory, please try to keep open to the possibility that a better one may come along. I myself remain open, and anticipate my tenure at ICR, with increased attention and time focused on this vital question, to bear much fruit.

Cosmic phenomena are so complex and beyond our ken that it would be especially arrogant to assume God couldn’t do what He said He did simply because we can’t imagine how. Our imaginations are very limited, but God’s is not. Even in cosmology, all things are possible with God (Matthew 19:26). Every human theory needs to conform to the knowledge the word of God gives us. Regardless of the complexities of cosmology, we can know that the world is young because of clear Scripture in clear context, such as Exodus 20:11, “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth .” Our privilege, our mandate, is to try to discern His methods and thoughts, and to give Him all praise and glory throughout.

*Dr. Humphreys is a physicist at Sandia National Laboratories soon to retire and become an Associate Professor of Physics for ICR.


1. Humphreys, D. R., Starlight and Time (Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 1994) 137 pp.

2. Starlight and Time (Albuquerque, New Mexico: Forever Productions, 2001) 27 minute video available through ICR Customer Service for $19.95.1-800-628- 7640, or the website store at http://www.icr.org/store.

3. Norman, T. and B. Setterfield, The Atomic Constants, Light, and Time (Menlo Park, California: SRI International, 1987).

4. Humphreys, op. cit., p. 84.

5 .Harrison, E. R., Cosmology: The Science of the Universe (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1981) p. 107.

6. Humphreys, op. cit., p. 74.

7. Ross, H. N., Progress towards resolution of the creation-date controversy, Facts and Faith 11(1): 12–13, 1995.

8. Bible-Science News, 1995, 33(4):21–22, 33(7):12–19. R. Humphreys, S. Conner, and D. Page.

9. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 1997–2000, 11(2):189–201, 12(2):174– 212, 13(1):49–55, 14(2):69–81. P. Phillips, J. Sarfati, R. Humphreys, S. Conner, D. Page, H. Ross, M. Hunter, K. Duff, E. Fackerell, and C. McIntosh.

10. Wallace, T., The True Origin Archive; http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_03.htm.

The Noah Flood Was Global

The Noah Flood Was Global

There is a great divide between two major systems of belief on the biblical Flood in the days of Noah. There are those who say it is either a purely mythological event or else possibly a local or regional flood. Then there are those who accept the biblical record of the Flood as a literal record of a tremendous cataclysm involving not only a worldwide deluge, but also great tectonic upheavals and volcanic outpourings that completely changed the crust of the earth and its topography in the days of Noah.
Continue reading “The Noah Flood Was Global”