Jun 10

Soldiers of Christ Leading Campaign About The Teaching of Evolution in Schools


A leaflet showing why objections to evolution should be allowed in science lessons hit the streets last weekend.

The full-colour tract, with pictures of animals which defy evolution, is being distributed at first in the Surrey Heath constituency of Michael Gove MP, Secretary of State for Education, and a supporter of ‘gay marriage’.

Soldiers of Christ is organising the work of distributing the leaflets. Soldiers of Christ Leader Peter Greensmith said: ‘Going out on the streets and standing up for Jesus is a faith-building exercise, and I’m looking forward to what the Lord will do through it.’


The debate between creation and evolution and what should be taught in schools…

The Government, through Michael Gove MP, Secretary of State for Education, have said they will introduce the teaching of evolution into primary schools.  Mr Gove only recently banned any talk of design or creation from secondary school biology lessons.

Mr Gove’s decision is certain to provoke a crisis of conscience amongst primary school teachers of faith who cannot avoid the subject of biology.

Dogma defies scientific principle

In addition, a UK‑wide Ipsos Mori poll in January 2006 found that only 48% accepted that evolution could happen without God. 22% said they believed in Creationism and 17% in Intelligent Design.  Another poll, published in the Guardian newspaper in 2009, found that 54% of people think creation and intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution.

Evolution dogma defies the first basic principle of science, that we should follow where the evidence leads without assuming the result.  But Mr Gove’s decision means the many flaws in the evolutionary hypothesis cannot be discussed in school.

Using taxpayers’ money to promote one highly contentious view of our origins to school-children and force teachers out of their jobs is the act of a totalitarian state and has no place in Britain.


Charles Darwin said animals adapt to their environment. We see this in nature and in the selective breeding we do, but plants and animals only ever reproduce within ‘kinds’ or families, e.g. the dog ‘kind’ or the potato ‘kind’.  In all the experiments on peppered moths, fruit flies and bacteria, no scientist has ever observed a new kind of creature arising, which is what evolution depends on.

Darwin admitted that his wider theory would fail if numerous transitional organisms were not found. 150 years of intensive research have totally failed to produce a single convincing transitional life form. Fossils appear and disappear abruptly throughout the geological record.

Living Fossils

‘Living fossils’ are animals thought to have evolved into ‘higher species’  but found alive just as they always were.

The most famous is the Coelacanth. When one of these fish was caught off the coast of South Africa in 1938, it shocked the scientific community. Why? Because they were claimed to have been extinct for 65 million years, since no fossil coelacanths had been found in rocks dated younger than this. The evolutionists were stunned that the living fish was little different from fossils that they claimed were  “350 million years” old. Since 1938, many live coelacanths have been found.

 Evolutionists believed that coelacCoelacanthanths were a “missing link” between fish and amphibians, because they had bony fins, which ‘may have been evolving’ into limbs. However, far from showing any interest in walking out of the sea, coelacanths swim to depths of 700 metres (2,300 feet).  Their eyes are highly specialised, designed to allow them to see well in the depths.

Irreducible Complexity

Then there are the animals which defy evolution because of what biologists call ‘irreducible complexity.’

Sea slugs have the ability to eat sea anemones without bursting the poisonous barbs. When these barbs reach the sea slug’s stomach, there are tubes lined with moving hairs which lead to the fronds on the sea slug’s back. The poisonous barbs from the sea anemone are taken along these tubes to the tips of the fronds ‑ where they are used as ammunition against the sea slug’s enemies! Gradual evolution could never produce this ‑ it must have worked perfectly form the beginning.

Sea Slug

‘Survival of the Fittest’ cannot create new forms

‘Natural Selection’ or the ‘Survival of the Fittest’ has no power actually to create anything new because it does not increase genetic information. It cannot build new organs or functions which are not there already.  It loses information and tends to “weed out” mutational forms.

Evolutionists say species evolve through mutations , but no beneficial mutation leading to a new kind of plant or animal has ever been found nor been demonstrated in a laboratory. In practice mutations are either neutral or damaging to the plants and animals in which they occur.

Darwin knew nothing about DNA. DNA tells a cell how to behave and grow. It has two strands twisted together in a double helix. Between the strands are four types of molecules called nucleotides and the order they are in tells the DNA what to do. This is information just like that on a computer‑ it cannot be produced by chance ‑ not even in billions of years!

Children are being lied to

Evolutionists qualify their claims in scientific literature with expressions like ‘could have’, ‘if’, ‘might have’, ‘possibly’, ‘must have’, ‘believed to have’.

School biology books never mention any problems with evolution, and present conjecture as certainty.  Frauds like Haeckel’s embryo comparisons linger on, where human embryos have ‘gills’.  The fictional evolution of the horse is given as fact.  Children are being lied to.

Academics are sceptical

Mr Gove would have us believe that the entire academic community supports evolution, but this is not so. Since 2001, more than 800 scientists have signed the following statement: ‘We are sceptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.’  (see www.dissentfromdarwin.org).

A large body of academics wrote to the Prime Minister and Education Secretary in December 2006 expressing their reservations and promoting the teaching of Intelligent Design. Many others remain silent for the sake of their careers and obtaining their research grants.

The success of western civilisation with its high moral, social, cultural and scientific achievements has been built upon Judeo‑Christian principles but is now under attack from all sides.  Professor Richard Dawkins said, ‘There really is a deep incompatibility between evolution and Christianity.’ (Revelation TV, Feb 2011), yet he has admitted that his atheism provides no basis for moral behaviour. In fact it is a charter for social chaos.

If we have no reason to be here and no responsibility to a higher power, we are free to do whatever we want.  Should our schools be producing a generation who do whatever feels good to them?  Should children have the anti-Christian dogma of evolution forced upon them?

giraffeCover Picture: The giraffe doesn’t get a headache!

With a long neck and a massive heart generating twice our blood pressure, why does the giraffe not get a brain haemorrhage when it bends down to drink?  Because of special valves in its jugular vein and spongy tissue at the base of its brain which limit the pressure and the flow.

Giraffes couldn’t survive without this special ‘plumbing’, so they must always have had it. It couldn’t have evolved gradually and no fossils show intermediate forms with half-as-long a neck.  This clever and effective design yet again points to a wise, all‑powerful Creator God.


Please write to your MP and ask him to protest to the Education Secretary, Michael Gove MP about the indoctrination of our schoolchildren with Evolution.  If your MP is Michael Gove, all the better!  The address to contact MPs is: ‘House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA’.  Or go to www.Parliament.uk and follow the links to MP’s to send an email.


To sign up to Soldiers of Christ please click the lik below:


Skip to comment form

  1. Keith Sisman

    It seems those of reprobate minds spoken against by the apostle in Romans chapter one and Titus chapter one verse sixteen are running our society, where corruption and sexual perversions reign. No wonder they want Genesis hidden along with anything good and decent.

  2. Nigel Reilly

    I cannot find the leaflet on your website. Please send me a copy of your leaflet supporting creation. Thank you & God bless you.
    [email protected]

    1. Stephen West

      I cannot find how to obtain the leaflet ,

  3. Paul Young

    No intelligent, honest, educated Christian has taken these tired, old Creationist misunderstandings seriously for years. This page is embarrassing – an insult to Britain, the Christian faith and God’s Creation as He reveals it to us. Creationism may be a popular dogma among uneducated redneck Americans, uneducated Pakistani villagers and their respective politicians who pander to them for their votes, but such nonesense should not be allowed to start undermining UK education. Britain needs kids who can grow up to become competitive in the biological sciences. They won’t achieve that without understanding the fundamental principles of biology, and that’s what evolutionary theory is. Please show some respect to our future generations.

    1. Geoff


      Your claim that creationism is the belief of “uneducated redneck Americans, [and] uneducated Pakistani villagers..” is insulting, both to such people and the growing number of educated people, including sciehtists, who take such a view. There are thousands of qualified scientists in every discipline who oppose evolution. Take a look at the website http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org Not all the signatories are Bibliclal creationists, but they all recognise the shortcomings of Darwinism.
      Why or earth shouldn’t people be told about the serious scientific flaws in evolution? “Please show some respect to our future generations” you asked. Agreed! Kids need to be taught how to think critically, not be brainwashed with one theory or origins.

  4. jim anderson

    New studies of GENOME show that new life-forms no longer take place because of single point changes in DNA structure…it is all to do with a complex series of interlocking switches. That only fits a pre-determined, overall design “fit for purpose”. See criteria in studies on ART AND DESIGN.

  5. george megarry

    Sorry Paul young, you’re a little bit wrong there. I’m an intelligent honest educated individual who, regardless of Christian beliefs would find it absolutely impossible to believe in the theory of evolution. My response to your message is simply don’t.e so silly. However this I am sure will fall on deaf ears and you will continue to believe the absolutely impossible is not only possible but actually occurred. How sad. I must say I have great respect for and admire david attenboroughs work. He is a naturalist who will pre fix everything he states or writes with possibly, probably, might have…. Which is absolutely fine. Were all entitled to believe whatever possiblies, might haves and could haves we want. It’s a free society, just don’t force these ideas on children as fact.

  6. John Sampson

    Beware of the argument about species changing into species. It depends what you mean by a species. Also, some mutations can be beneficial e.g. malaria resistance in carriers of sickle cell disease. It does not change the answer to whether evolution in the goo-to-zoo-to-you sense is possible (see http://creation.com/exposing-evolutions-icon) but it is best to be up to date with the debate, as far as possible.

  7. JP

    I began doubting Evolution (in the sense that, over eons of time, microbes somehow turned into men) when I was an honours degree student of Biology. Scientifically it doesn’t have anything going for it. The idea has not stood up to scientific examination or experimental confirmation). Yet it is now “verboten” for teachers to allow children to think for themselves and question this unscientific dogma!

    Evolutionists confuse the issue (usually they are themselves confused) by talking about two different processes as if they are the same or lead to the same.

    Of course living things change and vary widely through mutation, selection, transposition, reduplication etc of DNA. But beyond a certain level of change all that happens is error catastrophe – the genome of a population will become so corrupted that it can no longer cope with the burden of genetic faults and will become extinct.

    Natural selection (or other genetic changes) can cause great variation (think of the many dog breeds). Sometimes new species arise when interbreeding between two separate and changing populations becomes impossible.

    But this cannot lead to one kind of organism changing into another completely different kind. A bacterium lacks the information to become a fungus or a worm however many millions of years you give it. Prokaryotes such as bacteria do have a different genome structure (single chromosome instead of paired) which makes error catastrophe less likely, but they remain bacteria.

    Even the much touted example of E. coli bacteria “learning” to metabolise citrate after 20 years of lab culture turns out to be nothing like evolution. There is no new genetic information, the bacteria could always use citrate – just they couldn’t do it in the presence of oxygen. All that seems to have happened is a fault in the “switch” that turns off the ability when oxygen is around. You might just as well say that a faulty street lamp has “evolved” if it stays on in the daytime.

  8. Mike

    As a scientist who believes in evolution, and an atheist to boot, I may seem like an odd supporter for your campaign to include the teaching of theories of creationism and intelligent design alongside theories regarding evolution. I firmly believe it’s wrong to teach any one scientific theory or, (perhaps more contentiously) any religious beliefs, forms of Government, human societies etc… as in any way absolute and infallible. Personally, I’d like to see as wide a range of the different opinions and beliefs regarding many aspects of science, religion, history and so on taught and discussed in schools as possible.

    I believe education should present students with as many different points of view as possible, along with reasons why different people might feel one way, or another, and then let them make their own minds up. Apart from anything else, it’s only in this way that I think any individual can start to develop empathy for other people and their different ways of seeing the world, which is surely one of the most important skills we should be developing in our young people.

    Having read your leaflet and Stephen Green’s article above with what I hope is an open mind, I have to say I disagree strongly with the “evidence” presented against the theory of evolution. There really isn’t space to go into my arguments here, and that is not what I want to discuss. However, I believe Stephen is every bit as entitled to his beliefs in this area as I am to mine, and I’m appalled that Mr Gove thinks the education of children will be improved by learning science as a rigid set of rules, rather than what it really is – a series of logical, but sometimes debatable theories and ideas, which regularly need to be re-examined and tested from different angles and with an open mind. ALL science is open to different interpretations and opinions. Many of the best scientists I’ve known have been ridiculed at some time, or other, for their “crazy” beliefs and theories, it’s healthy to question and test scientific “facts”, that is what, by definition, science is about and that is what we ought to be teaching in schools.

  9. Terence Coates

    Is you leaflet on evolution/creation teaching going to be available for me or anyone to download?

    1. Peter Greensmith

      Not at this present time but if you would like to email your details to [email protected] then we would be happy to send some copies of the leaflet out to you in the post.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>